Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 13

message: The pdf versions are out for Atlantic storms Arlene and Gert. The pdf versions are also out for Eastern Pacific storms Beatriz, Dora, Fernanda, and Lidia. And JTWC still hasn't finished all of their 2004 reports yet! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, came across these a few days ago. Interesting reads. -- RattleMan 23:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Arlene hit with winds of 55 mph, 70 was its peak intensity. It was also a small storm. No one is likely to be upgraded. At least that's how I see it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think we'll see Franklin and Irene next, the two early-season storms that didn't affect land. We might also see Harvey, Bret and Jose at that time, but I think Cindy and Emily will be held off on, and perhaps Dennis as well, though I doubt any changes will be made to Dennis. Lee might also make an appearance in the next batch as it would be very easy to finish. -- Cuivienen 21:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not with Lee - after all it was disputed whether it was a tropical storm at all, as well as when it became such. Another interesting one to watch will be Vince, for timing purposes - I wonder if they will see that it was a hurricane 24 hours before they officially declared it one. CrazyC83 23:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe they discovered that it had full tropical characteristics? CrazyC83 06:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Doubt it. Sounds like a typo to me. But the name Subtropical Depression Twenty-Two is very long. Maybe someone was tired. These tech guys are not hurricane freaks, they're computer freaks. NHC have their own web designers who have no affiliation to hurricanes whatsoever. They just do what they're told. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Post Season Reports

message: Several of you have taken the button bar and put it onto every hurricane since 1990.  The problem is you've used a template in the talk space.  This cannot remain like this.  You guys need to go through and move every one of them over and fix every article. (In other news, I think the new buttonbars look a lot better and are pretty usable.) Jdorje 01:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Premature buttonbar use 

message: Just curious, since these are (usually) extremely rare storms (there have only been 28 storms that have reached that intensity), should a Category 5 fish-spinner have its own article in the future? (It has only happened three times and we have little information for any of the three past such storms) CrazyC83 16:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably only if it becomes stronger than Wilma or is unusual in some respect. That would explain the reason we have articles on two EPac Cat. 5 fish spinners, John and Linda. Then again, most EPac storms are fish spinners. If we get another Faith that also happens to be a Cat 5, it might get an article. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 17:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I would say no, but perhaps an article on all the Cat 5s, there are several that were fish spinners and do not have their own article. --Holderca1 17:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with the above statements. Just because a storm is a Category 5 fish spinner doesn't make it notable enough for its own article. That's just how I see it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Category 5 fish-spinners

message: The main article is 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. This is the article from which all the others spring off of.
Now, sometimes, these storms are notable in themselves - Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, Wilma. 
Sometimes, however, they are notable because of a quirk of history, that they were the first ever known to be something. Vince, Alpha.
And then we have the fishspinners, or the storms that caused minor damage. Arlene, Franklin, Harvey, to name a few.
Now, I don't think anyone disagrees with giving the inherently notable storms articles. They aren't children of the 2005 season article - they are articles in themselves, storms individually so notable that the season is almost irrelevant.
So then we have the remainder. There are two classes of storms here - the ones that warrant enough information on this article to get their own article, because it has outgrown this one, for formatting, readability, or comprehensiveness; and those which were so boring that they rightly consume no more than a handful of paragraphs.
So, now that I've established my premise, let's go over that list again: Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, and Wilma. Each one of these is not only inherently notable, but easily outgrew the article; the Katrina article and its children are longer than the season article.
So then we have the ones that don't instantly reckon an article. The first criteria to look for is: Does the available information we have outgrow this article? Looking at the article, I see:
*Arlene: Very full section, just below the threshhold for a full article. We would be blessed if every storm in the season article were presented in this fashion, for I like having a full section. It does not, however, warrant its own article.
*Bret: Slightly less full than Arlene, but similar.
*Cindy: Another very well-done section.
*Franklin: Short, but all we can give on a fishspinner.
*Gert: Again.
*Harvey: "
*Irene: Longer than the previous three, even though it's not an inherently more notable storm that I can see. But we simply have more info; it may use pruning later on.
*Ten: A short but sweet blurb that foreshadows Katrina.
*Jose: Franklin-length for a Cindy-caliber storm, but not bad. Not worthy of its own article; could be fleshed out more here.
*Lee: Fishspinner.
*Maria: Now here we have the first test of "Is it otherwise historically notable"? Because it nearly struck Iceland as a tropical cyclone, and its only recorded deaths were from Norway. We do have an article on Hurricane Faith which was similar. However, the length does not warrant its own article, and I don't find the post-tropical effects sufficiently historic. However, a case could be made a la Faith (a case could also be made to merge Faith into its season article)
*Nate: Nice section for a mostly fishspinning storm.
*Ophelia: Bloody hell. This is where it gets difficult. Is the storm inherently notable? In my opinion, not really. So it parked off the coast for a few days and washed away from sand. It happens. It caused anywhere between $50 and $800m damage - we'll have to wait for the Tropical Cyclone Report to be sure. So, in my opinion, it is not worthy of an article on notability alone. But then we have the second criteria - information. The Ophelia article has much too much information to fit into the season article. So, we are left with the question - do we prune the article and merge it back in, or do we keep it where it is, even though it is highly unlikely to be retired, and caused probably not too notable damage? This could use a discussion.
*Philippe: Fishspinner.
*Nineteen: A nice short blurb about a failed depression.
*Tammy: Back to Cindy/Arlene quality, needs a picture.
*Twenty-two: Again, nice.
*Vince: Another iffy case. In this case, it lacks information - the article could probably be folded in to the season article with minimal or zero loss of information. Vince was, however, notable for being the only recorded tropical cyclone to strike mainland Europe. So do we give it its own article based on that alone? Worth discussion.
*Alpha: Notable for several reasons - It caused a fair amount of death and damage, and oh yeah, it broke the record for number of storms. However, ponder this for a moment - Does that make the STORM notable? Or the SEASON? I would say the latter, thus removing that raison d'etre for the article. Lengthwise, the article just baaarely overdraws the limits of the season article; it could be folded back in with minimal or zero loss of information, and I support this. Remember, folks - Alpha was not notable for being the 22nd storm, it was the season that was notable for having 23 storms.
*Beta: Better case for notability than Alpha if we get any casualty reports in. It has more information than the Alpha article, but I still think it could be folded in to the season article with minimal or zero loss. However, this is less of a major situation, but in the future I would prefer keeping the information in the SEASON article until length/notability requires it. The recent articles - Tammy, Wilma, Alpha, Beta - are being made extremely early in their lives, with no reason.
That's just my take on how the season article and its various children are working out. In related news, the Monthly Summary comes out early tomorrow, and that will have updated damage, death, and intensity estimates for the October storms. Let's see if we can glean any information from it. --Golbez 20:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have another record, longest post ever on a talk page. j/k, very well said.  --Holderca1 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Agreed, agreed, AGREED. Thank you for saying this. I think if we could make a full, interesting article on any storm, it's worthy of having one. That's easy to do for some storms, and others might not make it. If there's enough information available, I think the iffy cases of Ophelia and Vince should have articles. I'm going to reserve judgement on Alpha and Beta until damage and death tolls become more clear, but I'm leaning towards not supporting the Alpha article. --Patteroast 21:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that there's too much specific stuff in the summaries; in particular, minimum pressure is useless. We have to remember that the Tropical Cyclone Reports will have many times more information than we want in the articles, so when those come out, we can shuffle some minor aspects off to it (like minor preparations, etc). Wikipedia is a reference work, not a comprehensive journal. --Golbez 00:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am an author and I'm going to look at this from an author's point of view. What we need to do for this article is to differentiate between interesting information and nessisary information. All trivial facts, as interesting as they are, need to be cut from the article. Records need to be kept to a two-sentence maximum. Maybe three as an absolute maximum for select cases (ex: Wilma's pressure fall). We seem to want to spend an entire paragraph talking about solitary and sometimes menial records. The introduction needs some considerable shortening. Much of what is said there is better off in the Season Summery section. That's the biggest problem I have with the article over everything else. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree with you on the big 6. We already have main articles on them. We should really keep their entrys on the main page to a brief summery, like was done with Hurricane Gilbert and Hurricane Joan in 1988. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  It sounds to me like Golbez is saying that the "Big 6" are the ones that clearly wanton to keep seperated. Route56 04:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: An Arlene article, Alpha, Ophelia, Vince... Where will it end? There are simply too many articles. I'm sure if we condense it just right, it could work on the main page. I strongly oppose the formation of those nothing articles (as I like to call them). Hurricanehink 12:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Partially agreed with you on that. I think that if the storm is so unnotable that only basic information is available, then an article should not be created. I strongly oppose the articles on Ethel (1960), Bertha (1996), Alex (2004), Arlene (2005), and Alpha and Vince to some extent. I like the articles on Faith (1966, no self boasting here), Odette (2003), and Ophelia (2005). I feel that they have good, concise information that does much more than copy from the main article. And while discretion is clearly not a common virtue here, I believe that we should judge the article and not the storm. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Golbez's point of view 

message: Let's just take a vote on the button bar and get it over with.
Keep it
#KEEP IT.--WolFox 06:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's only at the bottom of the page (which I think is the best option), it's not an eyesore. Stop making personal attacks on people. I don't know the person who made the bar, nor do most people here. I just saw it and thought 'Hey, that's a great idea!' Stop degrading people whose opinions differ from yours.--WolFox 06:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Will you turn against the sockpuppets at well? Yes, an IP address with no edits miraculously decides, hey, I'll make my first edits by constantly adding the button bar. I wonder who it could be... I'm not degrading anyone that's undeserving of it. Are you a sockpuppet? If not, then congratulations, you're safe from my ire. --Golbez 07:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With this is the most obvious, 210.84.15.143 and 203.214.26.233 are the same person.  Not only do they both constantly keep adding in the button bar, but they both have contributed to Talk:Public Transport Users Association and have similar language usage.  --Holderca1 15:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, not so. I have a fair idea who the other person is, though. 203.214.26.233 12:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text:  Well, to his credit, he already removed most/all of the personal attacks..... AySz88^-^ 06:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Who all would be willing to compromise and only have it at the bottom, not at the top? I think that's the best thing to do with it.--WolFox 22:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it belongs on the season page at all, we already have at least 4 links to each storm article in it, including one near the bottom in the list of storm names, why do we need another.  I don't feel it adds anything beneficial to the article.  --Holderca1 23:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I took it as pertaining to just this article.  It should be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones if you want it to cover every usage.  --Holderca1 00:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Button bar poll 

message: What happened to the button bar? All previous versions of it appear vertically on it's template page and I can't figure out how to fix it. --WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs 01:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The HTML Tidy extension of MediaWiki was disabled because it was making the site crash, so all the pages with malformed HTML are not fixed automatically anymore. If someone is brave enough to go fix it, go ahead, but I'd rather take it out. Titoxd(?!?) 01:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? The concerns over the people not knowing what the colors mean were addressed. I don't have any idea how to fix it. I'm sure someone does though. --WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs 02:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yup, looks like it. Here are some pictures I captured of what it previously looked like:   -- RattleMan 03:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The template itself (Template:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season_buttons) still appears to be broken. --WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs 04:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not in IE, I just checked that; perhaps you're looking at a cached version, or does it break only in certain browsers? --AySz88^-^ 04:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked. It works in IE and Netscape 7.2 but not in FireFox. Odd.--WolFox (★Talk★) Contribs 06:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Worked in both IE and Firefox for me. -- RattleMan 06:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Button Bar Broken 

message: :Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF