Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 21

message: Being bold is nice, but really, shouldn't this have been discussed first? --Golbez 02:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, IMO, it's horrid, but let's hear others! --Golbez 02:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa! What is that?!?! This is what starts edit wars. Who cares if it is too long? I would sooner support articles for each storm, but this is too much. Listing by month? I'm sorry, but I see no sense to that. This should be changed back. Hurricanehink 02:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eric told me to delete the tedious information.  The tedious information is the entire storms section.  Nobody disagreed when I said Tropical Storm Lee needed only a single sentence, not a whole section.  I don't care about the by-month summary style, but I do feel strongly (and nobody has given a counter argument, except Golbez who just says 80k is not too long) that the storms section needs to be removed and the important information merged into the so-called season summary.  I thought we agreed on this above? Jdorje 03:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My opinion is exactly the opposite.  Without cutting down the storm synopsys by at least 50% (impossible under the old design because nobody can bear to delete these details and there's nowhere else to move them), it is not FA material with the synopsis because it is too full of useless meteorological details.  Wikipedia is not paper; it is quite all right to summarize information that is covered in more detail in child articles. Jdorje 05:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) On the (very) contrary. 5) 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.  --AySz88^-^ 05:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, that info is just as "useless" as tons of info in other articles, some of which became FA. bob rulz 05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that a monthly summary is the way to go. The Storms section needed to be shortened, but there should be at least a passing mention of each storm in this article. Deeper detail can be placed on the Storms article, or in each storm's individual article, depending on what we decide. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aren't all the storms mentioned currently? :/ I agree there needs to be a mention each. --AySz88^-^ 05:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh, what the hell? This is stupid. I agree with Golbez and think that all this nonsence should be reverted. Who thought this was a good idea? And why didn't they bother even mentioning it here? I am VERY opposed to this change. AySz, you are taking this summery style way too far. You are going against the way all the other hurricane season pages are formatted back for a WAYS. And those other pages should remain the way they are...period. You may think it was too long, I happen to disagree and I think this is creating more problems than answers. The main article is no longer a "main" article anymore. It is secondary to all of these subpages that you guys have created. Am I the only person who sees how that is a very bad thing? This change shows a severe lack of discretion. Big, sweeping changes should be discussed and objections settled. My objections and the objections of others were not settled, they were refuted and ignored. I completely agree with Tito. All storms should be summerized on the main page. That is summery style. What we had was summery style. It's just that we were summerizing a lot of stuff. I never considered the length an issue and still don't. Each storm needs to have its own section giving at least a summery of its history. If that goes against summery style, or your version of it, so what? That is what this article should be. It was never outrageously long. If it's less than 100KB, I have no problem with it so long as it is as good as it could be and shortening would compromise that. I will NEVER agree to a change on this scale. Never. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading through it again - the effects of each storm are briefly summarized. Most of the storms of the season caused so little damage that more than one or two sentences is too much to devote to them in the main article. Those that did nothing at all only need to have dates assigned. Each storm is covered in a level detail based on how significant they were - Katrina has a paragraph while Franklin, Harvey and Irene get one sentence total. That makes sense. - Cuivienen 04:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, one thing we could do is to chug the meteorological data into a infobox. Here's an example for Wilma, with sample code: Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and no information was lost, just moved.  That was my biggest problem with other ideas involved with improving the article, but that issue seems to have been addressed.  Furthermore, the article now deals with the season federally, rather than confederally.  So, to sum up... me likey. --tomf688{talk} 21:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think this article has been severely descecrated and want to see the storms section restored. Removing the storms section from the article is like removing the heart from a human being. You desperately need a synopis of each storm like Golbez said. Otherwise, the article would fail to discuss the topic in detail. Isn't that the goal: thoroughly discussing the topic without getting tedious? Apparently not and others think that just a brief run-down is best with the main info in corner somewhere. Tom, it was discussed federally before this drastic change. Having articles for each storm and leaving the main article a pitiful litte skeleton is discussing it confederally and I am strongly opposed to that. I almost feel like this article has been vandalized and it makes me sad to see it like this. It is a pitifully organized and incomplete shadow of what it once was. This looks nothing close to an FA. It isn't even the same universe. To say it's B-Class is generous and I will do everything in my power to have the storms section restored. This is unbelieveable. I'm utterly disgusted. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 23:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People reading about this season want a synopsis, not a full detailed report about each storm; the page before was unreadable and far too long.  I also still believe storms should have their own articles to limit the technical details there. --tomf688{talk} 23:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Creating articles for each storm wouldn't limit technical details, it would just move them. This article was very readable. Look at some of the featured articles. Many are as long if not longer than this article was before it was changed. A good article should be judged by how extensive it is, not by how long. This one was just a big topic. This is a terrible solution to that. The article has an intense sence of incompleteness about it now. I am a big advocate of the storms section. Hink and I spent a lot of time back in the good old days developing that concept. Now you want to take it away for this and all future seasons? That's not the way to go. We DO need an extensive report on the subject. This is an encyclopdia, I don't care what kind. And encyclopedias are supposed to discuss their topics in detail. That's the way things have always been done on Wikipedia. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 01:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold? 

message: I believe the above straw poll is flawed because it attaches great importance to the inclusion of a "storms section", when in actuality the debate is not about the existence of such a section but about the level of detail it should have.  The article has always had a storms section.  Once we decide how much detail that section should go into, then we can decide other issues like what the other sections in the article should cover and whether/where more information about each storm can be found. Jdorje 08:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addendum: I added in the approximate total lengths of each format.  This is in "pages", each being one page on my browser. Jdorje 09:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note for those who haven't been following the debate - no information is added/lost by any of these changes, the debate is about if there should be a daughter article or daughter articles for each storm (current pages on Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Maria, etc. would be kept no matter what the outcome of the vote). - Cuivienen 01:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which makes it all the more confusing. I thought we were losing information from the less-notable storms... CrazyC83 21:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is lost from the main page, but with the use of child pages the end result should be that we can include more information on less-notable storms that we used to have.  If we use 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms, the individual storm sections can just be extended.  Or if we use per-storm articles like Tropical Storm Lee (2005), even more information can be included there. Jdorje 23:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What rules?  These are straw polls intended to get an idea of whether or not there's a consensus because people are disagreeing.  As far as I know, we're probably still discussing until we get some sort of agreement and understanding.  It's not "rulecruft" since we aren't really making some sort of rule, and even if people were making some sort of rule, there's would be a need for a rule because people aren't agreeing that such-and-such is obvious. --AySz88^-^ 04:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Should we have ONE paragraph, or TWO?" I'd rather just pick what works best for the particular section, rather than put it to a vote. Consensus != polls. --Golbez 07:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But with so much disagreement, how do we know whether there's a consensus without the poll? --AySz88^-^ 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Erm, I have the feeling you might be violating WP:POINT with that latest edit, since I think it's clear that we're still discussing. --AySz88^-^ 04:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like we were still discussing the size of the article, etc? Jdorje was bold, so was I. --Golbez 07:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People take the definition of WP:POINT far too literally. Many of the statements that I have seen recently that people have said is violating this policy (which technically isn't a policy anyway) have taken it to the extreme and have expanded the definition to create "policy" that is not outlined on the WP:POINT article. People have stretched its definition much too far. bob rulz 09:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  None of the edits have gone against that guideline; looking at the "guideline in a nutshell" and the examples should make that clear. Jdorje 18:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  (edit conflict) Now that I've thought about it some more, that didn't assume good faith, so I'm sorry for that, Golbez. (To explain: at first, I thought Golbez was trying to parody Jdorje's bold change, which would be covered under WP:POINT and is why I brought that up.) --AySz88^-^ 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds to me like you guys are trying to monopolize the article. Your removal of the storms section went against strong disagreement that you simply ignored. THAT is POV. Golbez's edit was no more wrong than Jdorje's. This is ridiculous hipocracy that has gotten out of hand. I want the storms section back. We are a handful of people who want the storms section back. Golbez acted for us. Just like you are a handful of people who want the storms section seperate. Jdorje acted for you. Why was Golbez's edit reverted and Jdorje's not. Because you didn't like the change? That's what I think. One word best describes this page. Can you spell: C-O-R-R-U-P-T? -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 15:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel the length of the summary should reflect the severity of the storm.  Lee gets one sentence, Katrina gets a five sentence paragraph, for example. --tomf688{talk} 16:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagreed. The storms not mentioned on any separate pages should be the most descriptive here, since we should have much of the details that would be on a separate article. Although if it gets too long, it could still be moved to a separate article... CrazyC83 17:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CrazyC83, that violates the very concept of an encyclopedia which is to give the most weight to notable information; however, your argument does expose the flaws in the old system. My idea is that all storms get 1-8 sentences on the main page, with more in-depth coverage on a child page.  In the current edit this child page is the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms page, though it's also possible (and more logical IMO) to have one page per storm. Jdorje 17:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the basis of my idea was that the article remain as it is, with storms such as Katrina get more said while storms like Lee are just touched upon.  That's just sensible considering how vastly different they were.  The technical details belong in either individual articles on each storm, or on one big page like we have now (2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms).  Leave it as is. --tomf688{talk} 20:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, do you mean how it is right now (~3 sentences per storm), how it was yesterday (~1 sentence per storm), or how it was 4 days ago (~10 sentences per storm)?  Either way, I agree with you that we shouldn't go into more details on non-notable storms; we should instead give another location (either individual storm articles, one massive storms article, or links to TCRs) where additional information can be found. Jdorje 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify Tom, by 3 sentences per storm I mean on average.  This means 1 sentence for Lee and 8 for Katrina (as in the link given). Jdorje 21:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is that storms like Katrina get enormous mention on their own articles - so we need to give mention and details elsewhere to the lesser storms, otherwise those who come here would think that very little transpired from them and they wouldn't know a storm history... CrazyC83 21:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There are three ways to do that: a storms page, one page per storm, or external links (to the TCRs).  I basically agree with you that one page per storm is best, but a storms page is an acceptable compromise.  However the purpose of this straw poll was to sidestep such an argument.  The question isn't where the extra information should be put - the question was how much information should be given on the main article. Jdorje 21:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll #2 

message: #Crikey, people, can't we just do it the way we did without making a rule for every single aspect? This is rapidly attaining the stench of rulecruft, and it's time I was bold about it. --Golbez 04:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What rules?  These are straw polls intended to get an idea of whether or not there's a consensus because people are disagreeing.  As far as I know, we're probably still discussing until we get some sort of agreement and understanding.  It's not "rulecruft" since we aren't really making some sort of rule, and even if people were making some sort of rule, there's would be a need for a rule because people aren't agreeing that such-and-such is obvious. --AySz88^-^ 04:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Should we have ONE paragraph, or TWO?" I'd rather just pick what works best for the particular section, rather than put it to a vote. Consensus != polls. --Golbez 07:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But with so much disagreement, how do we know whether there's a consensus without the poll? --AySz88^-^ 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Erm, I have the feeling you might be violating WP:POINT with that latest edit, since I think it's clear that we're still discussing. --AySz88^-^ 04:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like we were still discussing the size of the article, etc? Jdorje was bold, so was I. --Golbez 07:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People take the definition of WP:POINT far too literally. Many of the statements that I have seen recently that people have said is violating this policy (which technically isn't a policy anyway) have taken it to the extreme and have expanded the definition to create "policy" that is not outlined on the WP:POINT article. People have stretched its definition much too far. bob rulz 09:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  None of the edits have gone against that guideline; looking at the "guideline in a nutshell" and the examples should make that clear. Jdorje 18:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  (edit conflict) Now that I've thought about it some more, that didn't assume good faith, so I'm sorry for that, Golbez. (To explain: at first, I thought Golbez was trying to parody Jdorje's bold change, which would be covered under WP:POINT and is why I brought that up.) --AySz88^-^ 18:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds to me like you guys are trying to monopolize the article. Your removal of the storms section went against strong disagreement that you simply ignored. THAT is POV. Golbez's edit was no more wrong than Jdorje's. This is ridiculous hipocracy that has gotten out of hand. I want the storms section back. We are a handful of people who want the storms section back. Golbez acted for us. Just like you are a handful of people who want the storms section seperate. Jdorje acted for you. Why was Golbez's edit reverted and Jdorje's not. Because you didn't like the change? That's what I think. One word best describes this page. Can you spell: C-O-R-R-U-P-T? -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 15:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Golbez response

message: :I feel the length of the summary should reflect the severity of the storm.  Lee gets one sentence, Katrina gets a five sentence paragraph, for example. --tomf688{talk} 16:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagreed. The storms not mentioned on any separate pages should be the most descriptive here, since we should have much of the details that would be on a separate article. Although if it gets too long, it could still be moved to a separate article... CrazyC83 17:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CrazyC83, that violates the very concept of an encyclopedia which is to give the most weight to notable information; however, your argument does expose the flaws in the old system. My idea is that all storms get 1-8 sentences on the main page, with more in-depth coverage on a child page.  In the current edit this child page is the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms page, though it's also possible (and more logical IMO) to have one page per storm. Jdorje 17:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the basis of my idea was that the article remain as it is, with storms such as Katrina get more said while storms like Lee are just touched upon.  That's just sensible considering how vastly different they were.  The technical details belong in either individual articles on each storm, or on one big page like we have now (2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms).  Leave it as is. --tomf688{talk} 20:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, do you mean how it is right now (~3 sentences per storm), how it was yesterday (~1 sentence per storm), or how it was 4 days ago (~10 sentences per storm)?  Either way, I agree with you that we shouldn't go into more details on non-notable storms; we should instead give another location (either individual storm articles, one massive storms article, or links to TCRs) where additional information can be found. Jdorje 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify Tom, by 3 sentences per storm I mean on average.  This means 1 sentence for Lee and 8 for Katrina (as in the link given). Jdorje 21:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I mean is that storms like Katrina get enormous mention on their own articles - so we need to give mention and details elsewhere to the lesser storms, otherwise those who come here would think that very little transpired from them and they wouldn't know a storm history... CrazyC83 21:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  There are three ways to do that: a storms page, one page per storm, or external links (to the TCRs).  I basically agree with you that one page per storm is best, but a storms page is an acceptable compromise.  However the purpose of this straw poll was to sidestep such an argument.  The question isn't where the extra information should be put - the question was how much information should be given on the main article. Jdorje 21:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Overall, I see this reorganization as being positive.  It provides a quick summary of the season and leaves the greater detail elsewhere.  At the least, do realize that if the storm sections are restored to this article that they must be shortenned, sometimes substantially.  My rule-of-thumb would be 1-5 sentences in that case, with more storms (and possibly all named storms) having their own articles.  (The issue on individual storm articles in not whether the suject is encyclopedic as much as it is whether there is enough encyclopedic data available to justify an article and the space requirements of the possible containing articles.)
I think that it also needs to be recognized that whatever scheme is implemented for this article will become the prototype/standard for future storm season articles/collections going forward.  For that reason, I encourage people to brainstorm and debate this, so that when the 2006 season gets rolling we will know what kind of overall style we are building towards.  --EMS | Talk 19:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts 

message: It's out: PDF Word --66.66.245.85 22:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, saw it just a few minutes ago. Not much to report though, but it's good that we have another one out. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 23:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added it to the references. - Cuivienen 01:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nate's Report 

message: Is also released: PDF Word --66.66.245.85 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, if the other low absorbed Gamma instead of the other way around, we could have had an unnamed tropical storm! --AySz88^-^ 19:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep! They thought it was still a tropical depression at that point...so technically it was Tropical Storm 27 for a while... CrazyC83 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably pretty embarassing for NHC and obviously something they're trying to downplay. Gamma was the first misdiagnosed storm since Subtropical Storm Fifteen was completely missed actively in October, 2000. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 22:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And Gamma's Report... 

message: It's out. Made landfall in the Bahamas.Icelandic Hurricane 22:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Good eyes! -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 22:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it looks like it reached hurricane status on 4 separate occasions (not 3).  Not sure how many times that's happened before. Jdorje 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've adapted the track-generator to read in the TCRs (I take the doc format and save it as text), and uploaded best-track maps for all of the storms that have reports. Jdorje 00:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: ThanksIcelandic Hurricane 00:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 16.--24.85.167.241 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And now Ophelia's Report 

message: There is a mistake in the article where it says Late activity, it says that Hurricane Epsilon is the third strongest hurricane of december, it's wrong because Hurricane Epsilon is tied with Nicole as 2nd strongest storm and behind of the unnamed hurricane of 1925. Memicho 03:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicole was stronger than Epsilon.  See the Epsilon article. Jdorje 03:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh, sorry I missed that information. Memicho 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in article 

message: Indeed, Emily was a category 5 for at least 6 hours.... at 140 kts and 925 minimum pressure —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.177.250.245 (talk • contribs) 13:45, January 27, 2006 (UTC).
:Where did you get that from? The report is not out yet.WotGoPlunk 16:28, 27 January 2006
::Hard to tell-could come from anywhere.Maybe it was fake.HurricaneCraze32 18:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, although they do sound realistic...we'll have to wait and see. CrazyC83 19:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Emily is hoping to be 5-Can you tell us where you got it?HurricaneCraze32 20:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is still no Emily report on the 2005 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Reports page.  I would assume the this person was just rattling our chains. --EMS | Talk 23:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emily's Report