Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 26

message: There's no need to do it. If each new storm article overlaps fully with the list, we don't need a storm article. If they don't overlap, then a good summary of the storm should remain on the list. After all, no one ever complained about Hurricane Katrina having two paragraphs on the page when it clearly had a (then 250 kb) article that certainly covered the topic. —Cuiviénen,  Thursday, 6 April 2006 @ 01:11 (UTC)
:I think its sensible to consider this, not rule it out of hand. The content which has been removed from the main season article has been spread into a mess of other articles. The lists page could be heavily trimmed in terms of storm descriptions (especially the minors if they get articles), and perhaps some lists as in the 1997 Pacific hurricane season could be added. Didn't the statistics page originally come about as a desire to remove the ACE table from the season page? That table is better suited to the lists page, which is in keeping with older seasons. The statistics page and the records one should be trimmed and merged ultimately.
:The way I see it you look at the season article for a run-down of the season, storm articles for details of that specific storm, the lists for a quick comparison of the storms and the records/statistics for the all the superlatives -- Nilfanion 23:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this? The list article will remain unchanged. The main article's season summary will only mention a few storms, including Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, Vince, Wilma, Alpha, and Zeta. This way, it can be a lot shorter, yet not duplicate information three times for storms like Lee. Is that fair? Hurricanehink 15:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing the List page

message: I don't think there is any dispute here that Lee is the least worthy of the storms (exclude the depressions for now). I have reinstated Lee's article and have added things to it as suggested in this discussion. If you don't approve of this article please hold off for now and those who want individual storm articles make this, the least notable one of the season an article worthy of keeping. -- Nilfanion 10:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great article for a "least-notable" storm! CrazyC83 15:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh heh, didn't you write it CrazyC83?  Anyway, it is a good article though some parts seem a little forced. — jdorje (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added every fact I could think of to the article, as per hurricanehink's comments, it probably needs a bit more work on still to be the 'best possible'. I chose the section headings in the forecast section so that they could provide a basis for the additional stuff on the other minor storms (the ones which had landfalls....). -- Nilfanion 16:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice! Hurricanehink 16:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The road goes way too far down if we include pressure and windspeed graphs, and I think we've gone down far enough to prove our point. Same with best track table. We should work all of the information from those tables into the article, not make people intrepret them by themselves. Hurricanehink 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Those articles are all still in existence; just look in the revision history of Tropical Storm Arlene (2005) for instance. It's probably not worth making the other articles just yet, only pro-article people have commented so far on the new Lee one and I think its wise to hold off until those editors with differing opinions can review it. I did this article as a test to show what could be done, it's up to the whole community now to decide to move forwards or not. -- Nilfanion 19:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Up to the community?  Not necessarily.  Anyone who is bold enough and can make a quality article/stub could take the initiative at any time. --tomf688{talk} 19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nilfanion,the link doesnt work.HurricaneCraze32 19:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the article is currently a redirect this link will get you to it -- Nilfanion 19:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this simple criterium of having an article for every storm should only apply to 2005 and future seasons. Article criteria will remain for past seasons (which basically means a well-written article with decent information not in the season article). Hurricanehink 21:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is I could go make an article on Hurricane Ivan from 1998 and it could be comparable in quality to Lee (same information on the web is available for all seasons from 98 on). Having an article on an old storm discourages development of the season article and I think whatever policy is adopted to older seasons should discourage storm articles until the season article is a very high quality. This seems straightforward enough to me, and if editors are inclined to develop them it means the older seasons could all become comparable to 2005. -- Nilfanion 22:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok. That makes sense. This should be the policy unless one feels they can start an article from scratch and add a ton of new information that would be too much for the seasonal article. Hurricanehink 22:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. If the season article needs improvement, the new information should be added to the season article first, and if there can be more information than necessary for a decent season article, feel free to make a storm article. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Jdorje, is the best-track table in the abbreviated TCRs enough for you to do their track maps? If they get articles I think is useful for them to exist -- Nilfanion 10:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can make track maps from the TCRs but it is basically a hack job.  I was intending to replace them with the tracks from the full dataset, once that dataset is released for 2006 (hopefully many other storms will need updating too).  I am against having track maps (or articles, or subsections in the storms list for that matter) for depressions because they are not considered for analysis by the HRD (meaning they don't get included in the best track dataset, meaning they are never re-analysed, and meaning they screw up the section numbers); however, I may be in the minority here (?). — jdorje (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice try Nilfanion on the TD article, but, seeing that, TD's aren't needed. There can be a little section in the season history for depressions, but now I see there's no need for depressions. Hurricanehink 11:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I think trying to make an article on a TD is a bridge too far. The NHCs attitude should guide us here; they bother with full TCRs for all Tropical Storms, even ones as menial as Lee, but only give abbreviated ones for the depressions. -- Nilfanion 11:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Next question. Should we add the links to the season article yet? Hurricanehink 03:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOOOOOOO! Stop! This is ridiculous! I thought we had put all this nonsence aside! We don't need an article for every freaking thunderstorm that develops in the Atlantic! I'm tired of saying it. I don't care if it's better written than a Clive Cussler novel, we don't need it. Articles should only be created if the amount of useful information exceeds reasonable length (about two and a half to three paragraphs). If it's within those boundaries, it should stay in the main article and all new info should be added to the main article. What good is it to have all the useful information seperate from the main article with just a pitiful little summery in the main article itself? Am I the only person who sees how bad of an idea that is? This is one of those ridiculous propositions that just drive me crazy. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope, like I said above, I agree. If the season article needs improvement, the new information should be added to the season article first, and if there can be more information than necessary for a decent season article, feel free to make a storm article. So, a requirement for a storm article would be for the season article to be bursting at the seams. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Titoxd, but I think 2005 is at that point, why else do we have this article, the lists and the statistics pages and we can certainly add more in (the forecast in Lee is new - if badly in need of a copyedit. If we do what Eric would like and merge the lists back into the main article, I think that counts as bursting at the seams. 22:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Just the storms page, the records page and timeline I don't have a problem with. The splitting, seperating and the duplicating of information between these two articles is ridiculous. It should all be in one place. But aparently a 70 kb page scares some people. I think the way 2005 AHS is being handled overall just sucks. Crappy menial sub-articles, splitting of vital information into multiple places and then duplicating them again when we finally realize how badly we need the info we split off. I have been angered and frustrated by what many people have done on this page so many times that I'm nearing the point of complete capitulation. If that happens, I will only work on articles from 2004 back largely just to improve them and make sure that all the things that happened to this article don't happen to the other articles. I've just had way too much agrivation on this article. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 21:51, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of it is necessary. I, for one, like the season page the way it is. How's this to eliminate duplicated information (I also said it above). The season summary on the main article page would only include the main storms, so it wouldn't duplicate the information as much. The list page would be unchanged. Then, every storm could get an article without much duplicated information. The list page could just be a summary of the storm, while the article can go fully into depth (yes, there's more than a storm history for Lee). Hurricanehink 15:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tropical Storm Lee (2005)]]

message: Have added Arlene, Bret, Franklin and Gert. No point adding any more just yet, might as well wait for the poll to run its course. I think some more work is needed on them, like copyediting for a start. Also, I have been using ACE as a way of showing post-season changes but I am a little concerned that there are sourcing problems with that (I have been using diffs on the statistics page to get the pre-TCR numbers).--Nilfanion 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hink and I are working on TD14 (1987).HurricaneCraze32 12:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is certainly getting there but shouldn't you be working that article up in your user space, not at a temporary article in mainspace? Nilfanion 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was gonna not publish it, but hink seems to have changed my mind.HurricaneCraze32 12:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, I don't you should publish it yet. It still needs work and more info. Hurricanehink 13:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good grammar error-and you get mad at me for it.I wrote the changes up on my talk.HurricaneCraze32 13:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Whoops! That's why I'm not supposed to edit Wikipedia when I first wake up. Now that I agree with, to an extent. It might be hard for non-Atlantic (like the southern hemisphere), but Atlantic is certainly doable back to at least 1995 for FA class. Looking back at it, 2002 is possible, but no earlier, and this time I mean it! :) A lot of earlier seasons have simply too many fish storms. However, we should focus on 2005 first. We can worry about doing 2004 when we're done to see how possible it is. Hurricanehink 20:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More articles

message: Tropical Depressions dont need all the articles they need. Lets put 1 article on 10 & 19. 22 i think deserves a spot in Tammy's if this goes through.HurricaneCraze32 15:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 10 should be with Katrina and 19 and 22 with Tammy, because 22 may have formed from 19. Icelandic Hurricane #12 16:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But 22 had nothing to do with Tammy directly (and therefore 19 had about as much to do with Tammy as Katrina), and everything to do with the NE flooding. I say it depends what happens to the list article if all named storms have articles. If the list article stays as is they aren't needed - there is nothing more to say beyond the list. If the list is trimmed perhaps an article called 'Tropical Depressions of the 2005 AHS' would work. Nilfanion 16:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I say to put all of the depressions into a single page, if they are given a page at all.  Technically, there are seperate systems from any other tropical cyclone, and should be treated as such.  My preference is to mention them on the main storm season pages, but not to cover them otherwise.  However, any rule for tropical depression coverage must be simple and consistently implemented. --EMS | Talk 04:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, don't make articles about depressions; how much can be written about them? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: My advice is to wait until a week has passed (4/13 or 4/14).  That is a bit longer then the 5 days for WP:AfD discussions, and so should be long enough to be considered "fair" by everyone.  Beyond that, a "rough consensus" (for which I believe that current rule is at least 2:1 support) needs to have been established.  (At this time, I does exist and seems unlikely to dissipate, but I advise waiting a few extra days anyway for the sake of fairness.) --EMS | Talk 04:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It could be Unnamed Tropical Storm (2005). However, that does put a big dent in the whole idea. We could treat it as a tropical depression; no article yet it gets mentions everywhere. Hurricanehink 15:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely you mean Unnamed Subtropical Storm (2005) Hink? I think it is consistent to treat the unnamed storm like a TD and not give it an article, primarily because of the information shortage. With all the named storms we have a full TCR and the advisories to get info from (and possibly many other sources) however with the TDs we do not have the full TCRs and with the 'new' storm we do not have any advisories. Nilfanion 18:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yea. OK, so if the every storm idea is implemented (which it looks like it is), this will be treated as a tropical depression- no article. Hurricanehink 15:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Listen

message: Does anyone about the thing near the map of where Harvey dissipates after going extratropical. In the area, it shows a brief TD. Is this an error or what? Pikachu9000 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Harvey as a low, not a TD. In the TCR it says "the cyclone lost all frontal characteristics late on 12 August... " That means it was briefly NOT extratropical for that period presumably. Nilfanion 23:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then. Pikachu9000 23:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harvey 

message: So with the Unnamed Storm, would that changed the status of early formation of the latter storms as well? tdwuhs  
:Great Thought!! but actually Nope it dosn't because the 19th Storm of the 1995 Season and 1933 Season was much later.  Stan of course missed it's record by a day to the 1933 Season, but the Unnamed Subtropical Storm of 2005 is a record for "Earliest Formation of a season's 19th Storm" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FreeSledder (talk • contribs).
That's what I was saying.  Wouldn't the Unnamed Storm efect the early formation of storms after it, not before it. Like:
:19	Unnamed		-21 Days
:20	Tammy		-21 Days
:21	Vince		-37 Days
tdwuhs
::Yes. — jdorje (talk) 07:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also means Wilma loses 1 record.HurricaneCraze32 15:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Formation