Talk:2007 Atlantic hurricane season/May

message: ===Subtropical Storm Andrea===
Storm discussion belongs at the Hurricane Wikia, thank you. – Chacor 23:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've placed the title in quotes because it hasn't been designated by NRL. No one's done anything wrong, but this is also a reminder that we're just documenting the invests/depressions/storms here - discussion takes place at the Wikia. See the discussion below for more info. --Coredesat 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Please develop the season article first, if and when it develops. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should not be overly hasty with creating storm articles like we were last year - if the system is named, wait until after the storm dissipates (and has had significant land effects) before writing an article at all: see Typhoon Kong-rey (2007), which is a pretty good article. And no, the season is not current, because this is not a named storm. If and only if this invest becomes a named storm should the season become current. --Coredesat 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the same time, we shouldn't let a repeat of Typhoon Durian or Hurricane Isaac (2006) happen... Timely articles are wanted, but not rushed.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hurricane Wikia is here  . Talking happens there and not here because Wikipedia policy is that talk page are to be about discussing the actual content of the article, not a general forum about the article's topic. I'm not overly fond of the strict application of that policy, but it's clearly the way things are going here, and not really worth fighting over when there are alternatives. --65.94.14.100 21:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or chat room. The discussion had to go sooner or later (this is why the tropical discussion subpages were deleted last year); there was a thread on project talk a while ago, and  I tried to draw attention to it but to no avail. Most of the random chat here has nothing to do with building the article. --Coredesat 22:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Homo Sapien is a social creature. They will talk and say that it's justified because it pertains to the subject of the article. And while I agree with whoever 65.94... is, I'm not going to pitch a fit about. I do wish that Wikipedia would be a little less like a government: too much formalites. Can't do squat about it though. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really a formality, in my opinion; just consider your audience. Contributors to this article likely have interest in tropical weather but with varying degrees of interest. Anyone who is interested in weather discussion can seek those forums out and pick one to their liking, rather than having one vaulted at them. Just as discussion about the Wikipedia article would not be appropriate for those forums, this talk page should focus on the article itself. Are there going to be article-related discussions that are also meteorological discussions? Sure. Is there a hard line on what does and does not belong on the talk page? Of course not. All that is being asked for is for each editor to use judgment and discretion to keep our watchlists from going crazy over an ancillary discussion. Thanks, everyone, and I'm looking forward to productive conversations here this season. —Twigboy 02:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: in re the Wikia stuff: During the late 2005 season, the talk page became absolutely unusable. Full of empty speculation, betting pools, and a widespread chicken-little mentality. Getting rid of all the fluff was the best thing to happen to the hurricane articles since they came to prominence in 2004. A betting pool does not assist in improving the article. Discussing ad nauseam a cloud puff that just left Africa does not assist in improving the article. What does is discussing recent releases from the NHC, on how to prepare for them to be in the article, or to discuss the scope presently required for them. We need to remain calm, civil, and professional. I essentially stopped working on the articles for a while because the signal:noise ratio was nonexistent. Now if only we could cut down on the people complaining about not being able to do all of the above, and we'd be in business. --Golbez 11:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Special tropical disturbance statement has been issued which points out that advisories will be initiated later this morning, if the recent trend continues. -- WmE 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No to an active article. We cannot jump the gun this year like we did last year. An article should only go up after the storm dissipates, and even then only if the storm has had significant impact. --Coredesat 14:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a sandbox article, just for the record. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, even though it is quite a ways away from being a solid article. CrazyC83 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to second the no to an active article at this point in time.  The rush to create an article the moment that the NHC names/numbers a storm (and sometimes even before it becomes official) is inherently problematic.  An article should probably wait until after the storm has dissipated and we all have a better grip on sources and information.  I can forsee exceptions if an active storm is having an active impact on land, but not yet. Arkyan • (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus this is a minor storm with minor impact. jj 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the sandbox going though, even though it will (probably) be after dissipation when it is published. Impacts from the initial non-tropical low can and should be included as well. CrazyC83 17:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I for one like the sandbox article, it's actually very informative. I don't see why this shouldn't be published. -- WmE 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither. But what is there to talk about right now (early formation aside)? Andrea is brand new and in all likelihood will be inconsequential. We shouldn't worry too much about a separate article right now: there'll be plenty of time for that later. Keeping this article updated should be the main priority. Pobbie Rarr 17:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to keep the sandbox article updated. That way, the trivial information such as damage can be kept there, while the more important info can be kept here. I'm requesting a page move. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Gah, just move it. It looks fine, and the level of detail currently in the storm article is far greater than the amount the season article should have. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't. There's a redirect. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That can easily be fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever made that article: good job :) I wasn't really thinking article at this point... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CrazyC83 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's good, but please don't make a habit of this. We're not Wikinews, so we can't be too excessive with making live articles only hours after the storm is named. --Coredesat 22:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not? The article, at the time it was moved to mainspace, already had an impact section, and was way beyond the two-three paragraphs we usually put in the season article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, amazing! I knew that storm with that huge eye was something. An article is not essential at this point, because there was often a delay of about a month after storms dissipated last year before an article was made. However, like Ana, this storm is very notable for its earliness. I don't think it is nessecary to have the year written on the name of the article, such as (2007), if that was the only storm ever with that name. Is there a page stating why this isn't so? Isn't including the year if that's the only one quite redundant? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 00:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently there was a cyclone Andrea in 1970, so it probably is needed. – Chacor 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, it doesn't look like it will be retired. The same practice was done for 2005 Greek storms. However, there is a discussion about this on the WPTC talk page. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an eye.  An exposed circulation center.  And I am surprised they have not re-initiated advisories, it looks quite impressive on satellite now. -RunningOnBrains 21:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  STDS. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: May

message: Storm discussion belongs at the Hurricane Wikia, thank you. – Chacor 23:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've placed the title in quotes because it hasn't been designated by NRL. No one's done anything wrong, but this is also a reminder that we're just documenting the invests/depressions/storms here - discussion takes place at the Wikia. See the discussion below for more info. --Coredesat 18:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree. Please develop the season article first, if and when it develops. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should not be overly hasty with creating storm articles like we were last year - if the system is named, wait until after the storm dissipates (and has had significant land effects) before writing an article at all: see Typhoon Kong-rey (2007), which is a pretty good article. And no, the season is not current, because this is not a named storm. If and only if this invest becomes a named storm should the season become current. --Coredesat 20:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the same time, we shouldn't let a repeat of Typhoon Durian or Hurricane Isaac (2006) happen... Timely articles are wanted, but not rushed.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hurricane Wikia is here  . Talking happens there and not here because Wikipedia policy is that talk page are to be about discussing the actual content of the article, not a general forum about the article's topic. I'm not overly fond of the strict application of that policy, but it's clearly the way things are going here, and not really worth fighting over when there are alternatives. --65.94.14.100 21:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or chat room. The discussion had to go sooner or later (this is why the tropical discussion subpages were deleted last year); there was a thread on project talk a while ago, and  I tried to draw attention to it but to no avail. Most of the random chat here has nothing to do with building the article. --Coredesat 22:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Homo Sapien is a social creature. They will talk and say that it's justified because it pertains to the subject of the article. And while I agree with whoever 65.94... is, I'm not going to pitch a fit about. I do wish that Wikipedia would be a little less like a government: too much formalites. Can't do squat about it though. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 22:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really a formality, in my opinion; just consider your audience. Contributors to this article likely have interest in tropical weather but with varying degrees of interest. Anyone who is interested in weather discussion can seek those forums out and pick one to their liking, rather than having one vaulted at them. Just as discussion about the Wikipedia article would not be appropriate for those forums, this talk page should focus on the article itself. Are there going to be article-related discussions that are also meteorological discussions? Sure. Is there a hard line on what does and does not belong on the talk page? Of course not. All that is being asked for is for each editor to use judgment and discretion to keep our watchlists from going crazy over an ancillary discussion. Thanks, everyone, and I'm looking forward to productive conversations here this season. —Twigboy 02:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: in re the Wikia stuff: During the late 2005 season, the talk page became absolutely unusable. Full of empty speculation, betting pools, and a widespread chicken-little mentality. Getting rid of all the fluff was the best thing to happen to the hurricane articles since they came to prominence in 2004. A betting pool does not assist in improving the article. Discussing ad nauseam a cloud puff that just left Africa does not assist in improving the article. What does is discussing recent releases from the NHC, on how to prepare for them to be in the article, or to discuss the scope presently required for them. We need to remain calm, civil, and professional. I essentially stopped working on the articles for a while because the signal:noise ratio was nonexistent. Now if only we could cut down on the people complaining about not being able to do all of the above, and we'd be in business. --Golbez 11:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Special tropical disturbance statement has been issued which points out that advisories will be initiated later this morning, if the recent trend continues. -- WmE 13:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No to an active article. We cannot jump the gun this year like we did last year. An article should only go up after the storm dissipates, and even then only if the storm has had significant impact. --Coredesat 14:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a sandbox article, just for the record. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, even though it is quite a ways away from being a solid article. CrazyC83 15:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to second the no to an active article at this point in time.  The rush to create an article the moment that the NHC names/numbers a storm (and sometimes even before it becomes official) is inherently problematic.  An article should probably wait until after the storm has dissipated and we all have a better grip on sources and information.  I can forsee exceptions if an active storm is having an active impact on land, but not yet. Arkyan • (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus this is a minor storm with minor impact. jj 17:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the sandbox going though, even though it will (probably) be after dissipation when it is published. Impacts from the initial non-tropical low can and should be included as well. CrazyC83 17:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I for one like the sandbox article, it's actually very informative. I don't see why this shouldn't be published. -- WmE 17:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me neither. But what is there to talk about right now (early formation aside)? Andrea is brand new and in all likelihood will be inconsequential. We shouldn't worry too much about a separate article right now: there'll be plenty of time for that later. Keeping this article updated should be the main priority. Pobbie Rarr 17:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to keep the sandbox article updated. That way, the trivial information such as damage can be kept there, while the more important info can be kept here. I'm requesting a page move. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Gah, just move it. It looks fine, and the level of detail currently in the storm article is far greater than the amount the season article should have. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't. There's a redirect. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That can easily be fixed. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever made that article: good job :) I wasn't really thinking article at this point... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CrazyC83 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's good, but please don't make a habit of this. We're not Wikinews, so we can't be too excessive with making live articles only hours after the storm is named. --Coredesat 22:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not? The article, at the time it was moved to mainspace, already had an impact section, and was way beyond the two-three paragraphs we usually put in the season article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, amazing! I knew that storm with that huge eye was something. An article is not essential at this point, because there was often a delay of about a month after storms dissipated last year before an article was made. However, like Ana, this storm is very notable for its earliness. I don't think it is nessecary to have the year written on the name of the article, such as (2007), if that was the only storm ever with that name. Is there a page stating why this isn't so? Isn't including the year if that's the only one quite redundant? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 00:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently there was a cyclone Andrea in 1970, so it probably is needed. – Chacor 01:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, it doesn't look like it will be retired. The same practice was done for 2005 Greek storms. However, there is a discussion about this on the WPTC talk page. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not an eye.  An exposed circulation center.  And I am surprised they have not re-initiated advisories, it looks quite impressive on satellite now. -RunningOnBrains 21:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  STDS. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subtropical Storm Andrea