Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 20

message: From the featured article criteria:
:A featured article should have the following attributes:
:# It should exemplify our very best work, representing Wikipedia's unique qualities on the Internet.
:# It should be well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, and stable. :Read Great writing and The perfect article to see how high the standards are set. In this respect:
:#*(a) "well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant;
:#*(b) "comprehensive" means that an article covers the topic in its entirety, and does not neglect any major facts or details; 
:#*(c) "factually accurate" includes the supporting of facts with specific evidence and external citations (see Wikipedia:Verifiability); these include a "References" section where the references are set out, enhanced by the appropriate use of inline citations (see Wikipedia:Cite sources);
:#*(d) "neutral" means that an article is uncontroversial in its neutrality and factual accuracy (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view); and
:#*(e) "stable" means that an article does not change significantly from day to day (apart from improvements in response to reviewers' comments) and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars;
:# It should comply with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects. These include having:
:#*(a) a succinct lead section that summarizes the entire topic and prepares the reader for the higher level of detail in the subsequent sections;
:#*(b) a proper system of hierarchical headings; and
:#*(c) a substantial, but not overwhelmingly large, table of contents (see Wikipedia:Section).
:# It should have images where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status; however, including images is not a prerequisite for a featured article.
:# It should be of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail; it should use summary style to cover sub-topics that are treated in greater detail in any "daughter" articles. 
In my opinion, several of this season's hurricane articles meet the criteria. Now, it might be a good idea to get the official recognition for those. It might be a good idea to nominate one of our articles for featured article status (or ask for peer review). Now, the question is, which one should we nominate? 
Personally, I would say Hurricane Dennis or Hurricane Emily are the most stable, so they might go up first. But if you think another one is better, then which one should we select? Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Hurricane Dennis better. It is more concise, pictures are better placed and word economy is excellent. I like articles that don't babble or stutter. Dennis gets my vote.-- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: P.S. That means we have less than a week to improve the Dennis article, or pick a new article to be next week's feature.  Of course this portal is not official yet (it's not listed on the templated list), so we don't have to be entirely strict. Jdorje 04:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither Dennis or Rita have a references section, unlike Hurricane Wilma, so that would not qualify them for featured status. --tomf688{talk} 12:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That shouldn't be hard to fix. Give them a descent refernces section. Dennis is formatted better. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 16:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The references section in Wilma is completely tangled up from anons coming and adding new sources to the article without following the Footnote3 format. It will have to be fixed. Making one for Dennis shouldn't be hard, and that also gives us a chance to fact-check the article for inaccuracies. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 16:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of those non-footnoted links I did; I think that footnotes should only be done after a storm is long past and things calm down; it is too hard to remember and make multiple links when information is fast flowing. It also allows us to remove broken links. CrazyC83 19:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, I've now submitted it as a FAC. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Dennis for more details. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Katrina set the standard, but the article is a mess; a lot of information needs to be moved to subpages (it is all relevant, but belongs elsewhere). Hurricane Emily would be my next nomination, or Hurricane Rita if slight cleanup is done (to get a 2005-standard article nominated - that being a post-Katrina article when we really began to standardize everything). CrazyC83 17:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Rita appears to be the closest. I want to nominate Ivan from 2004 even soon than that. The sooner it can be readied for peer review, the better. There are some tweaks that need to be done first. 2004AHS is also on the list. Tom, Tito and I have discussed this on my talk page. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This season's [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured articles]] poll 

message: I've begun to change the references to the Footnote3 format, in preparation for a FAC. I'll have to go soon, so someone may want to continue where I left off. The Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Generic citations page will be very helpful to whomever keeps doing it. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 00:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've now submitted it as a FAC. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hurricane Dennis for more details. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hurricane Dennis]] 

message: With the FAC for Hurricane Dennis going very well (looks like its about to be confirmed), I think it's time we start cleaning up another article for a FAC nomination. Emily, Katrina, Rit and Wilma all certainly have enough information available and exhaustive enough articles to eventually become FACs. Katrina still has some disputes and none of the final reports have been released, but that should not prevent cleaning up, copyediting and formatting sources in Footnote style, etc. We should choose another article to start working on for a FAC; personally, I think Rita is the most likely to have a storm report soon, and it is also probably the closest to ready for a FAC. Any opinions? - Cuivienen 03:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Katrina set the standard, but the article is a mess; a lot of information needs to be moved to subpages (it is all relevant, but belongs elsewhere). Hurricane Emily would be my next nomination, or Hurricane Rita if slight cleanup is done (to get a 2005-standard article nominated - that being a post-Katrina article when we really began to standardize everything). CrazyC83 17:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Rita appears to be the closest. I want to nominate Ivan from 2004 even soon than that. The sooner it can be readied for peer review, the better. There are some tweaks that need to be done first. 2004AHS is also on the list. Tom, Tito and I have discussed this on my talk page. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our Next Featured Article 

message: The new footnote formatting was integrated by SEWilco's bot (SEWilcoBot).  However, I feel it is EXTREMELY confusing to the average reader.  Also, some of the textual footnote numbers do not match up with the numbers listed at the bottom of the page.  For example, in the section about Tropical Storm Delta, the archive is listed as footnote "62".  Go to the bottom of the page, and it is listed as "63".  — Super-Magician (talk • contribs •  count) ★ 17:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree, it looked 100% better before the change. --Ajm81 19:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks a lot better. I find that such formatting is much easier to do at the end of the season, or long after a storm dies, though. CrazyC83 20:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say "it looks a lot better", do you mean it looks better now or better before the change?  It seems like you're saying the formatting is better now.  If so, I must disagree with you since the bottom of the page is now cluttered with these links.  You have to click one additional time now in order to get to the page you want.  Also, technically, these links are NOT footnotes.  I don't see this kind of formatting on other pages with a hundred or so links.  — Super-Magician (talk • contribs •  count) ★ 20:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You have a point; I like having the sources at the bottom but, if possible, a direct link from the footnote should be added. CrazyC83 20:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you mean by "direct link from the footnote"?  — Super-Magician (talk • contribs •  count) ★ 21:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The error you mentioned above, Super, regarding 62 linking to 63, etc, was fixed.  Also, please change your signature to  to reduce the load on the Wikipedia servers.  Thanks. --tomf688{talk} 22:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Some of it is unecessary - linking things this way defeats the purpose of the "The NHC's advisories on TS/Hurricane ABC" links.  It's probably better to leave those alone if possible.  --AySz88^-^ 02:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: After some consideration, this format would be okay with me if the number of links at the bottom were cut down.  67 takes up way too much space.  I think around 20 (or less) would be best. --Ajm81 08:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hmm. No clear opinion yet. I am worried that the limited number of footnotes option is a bad one as people will try to enforce a single style. (Guess what SEWilco will do.) crandles 15:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The new format looks horrible. There is no reason to have to click on one of the footnotes, wait for the page to reload and go to the bottom of the page, and click on the link again. How did we go from the 30 we had before the change to the 68 we have now anyway? --WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs 04:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just realized why there are so many footnotes now. There are several that are listed multiple times. --WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs 02:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Why is your browser reloading the page? It shouldn't be. What browser are you using?  --AySz88^-^ 03:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I click on one of the footnotes, it does reload the page and then go to the bottom. I'm using Firefox 1.0.7 --WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs 03:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I have already taken notice of this.  See above section.  -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: We can use the newer citation format, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Footnote Formatting 

message: Ok, as Dennis is now an FA, which one goes next? Ideally, we want to send it to Peer review first. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we don't have much to work with that's already had a storm report released. Katrina will be a part of the Article Improvement Drive soon as I cast the 18th vote yesterday, so we should hold off on Katrina until that's over with. I'd say that we should get Hurricane Rita up to FA status pending the final report or else work on a 2004 storm - any of the Florida Four would do. - Cuivienen 06:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ivan and Rita. Those are my picks, they both are the closest and need about the same amount of work. If forced to choose, I'd say Rita first, because work on it is a bunch of little things that could be taken care of in no time. Of course, Cuivienen brought up a good point about the report. Ivan or Rita, either one-- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rita's easier to do, no doubt about that. It just can't immediately go for a FAC after being fixed up while Ivan could. I'd still say Rita first, though. And, on a somewhat related topic, did you know that Cyclone Tracy is a featured article? I didn't. - Cuivienen 22:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It's got the same problems as Rita - waiting on Cindy, Emily and Wilma's reports (since they are likely to bring changes) and also on Zeta to dissipate. Also, given the ongoing resistance to 1997 Pacific hurricane season as a featured article despite its high quality when nominated, i think we'd be fighting an uphill battle. - Cuivienen 00:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The next FA 

message: Kudos to all the editors of this page - it is one of the finest resources on the subject on the internet.  Great work all.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gah!! Galaxy... Looks like hurricane... Make the season END! ;-) - Cuivienen 04:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It doesn't seem to have a well-developed eye, so it's probably not quite a hurricane yet, Cat 1 max. :p :p :p --AySz88^-^ 04:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It probably has a well-developed eye, but there is low-level cloud cover obstructing its view... :P Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like this hurricane, maybe. 24.176.93.66 18:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Southern Hemisphere. See the clockwise spiral. I posted a barnstar on the List of Atlantic hurricane seasons talk page because I felt that all the editors and contributors to those pages had done such an amazing job (if I do say so myself ;) ). Wikipeda now has one of the most extensive collections of historical tropical cyclone data on the World Wide Web. Jdorje, Hurricanehink, Rattleman and myself really tried hard to make the hurricane archive all that it could be. It was kind of like our own little Wikiproject. I'm really proud of what the hurricane pages have become. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 19:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random comment 

message: #Have summaries of every storm in the season article.
#The obvious storms get articles of their own.
#If we have much more notable information than the TCR does, i.e. if we have specifics on the Ophelia damage, fears, evacuations, etc., or what not, and this cannot be fit into the season article, then it should get its own article. 
#*Note that this does not mean EVERY case where we have more than the TCR; if it's just a short blurb, then it can go in the summary.
#If we do not, then a short summary and a link to the TCR on this page is sufficient.
Comments? Yes, this would lead mostly to the status quo ante bellum but it's presented in a logical fashion. --Golbez 19:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Round of applause. Does this mean we leave everything as it is for now, with the exception of those articles with reports already? Plus, this means we could get rid of Alpha, finally. :) Hurricanehink 20:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is logical for most seasons.  The big problem with the 2005 season is that it leads to an article that is way too long, though I know you (Golbez) do not agree with this statement.  It also leads (and will continue to lead) to tedious details bogging down an article that is otherwise full of interesting information, as excessive non-notable data (in particular, the storm histories of non-notable storms) take up a large portion of the article.  While these flaws are not fatal, they prevent the article from being outstanding — which is a shame because it could be. Jdorje 21:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Long, smong. The article is just 76KB. That's to be expected for a subject this significant. This talk page has been over 200 kb long at times and is 133 KB long now. I agree with Golbez. That's a good plan. -- Hurricane Ericarchive -- my dropsonde 02:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  I feel the second part of Jdorje's post is the key. --AySz88^-^ 23:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then remove the tedious details, it's that simple. We don't need them, get rid of them. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eric, I can't seriously believe you are suggesting removing the entire storms section. Jdorje 22:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The storms section is far from just menial info, Jdorje. That intentionally naive comment borders on rude. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 01:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not naive or rude; it's a reference to the "thread" several pages up where we had this exact same argument, you said to remove the menial details, and I responded by saying the menial details comprise the entirety of the storms section.  (No, that doesn't mean none of the storms section is notable, but all of the notable information should already be duplicated somewhere else under the old system.)  (Seriously, this argument has covered dozens of "threads" over a vast space of talk page...it is very hard to reconstruct the order of the discussion.) Jdorje 04:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoa, let's keep this civil please. NSLE (T+C) 02:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A logical idea 

message: I think this article is great and full of content. I have been "watching" thus article since the beggining of the season, and I have notice its evolution. It finally has all storm pictures; because at the middle of the season, someone eliminated almost all of them, and the article saw pretty incomplete. But for now... great work. Keep making Wikipedia one of the most complete encyclopedias of the world. In this edition, almost reaches the millionth article. Once agian congratulations. juan andrés 05:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the encouragement! I hope that one day this article gets to FA, when the discussions about separate storm articles and whatnot die down a bit. Thankfully, it's the off-season (and about time too) so fixings-up and so on will hopefully get done before we have any more Atlantic hurricanes to contend with. With a little work, we can get this to FA status. -- Sarsaparilla39 09:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article, why don't? 

message: Hurricane Hut has some pretty good pictures of Franklin, José, and Ophelia. Should we use them (if they are copyrighted, we can just ask Weatherman90 if we can use them).Icelandic Hurricane 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, there's no "if" there.  They are copyrighted.  You have to ask weatherman90 not just if we can use them but if he is willing to release them under the GFDL.  Or find the sources for the images (weatherman90 doesn't have his own personal satellite, he must be getting the images from somewhere - possibly he is taking them without permission, but we cannot do so). Jdorje 20:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good pictures

message: Several of the sections of the current article are expansions of portions of the old "Season summary" section, which was horribly, woefully incomplete (but I won't get started on that).  As such they need some work to be fleshed out more: particularly the deaths and damages section and the economic impact section.  I'm not particularly wedded to the current or any other organizational format; it is just an incremental improvement of the old format which was decidedly inferior. Jdorje 04:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections needing work 

message: In the Hurricane Stan death toll, Guatemala stands at 1,400 and the total is 1,153+ so shouldn't somebody change the deth toll total? Fishhead 12:18 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:The NHC says most of those deaths might not have been directly from Stan, but rather from a pre-cursor system that brought the rain. That might change in the final report, but the monthly report says Stan was only responsible for around 80 deaths... still a lot, but nowhere near its supposed total. Hurricanehink 12:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the NHC says most of those deaths were not directly or indirectly from stan.  But we're having a little bit of trouble believing them, so we always add little disclaimers about the extra rains. Jdorje 20:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Stan 

message: Yesterday, Slashdot linked to an article about the unusual amount of lightning in this season's storms.  Any thoughts on this article? Rylan42 18:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting, but I don't think we can really have any sort of objective evidence for that. If true, it may have to do with the warmer waters this year in general as warmer water is a better conductor of electricity IIRC. - Blake's Star 22:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just at a guess, I'd imagine it has to do with rapid intensification.  They say lightning is caused by vertical motion of air, and intensification of hurricanes is caused by (usually slow) rising of air in the eye. Jdorje 22:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2005 Lightning 

message: The report for Tropical Depression 19, the least notable storm of the season, is out. 200.119.236.205 18:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It gets its second moment in the spotlight - it formed with nothing else active, and dissipated with what would become Stan still a tropical depression. There isn't much to say about 19, although the storm history that I wrote in the article seems longer than that report. CrazyC83 04:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I like that report. Short and sweet. - Cuivienen 04:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, that's even shorter than what the original season page had... Jdorje 05:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TD 19 

message: The report for Tropical Storm Jose is out.  Peak winds increased to 60 mph. CrazyC83 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No suprise there. If this storm would have formed a bit further out at sea, it could have become a monster very rapidly. bob rulz 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Had it had even 6 more hours, it would have become a hurricane, and within 24 hours, likely a major hurricane. CrazyC83 00:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed - fortunately, he did not have the time that those five monsters did...we would have been talking about a Category 3 or 4 Hurricane Jose in no time (and repeated devastation in central Mexico - compounding Emily). CrazyC83 05:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jose 

message: The main article says "It is also worth noting that there are, apparently, no provisions for naming tropical cyclones after the letters of the Greek Alphabet are exhausted." 
Why, pray tell, is it worth noting?  The most active season in history, got six deep into a secondary list that is 24 names long!  There's no reason to think we'd get close to exhausting the Greek Alphabet.  With all the debate about the article being too long and containing too much irrelevant info, I don't see why this line should be kept.  It's definitely less relevant than something like "Tropical depression 19 formed from a tropical wave 15 miles east of x island," since that's actually something that happened during the season, not hypothetical speculation. 
--PK9 23:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not worth noting. Jdorje 23:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is probably not worth noting that it "is worth noting", but it is (was?) probably only worth noting because we got asked so often and people seemed to want to know. --AySz88^-^ 03:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They only asked because the season was still active; now that it's over they won't ask anymore (I suspect). Jdorje 18:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It is possible to exhaust the list. If we retire one Greek letter per year, in 24 years there will be no backup provisions. Beta still might be off the list for this year. Good kitty 17:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is a moot discussion.  According to an entry at the WMO News site, a new backup list will be agreed to when the Atlantic basin countries meet in March to consider which names to retire.  So hopefully this will be the last use of the Greek Alphabet for naming storms. --EMS | Talk 19:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  After Greek letters naming 

message: I've just noticed that the new format falls far short of having sufficient references. This isn't a problem for the format per se, but it does need to be addressed. We need a citation for the basic information about each storm, something about the economic impact, etc. These should be the final storm reports for those storms that already have them released. The rest, I suppose, can wait for references until their reports are released. - Cuivienen 04:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a problem in the format, it's a problem in my writing ;-).  I didn't add references when I wrote it.  However in the writing of a summary, is it sufficient for the summary to refer to another article which itself has the references?  Everything I wrote in the new storms section comes from 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms and the individual storm articles (many of which are themselves poorly referenced). Jdorje 04:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  (edit conflict; why do we keep edit-conflicting, Jdorje?) One of the examples I saw used other articles as references, and then they had the appropriate external references.  Here, one might use the child articles as references, and then put external references in the individual articles.  I'm not sure if that's accepted, though. --AySz88^-^ 04:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: On a related note, I copied from the storms page that Irene was the second Cape Verde-type hurricane of the season.  What was the first? Jdorje 05:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Emily Jamie C 12:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: It's out: PDF Word --Ajm81 16:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Officially increased from 175 to 185 mph - and rightfully so. Landfalls all adjusted slightly as well. They also mention that 882 mb may not have been the minimum pressure; I would have brought it down a bit more to 878-880. CrazyC83 17:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilma's Report 

message: As you can see at the top of this page, the article is A Class. Well done for making it this far! However, is anybody going to nominate the article at the featured article nomination page?
M cappeluti
:This can only reach FA status after all the final reports come in and we have stable, definite information. CrazyC83 15:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, the only reason it's A class is because I decided that B class was an unfair designation for such a thorough and complete article (and because it qualifies as A class by the description - it's much better than most FACs!). - Cuivienen 04:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA Nomination?