Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 10

message: Indeed, three of the six strongest storms ever recorded in the Atlantic formed during the 2005 season: Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.
This sentence just stuck out at me as being terribly un-encyclopedic.  It sounds like unnesesary comentary and although I agree with the point of the sentence, it could be worked in better.
:It all depends on the meaning of the word "strong."  Here it meant "storms with the lowest central air pressure," which usually translates into "most intense storms."  Again, the wording could be more specific, but it's all about... not black or white but what shade of gray is the most suitable for everybody.
:It all boils down to this: if the wording is less precise than you think it should be, fine tune it.  Just don't be angry if your fine-tuning is itself fine-tuned by someone with a slightly different perspective.  B.Wind 18:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it the sentence or the word "indeed" you have a problem with? I don't see anything untrue about the sentence. --Revolución (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indeed? 

message: The NHC expects Alpha to form this afternoon. Who's gonna update the chart?
On this and other hurricane pages several editors have censored notable and citable material. It is against wiki rules to do so, and even more so to gather a group of editors together with the intent of enforcing such censorship. Stirling Newberry -  Bopnews 03:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to take a look at censorship and compare it to Hurricane naming before making such a ridiculous claim. Jdorje 03:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What exactly are you refering to?  Links to the changes would be helpful.  --Holderca1 04:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at his contribs, he seems to think that not adding Alpha to the list now is a POV omission. I do nota think that means what he thinks ita means. But hey, since he didn't even say what he was talking about, it's clear he has no interest in fixing it, just in whining. --Golbez 04:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I am not sure what he is talking about, the first few Greek letters are already in the article.  --Holderca1 05:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've restored the censored material again and reported as vandalism. There was no "consensus", nor was a good faith effort to gain consensus made. This is a straight reversion of simple vandalism, which includes the use of a sock puppet IP, expressly forbidden by wikipedia rules. Also includes personal attacks, incivility and POV pushing. 05:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Speculation#Listing_the_Greek_names Consensus was there. I'm also shocked that you accuse me of using an IP address to get around this. All of my anonymous edits are from 203.124.2.*. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 05:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm so glad that not having a Wikipedia accoutn means that i am accused of being a puppet for someone else. Stirling_Newberry, your claims are ridiculous, and you have no idea what censorship even means. I was for putting the Greek names in a list next to the actual list of names, but, when consensus was reached, I decided to follow the decision that had been made. The Greek names are mentioned in the article and will only be put into list form when each forms.--69.86.16.61 15:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: THERE IS NO CENSORSHIP. IT CLEARLY MENTIONS AT THE BOTTOM THAT THE NEXT THREE STORMS TO FORM WILL BE NAMED ALPHA, BETA AND GAMMA. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read the consensus about the listing of the Greek names at the relevant talk page linked above. This isn't censorship, it's going back to what we had agreed to before Greek names were a possiblilty. There is no guarantee these storms will in fact form. Titoxd(?!?) 06:23, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: But you are not disputing the factual accuracy of the article.  This edit war is not a question of censorship, but just a matter of formatting.  The information you claim is being censored is included, not merely in the paragraph below the table, but also in the "main article" for that section which is at hurricane naming.  Additionally the consensus which you claim was never achieved was arrived at through discussion (link above); the fact that you weren't here for that discussion does not invalidate it.  Removal of the dispute tag could be construed as censorship, except that this argument does not have anything to do with the "factual accuracy" of the article whatsoever; also the dispute tag says to "see the discussion page" but you haven't even said here what information it is you think is being censored (one would have to look at the page history to find that out).  In summary, this whole thing is simply an edit war: you versus the majority of the "regular" editors of the article.  (P.S.  If you wish to continue this argument, a good place to start would be by listing here what information it is you think is being censored.  It is barely conceivable that we are talking about completely different things here.) Jdorje 06:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Can I add to a consensus that Stirling's complaint is utterly pointless, and that warning tags do not belong on this article just because it's not arranged the way he wants? I think I shall. This isn't censorship, it's good editing. RSpeer 06:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Someone tried one version in the article and everyone stopped complaining.  Sounds like there was a consensus to me. AySz88^-^ 16:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Indeed, it should be moved to /Editing. Jdorje 07:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why was it moved to /Speculation? There's nothing speculatory about how an article should be formatted. It should be moved back to the main talk page. Who exactly were the ones who met this 'concenseus'? It looks to me like the last thing posted was in support of putting the first few Greek names into the regular list.--WolFox 16:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definately not speculation now that we have Alpha. --WolFox 23:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censoring material 

message: This may have been asked before, but what happens if the Pacific runs out of names one year?  Would they use the Greek Alphabet?  If so, could that mean there would be two Hurricane Betas in one year? SargeAbernathy 20:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The same thing; they'll use Greek letters. I don't know when this policy was decided. The East Pacific used every letter in 1983. There would have been more storms than letters in 1985, and the Greek Alphabet could have been used, but instead XYZ names were added during the season so it ended with Xina instead of Alpha. The names were again exhausted in 1992 when Z was reached. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, almost always East Pacific and Atlantic seasons have a negative correlation with each other. Thus, busy Atlantic seasons result in a sad case in the East Pacific and vice versa. For example, in 1983, there were 4 Atlantic cyclones and 21 East Pacific cyclones. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that isn't strictly true. The East Pacific is more active than usual during El Nino years and less active during La Nina years and the reverse is true of the Atlantic, but otherwise the two are not correlated. This year the East Pacific was about average while the Atlantic, well... yeah. -- 69.86.16.61 22:48, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific Backup List 

message: Has there ever been a recorded case of two tropical storms / hurricanes merging together? Tompw 23:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, on a few occasions, but probably not in the manner you're thinking of. Read this: Fujiwara effect. To add to the article, one storm usually ends up "losing" the battle, but the other one doesn't add its strength to it or anything. From a meteorological standpoint, it's very interesting, but from an "end of the world" standpoint, it's not what hollywood's looking for or anything like that. The Great Zo 23:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, that's proved very interesting. Also, I note that the latest forecats for Alpha has it merging into Wilma in about 36 hours... Tompw 10:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging storms? 

message: Just for reference, does anybody know what the most number of tropical depressions is for
an Atlantic Hurricane Season? The great kawa 17:57, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 25 - current record. CrazyC83 22:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with this number is that a good record of depressions doesn't even go back 15 years. I ran into that problem while looking up tons of records for my site. Still, given that we set the storm record and had THREE(!) unnamed depressions, I'd put money on 25 being the "real" record (in the context that we can use the phrase "record" of course). Only the diety of your choice knows for sure. The Great Zo 14:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Zo's right. The record for tropical depressions is incomplete to say the least. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 23:45, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A record is only a record when it is recorded.  Otherwise there's no point in claiming the validity of any records.  ("3 category 5 hurricanes in one season, how do we know there wasn't 6 cat-5s in 1500 B.C.?" etc.) PK9 03:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Just a side note, I have evidence in my posession that indicates 134 depressions formed in 34578 BC when a small asteriod hit the atlantic ocean thereby warming the ocean temperatures to 35c. TimL 09:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah and they strenthened into monster hypercanes with winds of 700 mph...And then they killed all the dinosaurs! :D -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tropical Depression Record 

message: After the season,the coverage of the predictions will need to be rewritten in terms of how accurate they were (which in just about all cases is how much of an underestimate they were).But honestly...if Dr. Gray or someone else had gotten up in May and said,
:"The name list will be exhausted before the end of October.There will be two 150 mph storms by the middle of July,and the following three months will each see a 175 mph storm with a lower minimum central pressure than Camille,and all five of these storms will make landfall off the Gulf of Mexico.Of the other seven hurricanes formed before the list runs out,one will hit Spain."
Would anyone have taken him seriously?--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 03:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that does make it sound devastating doesn't it? No, nobody would have believed him. But it happened :p. bob rulz 03:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Predictions

message: Would it be a good idea to put in a current radar image of the entire Atlantic at the top of the article?--WolFox 05:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, unless you enjoy uploading a new image every time it needs updating. And no. This is an encyclopedia, not a news page. Link to a site with a current radar image. --Golbez 05:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And if I or someone else WAS willing to update it every few hours? Where in the article would it be put?--WolFox 19:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radar 

message: I made a new template  and used it in this article (only).  I didn't know whether to include 5 or 7 seasons in the list (the discussion at  indicated 5 was preferred, but I noticed this article uses 7).  So...which should it be?  And, can this template be improved?  Since there are well over 100 season articles, using a template for this list is very wise...and although most seasons already have the lists (varying between 5 and 7 seasons in each), the list is supposed to go inside the infobox so they'll all have to be updated eventually. Jdorje 08:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{[[Template:hurricane season links|hurricane season links]]}} 

message: I believe several of the storm sections are too long, and should be whittled down to a smaller summary or moved into their own article.
* Katrina.  This is very long.  Of course Katrina deserves lots of mention, but then there are as many as a dozen external articles about it.  There's definitely some text that can be pruned here (like the "Katrina proved difficult to forecast" paragraph).
* Rita.  I think this is just a little too long, and can just be condensed a little.
* Wilma.  Wilma's still active so it's too early to be judgemental, but it will have to be made shorter.
* Alpha.  Alpha is the fourth-longest hurricane section.  Is it long enough to justify a separate article?  Almost.  Part of the problem is that an entire paragraph is devoted to its record-breakingness (by comparison Dennis and Emily only have a single sentence about record-breaking.)  If anyone has anything else to write about it, that would make the decision easy.  (Alpha has apparently killed 11 people, which is more than any of the other storms without an article.)
Jdorje 19:18, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too-long storm sections 

message: I added that the 1983 Pacific hurricane season exhausted its list. That is true. There was a Hurricane Winnie (which formed in December!). There were no X, Y, or Z names that year, so the list was exhausted. Please do not remove that note. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 19:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note