Talk:2004 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1

message: Currently active storms are marked in bold. Names that have not yet been assigned are marked in gray: that won't work for people using a text reader; or a Braille dislay. Please find an alternative, such as listing them separately, or marking with, say, an asterisk. Andy Mabbett 13:05, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to suggest a solution, feel free. Listing them separately is not an option. The list of names is linear and needs to stay that way (bar folding for compactness). -- Cyrius|✎ 13:33, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Observant readers will notice that I suggested two possibilities. Regarding your comment "try something ugly to make accessibility people happy. sigh."; there are no "accessibility people"; or, rather, we are all "accessibility people". Unless, of course, you know that you and all those you may at some time care for will always have perfect sight, hearing, cognition and mobility... Andy Mabbett 13:59, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't take grump to be intolerance. It was 8:30am here in the Central time zone, and I wasn't happy at being awake. My eyes are far from perfect, just correctable. I fully understand the reasoning behind wanting it, which is why I reacted within minutes of seeing your complaint. Less-ugly solutions are still invited. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:36, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Andy Mabbett, do you know much about accessibility? Is it possible to hide a tag from seeing users, but have it read to Braille or reader users? Like an alt-tag for images, those are a primary tool for visually impaired visitors. Does such a thing exist for text? That way, we could have our cake (the pretty table) and eat it too (alt-text tags that explain which ones are used and which aren't). I'll do a little browse on this and see what I can come up with. --Golbez 14:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I like this, from the w3 at : "Required: Avoid using tables to arrange text documents in columns." Whoops. But I just remembered that we have to take into account Lynx users, too. Hm. Maybe the best thing to do is put an asterisk by ones that have been used? So it's not so, er, ugly. --Golbez 14:57, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: CSS and span tags would allow for show/hide for different types of readers, solving most of the problem in an utterly wonderful manner. Unfortunately span is not allowed to us. As far as the W3C and tables for columns goes, screw them :). It looks fine in Lynx, it just falls back to vertical columns, with a gap between each. Not ideal, but nothing that needs working around. I'm assuming that braille or audio readers will produce something equivalent to Lynx's output, which may not be safe, but assumptions are all I have to work with. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, those were two different thoughts... I meant about Lynx being able to render colored text, which it probably can't in most circumstanced. I've voted against being able to use span directly, but I would certainly support a wikitax method of using it... could be useful. --Golbez 19:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I'd like past storms to be plain text. Once this is all over, we're going to have just two groups, used and unused. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Accessibility

message: In an edit summary, Golbez asked if TD2 should get an entry in the Storms list. IMO, it shouldn't. Tropical depressions as such are rarely notable in themselves. I'm not actively opposed to the idea, but I'd recommend just waiting and seeing what they do. In the case of TD2, it looks like it's going to be Tropical Storm Bonnie in less than 24 hours. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:02, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. A TD really is not notable, except in the Events list, until it becomes a storm. (Of course, if a TD manages to do hurricane-style damage, it should be mentioned.) --Golbez 19:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course if it does something noteworthy, it should be mentioned. I recall putting a couple of tropical depressions in on the historical pages because they killed people. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:25, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Teehee. I love hurricane season. Er, except, like, when it kills people, and makes me evacuate. (Hi, Hugo) :) But yeah, that was a good call. Only named storms and notable TDs. --Golbez 02:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tropical depressions and the storm list 

message: I think we've got a good test case for a disambiguation page with the newly-written Hurricane Isidore. Originally User:BigT27 (the author) put the disambiguation information straight on Hurricane Isidore. I've since moved the info to Hurricane Isidore (disambiguation). Thoughts? -- Cyrius|✎ 02:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the case of storms major enough to cause the names to be retired, like Isodore, Hugo and Andrew, I think the main page should be for the particular storm, and a disambig page added to it like you did.  In the case of Alex, the main page itself should be the disambig page. (Does this make sense?)  This should probably only be done for retired-name storms. They retire the names for a reason, and it's usually 2 or 3 a season, so the threshhold isn't too high. --Golbez 02:58, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: I agree with the bolding of landfall dates and names of the storm in question. Landfall (or close to it in the case of Alex) is the most important event we're tracking. I know nobody needs (or wants, or even cares about) my approval on this, I'd just like it written down somewhere that we're doing it so things stay consistent. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go with the last one; the only reason I didn't bold it before was I thought it would be too much, but since these are supposed to be the 5-10 most notable events in a half-year-long season, they should stand out. --Golbez 07:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolding events 

message: I updated my half-assed WikiProject concept at User:Cyrius/WikiProject Atlantic Hurricanes based on some of the discussion here. It's useful as a condensing of the formatting and policy discussion here if nothing else. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject 

message: Looking at the satellite view, I can't help but wonder if the folks over at the NHC have been taking trips to Margaritaville. It's a terribly disorganized system at the moment. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:58, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My affiliate is saying that it'll hit Pensacola by the end of the week. Bitch, it better not; I have to pack up and leave for college on Friday. Mike H 21:15, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
Gets worse, some of the NHC models have it going up to hurricane strength while doing so. They'll probably know more at the 10pm CDT update. -- Cyrius|✎ 00:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Update: According to Bonnie's 3 day map, it will be passing directly over me at roughly 4am Friday morning. ... cool, we need rain. :) Last tropical storm I was in when TS Fran blew through Washington in 1996. Destroyed my umbrella. Last one before that was evacuating from Hugo in 1989. (Lived in Savannah, Georgia then) --Golbez 06:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Lots of rain here near Charlotte, not sure if it's related. Sure will be tomorrow. --Golbez 18:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tropical Storm Bonnie 

message: Given that Charley looks like it's going to make a name for itself by hitting Tampa at a significant strength, it's probably time to think about giving it its own article. Already had someone ask on IRC asking if it had its own article. I'm going to do it myself in a few hours if there's no objections (we need to move a little more rapidly than with most articles). -- Cyrius|✎ 02:33, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, you seem to be better with describing actions than me. I'm best at parroting the NHC. :P Incidentally, with the NHC now ignoring TD Bonnie, what's the best source of info? How long do we note Bonnie? Also, the last time Tampa/Clearwater was hit by a hurricane was, IIRC, 1912. So that alone makes this notable. Here's to landfall. --Golbez 05:07, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: It has been done. The intro could use some work. Now it needs an image! -- Cyrius|✎ 05:58, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Charley and the 
Chocolate Factory
 separate article 

message: Good work, creators! Pcb21| Pete 16:21, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I claim full ownership of this article, I simply let Cyrius edit it when I'm sleeping or otherwise indesposed. ... ;) Anyway, I have to congratulate him on keeping it up to date and doing a typically better job than me of describing what's actually going on with the storm. I'll catch up with Danielle, though! :) --Golbez 17:05, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You did a good job of catching me with my metaphorical pants down when Charley decided to go nuts, hit Category 4, and turn east. The historical season articles are still all mine though (except 1995 and 1992) :). -- Cyrius|✎ 19:16, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I like this article

message: "50% probability of above-normal activity" is completely useless. If "normal" is defined by an average, then this is true by definition. The statement needs clarification. -- Taral 17:25, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the definition to the range definition. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:37, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probability 

message: From the 11pm August 15 discussion on Earl:
:If not for the government of Venezuela this probably would have been the last advisory on Earl...at least for now. The reconnaissance aircraft scheduled to investigate Earl this evening was denied access to Venezuelan airspace. Had they been able to get to the storm...I doubt they would have found a closed circulation...
Best tropical cyclone discussion statement ever. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, that's awesome. --Golbez 05:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl 

message: Looks like we've got a break. THere's a couple of things out there that might develop, but it looks like we're without an active tropical system for the first time in 2.5 weeks. Time to sit back and refactor text in a no-stress period. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whew. 

message: I'm just curious, is there an article for the Pacific typhoon/hurricane season? --Golbez 16:20, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I've seen. I've got my hands full enough with the Atlantic and other projects that I'm not going to start one either. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific? 

message: I'm just curious, is there an article for the Pacific typhoon/hurricane season? --Golbez 16:20, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I've seen. I've got my hands full enough with the Atlantic and other projects that I'm not going to start one either. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific? 

message: I think this one justifies not giving entries to every tropical depression that arises.  TD 10 was around for exactly 12 hours - I doubt even the NHC report will be more than a paragraph or two. --Goobergunch 00:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  TD10 

message: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/carl_hiaasen/9592077.htm
They all want to be Dan Rather circa 1961. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:17, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  And now for something completely different 

message: "NOAA forecasters predicted a 50% probability of above-normal activity,"
...and in other news, half of the population is below-average.
:Average is defined as a range. 50% probability of activity being outside that range on the high side. 40% probability of being within the average range, and 10% of it being below that range. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:11, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Uuhhh... If "above normal" means "above the median number" than this is no information at all, since this is the definition of the median in a distribution. If it stands for "above the mean number" than I don't quite know. But I suspect this distribution of "activity" (= number of hurricanes) is close to a Poisson distribution and so this still does not say that much. Awolf002 00:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Above normal" means "above the median range", not number. If you want to take issue with something, it's with NOAA calling 6-8 hurricanes above normal when they've defined 4-8 as normal. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:13, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I corrected the statement assuming the above statement is true -- couldn't let it stand as it was.  Tempshill 20:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Averages 

message: As mentioned before, we should avoid making separated articles too early! It seems to encourage those storms to become notable :-) Awolf002 13:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeanne 

message: What is the definition of landfall? I know it involves the *center* of the eye. Does it mean any landmass? Or only continental? Because I once read a hurricane went over Bermuda, but it wasn't technically landfall, so I took that to mean islands didn't count, but now I realize, maybe the center of the eye stayed just offshore. Anyone know? --Golbez 19:31, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
:I'm pretty sure that any land is considered a qualification for landfall.  In the track table in the report on Tropical Storm Odette (2003) , "landfall near Cabo Falso, Dominican Republic" is listed.  --Goobergunch 23:16, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landfall 

message: Right now we've got Jeanne, Karl, and tiny little Lisa. But the TPC/NHC is reporting that the cluster of thunderstorms over Florida (a remnant of Ivan) could generate a tropical something once in the Gulf, and there's another tropical wave moving off Africa that's expected to develop into something soon.
Too many storms! -- Cyrius|✎ 03:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crowded 

message: Haha. When was the last time a tropical storm or hurricane hit Iceland? And I love this map from the NHC: 
I get the feeling the software they use to construct these maps isn't quite up to a range that big and that far north. Note the jumble of state abbreviations and the apparently emptiness that lies north of Greenland. --Golbez 20:05, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)
:The emptiness is an artifact of Mercator projection, although the map shouldn't be extending far enough north to see it. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:44, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceland! 

message: Once this stablizes, don't you think it could make a featured article?
:Perhaps. I won't submit it though. And we should wait for the NHC's preliminary reports to solidify a bunch of numbers anyway, and that'll be into next year. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:31, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article? 

message: Did Bonnie and Charley really hit in the same day? Punta Gorda was hit 28 hours after Bonnie struck, but the Keys were hit earlier, but I don't know when; and does it count if Bonnie was still in the state? --Golbez 00:33, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
:The Keys were hit around 9 AM EDT on the 13th, according to my advisory analysis, about 22 hours after Bonnie made landfall. --Goobergunch 20:03, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two in same day 

message: For 74 hours and 45 minutes, there were no storms between August 6 and August 9. Again, for 72 hours, from August 21 to 24. Since then, there has been at least one storm in the Atlantic, from TD on up. Over a month. But now there is but one. It looks like Lisa will be moseying around for awhile, and even though formation isn't expected through Wednesday, Lisa looks to remain a tropical concern through Sunday. It almost feels quiet around here.
Incidentally, what what is an extratropical storm? It's still a storm with powerful winds - sometimes hurricane force - but it has lost certain tropical characteristics. Does this mean it's no longer cyclonic, it's just a really nasty storm? Or, if it's an "extratropical cyclone," then that implies it's still cyclonic ... so does that mean it's transformed from a heat engine into some other method? --Golbez 22:59, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)
:Tropical cyclones are a vertical heat engine, their energy is derived from convection and condensation. An extratropical cyclone derives energy from horizontal temperature gradients, and are often found at the northern end of a cold front. "Cyclonic" basically just means "spinny low pressure system". -- Cyrius|✎ 23:34, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Extratropical storms are roughly spiral shaped, whereas hurricanes are more or less circular. That's the big obvious observable difference for the layman. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silence... 

message: Is it really necessary for the saffir-simpson scale to be in every hurricane season's article?  It would make more sense to have the finalized track map and a quick summary of # of TDs, # of named storms, # of category 1s, 2s, etc. Tom 01:37, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
:It seemed like a good idea at the time.
:The problem with track maps is finding one that we can use that doesn't look terrible like NOAA's. I'd really like something along the lines of Wunderground.com's maps. I've got a friend who hacked together a simple mapping system, but I can't convince him to extend it to do hurricane plots. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I might create one after the season ends, provided I get a bit of free time from school and homework.  --Goobergunch 01:54, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always practice on one of the previous seasons. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:04, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saffir Simpson Scale 

message: I'm posting this here because I think this is where it's got the best chance of being seen by interested parties.
I've recently started working on parsing NOAA's HURDAT file format. This would allow for the inclusion of tables of hurricane information similar to those found on other sites.
Now, this would be incredibly overwhelming on the season articles, so the question is, do we want this sort of thing on individual storm articles? It could also be used to start work on seasonal statistics. The problem is that it does not encode information about non-US landfalls, which limits its usefulness for that purpose. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:55, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.. wouldn't an all-in-one map work for the season? And not sure how it would be useful for the individual articles... need time to think about it. --Golbez 17:14, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
I'm thinking of it like box scores for an article about a notable baseball game, or election results, or something like that. It's not enough to justify an article in and of itself, but it could add to the overall info. Getting actual maps is another thing entirely and will require a lot more work.
But...if we had maps, putting the numeric track info onto the image description page would make sense. The numerics describe the track, and the article could have "click for coordinate data" in the map's thumbnail description. Hmm... -- Cyrius|✎ 18:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: Oh, duh, I see. You said tables and mentioned wunderground, I immediately thought of the maps wunderground has. Sorry. Hm.. if you could beautify the tables, that might work, but if not, and if they don't offer better info than we already have in the articles, it sounds best just to link directly to NOAA. I'll have to see what you can do with it first. --Golbez 19:33, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
The tables offer different information than is in the articles. As far as maps go, they're a long-term goal of this project, but I'm not going to be able to have them any time soon. Raw tabular data could happen fairly soon though, which is why I brought it up. I'll try to get it to the point where I have an example, so it's more clear exactly what's being talked about. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:30, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: I don't know if the table itself should be in the articles; perhaps a link back to the raw data. There's a line between "encyclopedia" and "google". :)  However... perhaps using this data to pop it into EasyTimeline, and creating a timeline of it? It could actually work. If EasyTimeline worked in hours. But til then, we can work in days and see how it manages... --Golbez 07:51, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know that the NHC has track information easily available for all storms. I suppose we could link to Unisys's archive, but they're evil. Wunderground's is too advertising-laden to point at as a piece of reference material. -- Cyrius|✎ 11:23, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: LOL, "but they're evil." Yeah, but it's a great warning archive. Hm. As it is, this charge would be as large as the whole of the rest of the Hurricane Allen article, so that alone is a red mark, IMO, but then again, it might be useful in this form. I just don't know. Yes, we are an encyclopedia, but we're also an almanac, to collect bits of info like this... --Golbez 18:28, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
Looks like holding off is probably the thing to do. If I ever get a track plotter working, that'd be a good place to put the information. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:21, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane track information 

message: The NHC has released their preliminary reports for most of this year's storms. Time to go through and update stuff. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:44, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preliminary reports 

message: OTTO NOTWITHSTANDING...TODAY IS THE LAST OFFICIAL DAY OF THE 2004
 HURRICANE SEASON...AND THIS WILL BE THE LAST ISSUANCE OF THE
 TROPICAL WEATHER OUTLOOK FOR 2004.  THIS PRODUCT WILL RESUME ON 1
 JUNE 2005.
I think the NHC deserves a vacation. --Golbez 23:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
:I took the current tag off, in case anyone didn't notice. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's finally over. 

message: Perhaps I'm just dense, but I just now figured out why Hurricane Charley and Hurricane Ivan get vandalized so much.
*reason for Charley
*reason for Ivan
I'm a little freaked out by that. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism of Charley and Ivan 

message: Oi people, PLEASE fact check your stuff before you save it. I spent yesterday and this morning making changes to incorrect statements about some of these storms. Inez killed 1000, not 600, Carla was a 5, Anita was a 5, the third hurricane to hit Florida in 1964 was Isbell, not Isabella...It goes on and on and on. I'm not mad at anybody, I'm just asking you to please fact-check your stuff. 
P.S: I doubt anybody on this message board has that problem.
-E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast
:As always, death toll estimates vary. However, the 300 figure listed in the article was quite blatantly incorrect.
:Hurricane Carla was a Category 5 at sea, and the mention of Category 4 was correctly framed as a statement about its strength at landfall.
:The article on Hurricane Anita was simply incorrect.
:The article on the 1964 Atlantic hurricane season was apparently modified from "Isbell" to "Isabella"  and the faulty "correction" slipped past.
:Remember that there's easily over a hundred pages on these topics, and it's sometimes difficult for the small number of resident hurricane freaks to keep tabs on everything everyone does. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact checking 

message: Check it out. It's neat to learn about the people whom we know only through "FORECASTER FRANKLIN" or the rare witty comment in a storm discussion. --Golbez 18:55, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
* You mean this thread?  I agree, although it was rather annoying to have to kill Javascript to be able to read it.  It's also a good reminder that people we just see as signatures on the Internet really have lives and families in reality - it's not just a computer generating those forecasts and reports.  --Goobergunch|? 03:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meet the forecasters! 

message: Was just wondering if this article is mostly for American hurricanes or if hurricanes that affect Europe are welcome too? I'm thinking of for example Hurricane Gudrun that caused big problems in Sweden in January 2005.
: Be aware that the focus of these pages is on tropical cyclones. I believe in Europe the name "Hurricane" is applied to non-tropical systems, when the wind speeds are very high. Those would not fit in here. Awolf002 22:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. However, those quasi-tropical systems that the Mediterranean sometimes sees would fit if they'd ever agree on just what they are. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that they are not Atlantic hurricanes. Jdorje 04:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Are European hurricanes welcome?

message: I am trying to get an image for each storm, like 2005. I have started uploading ones that aren't on Wikipedia yet, and they are listed below. Alex, Charley, Frances, Gustav, Ivan, and Jeanne all have pictures as they all have articles.
*Tropical Storm Bonnie
*Hurricane Danielle
*Tropical Storm Earl
*Tropical Storm Hermine
*Hurricane Karl
*Hurricane Lisa
*Tropical Storm Matthew
*Subtropical Storm Nicole
*Tropical Storm Otto
Having a little trouble with a Hermine one without Gustav, and a lot of trouble with the other ones to find a good one. Would this do for an Otto pic? Hurricanehink 22:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, got Hermine, Karl, and Lisa. Does anyone have something of Matthew, Nicole, or Otto? That Otto pic is sort of weak, I found one of Nicole but it was during its extratropical stage, and Matthew is more or less non-existant on Google. Hurricanehink 13:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I got them! I forgot about NRL Monterey, so that is why Matthew, Nicole, and Otto all have the same stuff in the upper left corner. Hurricanehink 14:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Remind me again why we're overloading the hurricane pages with images? I liked it just the way it was. Now this page is becoming too much like the 2005AHS page. We don't need a picture for every fricking storm. I could be persuaded to one for every hurricane but not one for every named storm. This shouldn't be a picture gallery, it should be an informative page and all those images are distracting. We should add images to support the article, not to let the pics dominate over the text, which is what they're doing here. Having it like this almost ensures that this page will not become an FA. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, just thought it would help the article. I thought the picture and infobox would put the storms into perspective. Check your talk page. I have a compromise if you truly think the pictures bring more harm than good to the article. Hurricanehink 22:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the images. I think it's interesting, and have been having fun looking at previous seasons to actually see storms I hadn't seen pictures of before. (Gah, forgot to sign...) --Patteroast 03:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. And I ask, how does it hurt the article? It isn't a picture gallery. It merely helps the reader actually see the storm, rather than reading about it. Hurricanehink 03:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sometimes it's the Wikipedia cache or your own cache. Next time that happens, try holding Ctrl+Shift and then click the Refresh button, flushing out your cache for that page. -- RattleMan 01:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images for each storm 

message: I tried to upload a replacement image but I followed the link back to the image page and it still displayed the old pic. I don't know what the hell is going on but it's annoying the crap out of me. I had to upload the pic as a new file. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes it's the Wikipedia cache or your own cache. Next time that happens, try holding Ctrl+Shift and then click the Refresh button, flushing out your cache for that page. -- RattleMan 01:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nicole

message: Tropical Depression Ten is not included in the NHC best-track.  What gives? Jdorje 04:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but they don't include depressions. You'll have to go from the NHC Tropical Cyclone Report, which actually extends the storm's track back two days. Hurricanehink 04:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  TD10? 

message: This article (as of this revision) is extremely complete - perhaps too much so - but is lacking in certain areas.  Probably the biggest problem is that the summary section is too brief and is spaghetti (jumps from topic to topic).  It is basically just a disjointed collection of facts with little narrative thread.  For instance one paragraph talks about specific storms of the season that were unusual, the next paragraph talks about august storms, and the paragraph following talks about how Ivan was unusual.  It's almost like the author is trying to alternate paragraphs between talking about individual storms and talking about the season as a whole.  Another example is deaths - one paragraph leads off talking about how deadly the season was, then takes a right turn and gives the total number of storms in the season; the following paragraph returns to the original topic.  The summary section also is incomplete in that it does not give season totals or breakdowns of deaths or damages - this is mentioned in the intro, but the intro is not part of the summary; it needs to be repeated here and with more detail.  This section is also the only part of the article that isn't a list, and as such needs to be extended and given more structure (subsections).
The storms section is extremely complete, to the level of having too much detail.  The section on Alex is good, but going into more detail on less notable storms is not a good thing.  We don't need a whole page on Bonnie, nor do we need such great detail on exact locations (like the first paragraph of the Hermine section - in fact, I'd say giving milages to certain locations should NEVER be done to give the location of a storm, that's what maps are for) or specific times of day (like the first sentence of Gaston - simply knowing the day is enough for meteorological events; specific times should rarely be given in the synopsis).
Jdorje 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The storms section should be the most extensive part of the article, Jdorje, we've been through this. The season summery is just that: a summery of the most notable events of the season. It is the job of the storms section to go into detail. Repeat after me: THE STORMS SECTION IS THE MEAT OF THE ARTICLE. That should hold most of the article's substance. All other sections are designed to give just a brief synopsis of the season as a whole and any other notable facts and figures (a la Retirement and ACE). -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 04:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, the storms section contains way too much tedium and is poorly balanced.  You can see this by looking at the storms that get the most coverage: Ivan, Jeanne, and Bonnie.  The level of detail is too high and is in many cases inappropriate for the notability of the storm.  Additionally the references are given inconsistently: why do some storms use a combined list-text format while others use pure text, and how come there's not a single inline <ref> reference? Jdorje 05:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a little tedious in places, but it's still A-Class IMO. I really like the writing and the format. A LOT of research went into this and it shows. The lack of inline references is the main issue. I do not believe that the article is poorly balanced. Ivan and Jeanne were two of the most notable storms of the season. Bonnie can and should be trimmed. Selective trimming could be used in a few other sections as well. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 06:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  Remember that an A-class article is basically "finished".  I just don't think we're done with this one. Jdorje 06:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then why is 2005AHS listed as A-class? I deem it far from "finished". -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 00:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because somebody changed it, and unlike the 2004 article I didn't change it back.  However we did agree that A-class should be discussed on the wiki page, and neither 2004AHS, 2005AHS, or Ivan has technically been discussed (I might jump on some of those supposed FAs too, but I haven't really looked at them closely). Jdorje 00:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo 

message: Do We want boxes for each storm as they are in 2005? I will put them up if people vote to confirm(Decision will be made after 15 votes.):
Vote Yes - Sign Name Here:
#Weatherman90 01:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need. They add very little. All the person has to do is look in the paragraph to find out how long it lasted and what the peak was. The pressure adds little, IMO. Hurricanehink 16:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, when finding out information about storms to write the introductions for these articles, I have trouble telling the exact duration and maximum strength of each.  The paragraph often does not give a maximum windspeed or minimum pressure. — jdorje (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel the same as jdorje. It usually doesnt specifically tell the min pressure and max winds...If we don't put the boxes, I think we should make an effort to include that in each paragraph. Weatherman90 21:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need them for the depressions. Their sections are quite small and the facts listed in the table aren't as useful when we're talking about depressions. I also don't think that depressions should be emphasized as much as the other storms. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BOXES

message: I feel that the boxes used on List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms would be an asset to this article. They summarize information very well, and, unlike the 2005 season, the 2004 season does not have the problem of too many storms to easily summarize on a single page. Given that the spacing would not be greatly different from current with the track and image, I see no reason not to include them. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need. They add very little. All the person has to do is look in the paragraph to find out how long it lasted and what the peak was. The pressure adds little, IMO. Hurricanehink 16:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, when finding out information about storms to write the introductions for these articles, I have trouble telling the exact duration and maximum strength of each.  The paragraph often does not give a maximum windspeed or minimum pressure. — jdorje (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel the same as jdorje. It usually doesnt specifically tell the min pressure and max winds...If we don't put the boxes, I think we should make an effort to include that in each paragraph. Weatherman90 21:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need them for the depressions. Their sections are quite small and the facts listed in the table aren't as useful when we're talking about depressions. I also don't think that depressions should be emphasized as much as the other storms. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: I have decided to add them, on the basis of the votes(11 to 3 to 1), and other observations (I would have extended the fifteen votes if the opposition stood a fair chance). They seem to make the article look more professional from my viewpoint. Just pictures alone seem like they are just floating there, out of place or something. Also, I discovered that not a single storm on the main page gives information on the minimum pressure, and just one storm (Karl) gives the maximum wind speed. The boxes arent just for the non-hurricane experts that don't want to read it, they are for anyone who needs quick access to information on a particular storm, even I find the boxes handy. If they really start to tick some people off, remove them. Weatherman90 02:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decision

message: Anyone got a track image for it? Weatherman90 02:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's not, the storm went about two feet. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want one, Jdorje made one but never posted it. Its path is located here. Hurricanehink 02:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it doesn't show up for me. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 13:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You sure? It works for me. Hurricanehink 21:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: TD 10

message: I changed the wording of the intro slightly: "The most notable storms for the season were the four major hurricanes that made landfall".  This is basically the exact same thing the 2005 season says (except in 2005 they all made landfall as major hurricanes; in 2004 Frances weakened slightly but was still a major hurricane that made landfall).  I wonder how many seasons could say this exact same thing? — jdorje (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fact police: Frances weakened to a 100-mph Category 2 at landfall. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why it is a major hurricane that made landfall, not a hurricane that made landfall as a major hurricane.  Perhaps the wording can be improved. — jdorje (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, yeah. If you word it like that, people are bound to get confused. If we're going to even mention it, it will have to be rephrased. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 01:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: I think this article can have a new run at FAC, if we just clean up the Predictions section and add a few links overall. What does everyone think? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see better storm pics, perhaps someone should go through the Earth Observatory archive and upload the choice pics to commons? It might be better to hold off for now on the FAC nomination for a little while in any case. I think we should reformat the non-storm sections to be more like 2005's (surely the impact of the season on Florida is worthy of mention here?). Theres also the chance of the all-article approach coming here, if that occured the storms section could end up being reduced a bit in line with summary style.--Nilfanion 11:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This could eventually become a FA, though I was personally thinking Mitch as the next one. We should talk about the actual next FAC over at the assessments page. For the actual page, better pics is a good idea. The all-article approach could work. There's surely enough information on Bonnie and Matthew, leaving only seven other storms to do. That could work, if necessary. Hurricanehink 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting a storm article to FA is a lot easier, just because it's easier to have a narrative thread and we have more practice at it. — jdorje (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no reason why to split the page up into a list of storms or an all-article approach, like with 2005 AHS, and inflamate things further. It just needs more copyediting, and a bit of reformatting as Nilfanion said above. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  next FAC? 

message: I reverted Mark J's changes and reverted the values per the cited source. I'm not so sure Nicole should be omitted but did not intentionally add it back, I copy and pasted the table as it was before Mark J's edit. TimL 20:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that Mark J's changes were incorrect.  You say that his source (by User:Jdorje) is incorrect, based on the cited source (NCDC), but my calculations from data provided by these people agree with Jdorje.  I can't account for the discrepancies.  I've been in contact with the author of the NCDC source, and discuss here why Nicole should be omitted. --Spiffy sperry 14:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I reverted my revert. Using the NHC's TCR on Ivan i got an ACE of 70.38. So it appears the cited source is.... 'bad'. (I was not able to find the 2004 hurdata data.) TimL 20:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a large text file (not user-friendly), apparently not directly linked from their website, but here it is. --Spiffy sperry 20:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ACE Table 

message: Are yopu sure thats nicole? It looks too close to America to be nicole. And wad Nicole ever that organized?
:Yep, at least according to the link. Hurricanehink 02:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. Sorry forgot to sign last time.  →Cyclone1→ 02:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it isn't that close to America, its just there is a large cloud band to the north of it. If you look closely you can see it is south of Labrador and east of New York, putting it where the track map says it should be.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicole? really?