Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 24

message: Should a chart be made, like the death toll charts for individual storms, containing the cumulative death toll for all 2005 storms, by country, region and political unit? CrazyC83 18:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea for the deaths&damages section. — jdorje (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There was the chart of just regular storm deaths.HurricaneCraze32 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we broke it down by more than country the table would be massive. It should be there, but only by country, even for the US. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be done in the statistics section though... CrazyC83 16:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The full breakdown could appear in the statistics article, but it would take up too much space in the main article. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cumulative death toll 

message: Leave an article with lots of available information alone, and it will do nothing but grow.  This one has grown from 44k to 50k in the last couple of weeks, and is bordering on what I would call "too long". — jdorje (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any suggestions of something to split off, or do you prefer a pruning? --Golbez 07:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some minor pruning of places that had too many numbers or too much detail, but most sections are about as concise as they can be.  The one section I still think is too long is the "Seasonal forecasts" section.  Also, I'm still not sure what role the "Economic impact" and "Forecasting uncertainty" sections should play in the overall structure and flow of the article - I think they are out of place as top-level sections but I'm not sure how to integrate them.  The "Economic impact" section might be better off if it were split into a sub article (maybe Impact of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, which could have all sorts of pretty tables showing deaths and damages in each location as was discussed not long ago). — jdorje (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 50k is not excessively long. At least, that's my opinion. It's down to 48k now, and, by taking a look at it, there's 43 notes! Now that is too long. Too many notes. We don't need to cite where we got every single piece of information from. bob rulz 02:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  See WP:CITE.  A comprehensive list of citations is one of the strengths of this article. --EMS | Talk 02:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes up, like, 30% of the article. It's good to cite sources, yes, but 43 notes is excessive. That may not be what it says in WP:CITE, but it's my opinion. Not every policy on Wikipedia is a great policy. bob rulz 02:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 50 KB is not a problem. Race, a featured article, is 127 KB long. I'd say that it is quite about right. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 50 KB is not yet a problem.  But the tendancy of the article to keep on growing is a problem, and continued vigilance is needed to keep it focused. — jdorje (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it not possible to make a sub-article to all the notes? I agree the list is to long, but it citing makes an article better. Jonatanj 08:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ever-expanding article 

message: Check out this video.  At about 36:55 Max mentions that there may have been another storm to meet the qualifications for a name.  --Ajm81 21:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He might be referring to the first stage of Gamma. TD 27 attained TS status after the season, and the next stage could have been a different storm. Hurricanehink 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either that or TD19 or TD22 was really a tropical storm...Also he said that Emily was a Category 5 at about the 38:00 mark...and admitted that they were way behind on TCR's just because of sheer volume. It takes time to write 30 reports!!! CrazyC83 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I was studying 22's report.On the track map,near the 10th update its like there was a point where it was TD status.HurricaneCraze32 14:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The fact that it was an October storm was confirmed by a now-removed footnote in the Zeta TCR. It was also confirmed by e-mail with James Franklin, and he also explained the removal of the storm from the footnote by saying that they are still debating as to whether or not to make it officially a storm.WindRunner 02:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnamed Storm? 

message: I've just found this on the German Wikipedia. It would be great if someone could modify it for English (translate the months and the links and add links for others with English articles). It really demonstrates how continuous and constant the season was. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This timeline looks really large. Is it possible to downsize it? Icelandic Hurricane 21:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with the downsizing, especially on the vertical axis (not so much horizontally so that it shows all the storms). Also TD's 10, 19 and 22 should be added. CrazyC83 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added 10, 19, and 22, made it smaller (to mess with the sizes, edit the "ImageSize = width:800 height:400" values near the beginning), and changed the starting month from May to June. A question, why is STD22's duration on List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms including the times it was a part of the Northeast flooding of October 2005? Really, STD22 only lasted from 15Z on the 8th to 03Z on the 9th. -- RattleMan 23:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. See here. -- RattleMan 02:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm... Can we replace "TD 10", "TD 19" and "STD 22" with just "10", "19" and "22". Otherwise it looks inconsistent (the other storms don't have "TS" or "H" in front of them). Other than that, it looks good. Also, Rattleman, I think he meant different colors for when the storms were at various intensities. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 13:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it needs a border of some kind. It would make it look much more organized. --Weatherman90 15:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also - whats with the "2005.41" on the side? Can we get rid of it? Weatherman90 15:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a way to change that to just "2005" without starting in January.  The .41 comes from June 1 being 41% into the year.  --Ajm81 18:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice work. The 5 rows makes it easier to read now. Hurricanehink 12:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know if I like it that way (In reference to the condensed table)...It seems harder to read and doesn't demonstrate how constant the season was as well as the other one as Cuiviénen put it. Weatherman90 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: Any idea when NOAA will be publishing the overall track map for 2005? I know that they have been used as part of the recent season pages other than 2005 and expect that it will be added when NOAA publishes them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naraht (talk • contribs) . (sorry for forgetting to sign)
:Probably when all the TCRs are done. --Golbez 15:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I was wondering the same thing to myself a bit ago. It actually says on the bottom of the page that lists the reports. - At the rate that these reports are coming in, it could be a very long time. Weatherman90 04:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hope that all reports would be done before the meeting at the end of this month, but you never know. --Ajm81 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a report coming today. I can feel it! Weatherman90 15:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They usually come out in the morning, so I'm afraid that you're probably wrong. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 17:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong indeed --Weatherman90 01:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The TCR page says that the map will come out after all reports are complete. That was changed from saying it will come out at the end of the season. —BazookaJoe 04:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another week without a report...doesn't the NHC know that I can't sleep at night without knowing if Emily was a Cat 5?! Haha --Weatherman90 15:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall track map for 2005? 

message: It is finally out; the NHC has decided it was briefly a category 5. TCR
:No surprise there. That takes care of one big question mark. I'll let someone else do the updating as I do intense work on the current storm outbreak page. CrazyC83 15:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Highly unlikely. Beta may have been 120-125 mph, but I can't see a jump of that degree. The most interesting things left could be if Rita was underestimated like Wilma (180 mph?) or if Franklin or Harvey was a hurricane, although I personally doubt it in both cases. CrazyC83 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow! This sure woke me up. So we had four Category 5's in one season. Good God! That is insane! 2005 will go down in history as the Year the Atlantic Went Mad. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if things quiet down and 2006 isn't just as insane.  I recently read an article about 2004 describing it as a "one-in-a-lifetime" season.  2005 has been described as a "once-in-200-years" season.  So we will see what 2006 brings... — jdorje (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emily's Report 

message: I noticed that the Cat.5 and Cat. 4 colors look very similar. People that are colorblind might get confused. Maybe someone could change one or both of the colors to differentiate them more. Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd make the Category 4 color a slightly bit lighter, but not a whole lot. Category 5 should remain as is; it needs to be in a red shade. CrazyC83 00:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We arrived at those colors through a horribly long discussion at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics, so I would be a bit iffy to change them. That said, tweaking Cat 4 to be just a bit lighter might make work, as long as it does not become too similar to Cat 3. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dropped it down a shade; feel free to change it back if you don't like it. I think it strikes a balance. CrazyC83 18:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The storm path images still use the original color system.  Once the new color system is agreed on and stable, I will switch them over.  But the ongoing complaints and small tweaks make me think it is not stable.  Even a small color change would necessitate a full re-upload of the storm tracks eventually...and with hundreds or thousands of track maps this is a non-trivial task. — jdorje (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cat. 5-Cat. 4 color similarity

message: Beta's info still says that it was the 13th hurricane to form.Shouldnt it be changed to 14th? I know that Cindy was upgraded in her report, but i think it should be renoted. The 13th hurricane thing should be added to Wilma.HurricaneCraze32 14:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, we should change those around. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beta's Information