Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2005 Atlantic hurricane season is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 1, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 3, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 27, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
July 18, 2020Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article
Listen to this page (53 minutes)
Spoken Wikipedia icon
This audio file was created from a revision of this page dated 12 June 2008 (2008-06-12), and does not reflect subsequent edits.
(Audio help · More spoken articles)

Another Error[edit]

I haven't read through all that much, but in talks with a professor at Dalhousie University, it seems we are both under the impression that the number of Major Storms this year was 8. Now, I have done some research, and have found in the NHC's archives that they clearly state that Hurricane Beta is the 8th MAJOR STORM of the season.

The link can be found at

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/dis/al262005.discus.014.shtml?

and I would appreciate for someone to fix it.Sod Aries 21:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've counted the storms and there seems to be only seven. See List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We had this discussion last season too. Major hurricanes: Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Maria, Rita, Wilma, Beta = 7. NSLE 15:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just an error made by the NHC.HurricaneCraze32 21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beta's TCR: "A peak intensity of 100 kt was reached around 0600 UTC 30 October, which resulted in the seventh, and last, major hurricane of the 2005 Atlantic season." -- RattleMan 21:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Of the other storms, the closest any of them was to major status was Irene, and that was a mid-range Category 2. CrazyC83 23:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Among these Category 5 storms were Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, the former the costliest and the latter the most intense Atlantic hurricane on record." Could someone fix this sentence?65.9.15.183 (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with it? -- RattleMan 22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Among these Category 5 storm were Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma, Katrina the costliest, and Wilma, was the most intense." Syntheticalconnections (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly shattering?[edit]

I don't think it makes sense to say `repeatedly shattering previous records' as it does in the opening sentence. Surely you only shatter a single record once and you shatter numerous records, but you can't repeatedly shatter records in a single season? The only way I can see it making sense is if the record was broken by the Atlantic basin during the season, then it was broken again by another basin during the same season, and then broken again by the Atlantic basin.

I have to disagree. To me the statement 'Repeatedly shattering' conveys the idea that a single record was broken multiple times. For instance, according to Wikipedia, the previous record for number of tropical storms was the 1933 hurricane season with 21 storms. The 2005 season broke this record with the formation of alpha and then broke the record again with the formation of beta, hence the record was broken repeatedly Tmckeage (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is not the case I would recommend changing the sentence to read `shattering numerous records' to indicate several records were broken as indicated in the #Records_and_notable_events section.

Furthermore, the use of `previous' is superfluous as you can't shatter anything other than a previous record. It doesn't make sense to shatter future records. schroding79 (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor, but I agree, should be changed to "Repeatedly shattering multiple records" Tmckeage (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed not, one among many English prose boners - these hurricane articles may be rich in facts, but they are terribly written (really, average high-school level prose) and over-linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antimatter33 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Bevo74 (talk) 07:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1950 loses majors record in reanalysis[edit]

With the recent 1950 reanalysis lowering the number of majors from eight to six, does 2005 gain a new record for number of majors? -- 140.202.10.134 (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear so! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Along with 1961 LlayReactorUltra (talk) 07:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Along with 1961 LlayReactorUltra (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Along with 1961 LlayReactorUltra (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every hurricane[edit]

WP:NOTFORUM ―Mandruss ☎ 09:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this season so destructive? Renacares (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vince[edit]

Vince is the first V named storm. It formed in cold waters near Africa. Acyclonxe (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming[edit]

There should probably be a reference to global warming regarding the 2005 hurricane season. 2600:1702:2340:9470:608D:7F16:6C6:C602 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There is no evidence that global warming contributed to the season's activity BananaIAm (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statistic Table: Damage Sort Problems[edit]

There are issues when sorting the Season Statistics table by the Damage column:

  • Numbers in Millions and Billions are intermixed (e.g.: TS Delta and Cat1 Cindy are ranked higher than Cat5 Katrina).
  • "Minimal" is intermixed with "None" and "Unknown" (not even alphabetical ordering).

I'm not sure how you'd fix it — whether with a change to the sorting engine or addition of a hidden sort key —
but fixing this problem is essential to the utility of the sorting feature … and will have to be done site-wide.

-- ໃː^Þ) 47.13.201.60 (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent FA review needed[edit]

In my opinion, the article no longer meets FA criteria. We need a review urgently, considering more than 13 years have elapsed since the FA upgrade. -- JavaHurricane 12:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the 2005 Azores subtropical storm article?[edit]

Jason Rees (talk · contribs) believes the subtropical storm (featured) article should be merged. I'm ambivalent, as I've been known for my mergist tendencies in the past, and I don't want to rock the boat too much. I said back in 2006 "I don't see the harm in keeping it", but please remember that we don't dictate Wikipedia policy on some articles' relationship to each other (yes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). That said, the storm lasted about 36 hours, wasn't classified operationally, and doesn't have much outside of info from the NHC (aside from a neat article saying that Wilma should've been Alpha). Still, much of the records and naming would be more appropriate in the season article and not in the storm article. Any thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from @CooperScience:'s original proposal on the FARC - I do indeed believe that the subtropical storm article should be merged into the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season for a variety of reasons. For starters, I feel that the article is bloated and goes into unnecessary details like how it would have been named Tammy and Wilma would have been named Alpha etc. I also see a couple of records which are not directly cited and are made up based on an old version of HURDAT and NHCs website which are trivial IMO and makes you wonder if they are still valid after the reanalysis has shot passed 1933. I also suspect that the MH could be condensed quite easily and would love to know how references 4, 5 and 6 back up what I am forced to believe is cited to them when they are computer-generated and now dead. I also noticed that the only external source is a blog article from the Palm Beach which is a dead link, which is not really viewable to me (Thanks EU!). I also noticed that it only impacted one or two islands within the Azores and didn't cause any deaths or damages per say. As a result, I wonder why we really need to keep it when it can be easily contained within the season article and would, in theory, cause us less work when we renominate 2005 AHS for FT.Jason Rees (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We already had a merge discussion on it which was open for over a week with no comments so I think in itself says few wanted to merge it. I don't know how I would feel about having another one immediately after an unsuccessful one. NoahTalk 17:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that merger discussion was rather hidden, closed prematurely (There isn't a limit on how long merger discussions should run for) and that enough time has elapsed in the 10 days since you closed the previous merger discussion.Jason Rees (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if it's worth the trouble, even if JR is correct based on past precedent in regards to a time limit on merge discussions. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it to be worth the trouble as i dont think this article is good enough to pass a GAR yet alone FAR, as it doesnt give enough coverage to all systems.Jason Rees (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, who's been working on keeping this up to par? I wasn't aware that the individual sections were in this bad shape until I actually looked at them :P My default philosophy is it should be up to them. Are they willing to write a section that'd be adequate out on their own or not? YE Pacific Hurricane 23:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As can be seen above @Hurricanehink: is more than aware of my views and I have helped with it a bit. I also feel that it is up to all of us to help get the season article up to scratch, which possibly involves mergers of Irene, Maria, Nate, Unnamed, Delta, Epilson and Zeta.Jason Rees (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of that effort would be better spent trying to get Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, and Wilma to FA. That would be immensely more useful than going through merging a series of articles. Sure, it's "up to all of us", but we're the volunteer editors to a free encyclopedia, and there are many other articles that aren't quite up to snuff. I agreed with the effort to merge the statistics, list, Franklin, and Philippe. As to Yellow Evan (talk · contribs)'s comment I wasn't aware that the individual sections were in this bad shape until I actually looked at them - I wonder what is so bad about them. I had the aim to make the sections as short as possible, given how active the season was, and how many sub-articles there already are. We don't need to have two paragraphs for every single storm in every basin, not when we already have perfectly good articles for Irene, Maria, Nate, Unnamed, Epsilon, and Zeta. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: While I agree that not every system needs two paragraphs in-season articles, however, not every system requires an article and I would argue that Irene, Maria, Nate, Unnamed, Epsilon and Zeta might be systems that would be better covered in the season article than separately. Within these systems, I see that the meteorological histories are bloated or do not tell the story of the system adequately and would likely fail a Good Article Reassessment as I would argue that they fail criteria 2 & 3 which says that they do not contain original research and should not go into unnecessary details such as that it was named 9 hours after a what a hurricane forecaster thinks of the situation or that it was named as a hurricane 9 hours after it became a hurricane in BT etc.Jason Rees (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking into this more, I'd expect more than two short paragraph from Stan for starters and more than two decent sized paragraphs from Katrina of all systems. Epsilon and Zeta (the first two storms I looked at when I gave this a look yesterday) seemed to read like they were average fish storms rather than the two most persistent storms. As for page length as a whole, the 2002 Pacific typhoon season is of similar length but its sections are more detailed. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added Epsilon's December record, more about Zeta's origins that Jason had started, and Zeta's impact on the boating race. As for Stan, it didn't last that long, so the two paragraphs adequately summarize the storm (which has its own article). As for Katrina, how much more do you include? What's appropriate for this section? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two sections for Stan is probably fine but it needs more MH - which can be said for a lot of the sections and articles, as they dont tell the story of the system properly IMO! I am happy to help expand the article when time allows though I stand by my assertions above that Irene, Maria, Nate, Unnamed, Epsilon and Zeta would possibly be better contianed in the season article.Jason Rees (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think rather than proposing the aforementioned articles get merged, I think there should be a more concerted effort to improve/expand the older articles, especially the ones that affected land in such a busy season. Epsilon and Zeta are the exceptions - they didn't affect land - but their unusual meteorological history and record-nature requires more explanation than should be in the article for the busiest Atlantic season on record. Keeping in mind the season's record activity, and the many storm articles that exist, I don't think this article should be any longer than it needs to be. I think in the more active seasons, the bar to split off an independent article is a bit lower than in an average (or quiet) season. Not that there is any official bar for what can or can't be an article. If we're already covering every storm in every season article for every basin, then the more active seasons should have more storms that are split off into articles, even if it might only be a few extra paragraphs. I'd argue the same for any active season in any basin, which is why we have an article for Hurricane Tina (1992) and arguably Typhoon Meranti (2004). The additional articles improves the ease of navigation for the reader, IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the bar for more active seasons is a little bit lower than less active seasons, it should not be at the expense of the season articles telling the story of the system in a summarized version which is what I feel this season lacks. As a result, there maybe an exception for Epilson (need to do a bit more digging) but not for Zeta imo, as I feel that Zeta is better handled within the season article, even if it is the latest TC on record. Yes we don't want the article to be bigger than it needs to be, however, each section should tell the story and be about two paragraphs imo before it gets split off. Obviously the more significant ones like Katrina and Wilma should be three or four paragraphs.Jason Rees (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, which is a GA, all of the sections are fully fleshed out and it is truly a good article. I simply have to agree that more needs to be included in this article due to seasons with fewer storms having significantly larger articles. The 2017 season as an example has fewer storms and a significantly larger amount of content. That article is in no way compromising its storm articles by having that much content there. Some of the storms that have articles for 2005 currently are not really that worthy, with Zeta being a clear example. It can easily be included in the main article. It was the latest on record, but that can easily be summed up in the storm section. I know there is a stigma out there that 2005 needs every storm with an article, but I don't feel that to be true. We need to reevaluate every article and decide what we need to ax. The quality of this article is crucial to the project. We need to make sure we get it right. NoahTalk 00:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to what Hink wrote on Sunday, I don't like how there's not a single sentence in Katrina's section about the botched US response and the criticism they received. In general, this reminds me of Hurricane Andrew prior to FAC in that sense that many of the sections read as if it was an average system. There's nothing in the article (outside of mentioning Katrina was the second costliest system on record in the seasonal summary of all places) that resemble statements like "X was the worst storm to hit Y since Z". There's also not as much "X homes were damaged and Y were destroyed, leaving Z homeless." type of stuff as I would like either. I'm not as concerned about "telling the story" (because I think the article does a decent job of that as I am about not covering impact adequately tbh. Also Noah, the 2017 AHS is 150kb and that includes just 18 systems, so a 2005 equivalent would be approaching 200kb. That's insane. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Evan: I do not believe that the season does an adequate job of telling the story of the season and nor am I worried if the article approaches 200 KB as it should be that way since we are basically dealing with a Pacific typhoon season.Jason Rees (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I don't really see any reason to be more substantive than simply say I can't agree that 200kb's is not a problem in accordance with WP:SPLIT. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Back in articles like Tropical Storm Lee (2005) the users for merging them called them "fishspinners". Well, I've decided to bring back the term: for this un-necessary article!! Yes, I know it's a featured article, but remember Tropical Depression Ten? Well, this article should follow Ten (and Franklin, Harvey, Lee, Phillipe, 19, and 22). 🐔Chicdat (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Tropical Storm Zeta?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was not merged. Titoxd(?!?) 23:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few users have suggested merging the article for Tropical Storm Zeta, and this possible merger is affecting the featured article status for this article. Zeta is notable and unusual in existing from December into January, but that fact is already covered in the 2005 AHS article, as well as List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes. It's also the latest forming Atlantic storm. On the other hand, merging the article might create undue weight toward the storm, given how long the 2005 season article already is. So I just wanted to open the discussion, in tandem with the other discussion above. I personally oppose such a merger, for the record. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for its notability as a cross-year tropical cyclone. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So are all tropical cyclones that happen to cross the year notable for that fact as it happens quite a lot outside of the Atlantic.Jason Rees (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose for the notability of the storm due to being the latest-forming cross-year cyclone, as well as the cyclone to have the name furthest down the list that's been used to date in the Atlantic.
~ AC5230 (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isnt the latest forming tropical cyclone in any basin as that honour goes to Tropical Cyclone Raquel which was named at 18z on June 30, which is the 2015-16 year local time and the 2014-15 season per UTC. I also feel that the fact that it is "the cyclone to have the name furthest down the list that's been used to date in the Atlantic" is trivial.Jason Rees (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I don't see the point. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There is very little reason to keep in the article and I feel that it is bloated and thus do not see how merging it would give the section undue weight or make this article a lot longer then it should be especially when it should be the size of an average Pacific Typhoon Season that covers all the systems. I also do not believe that tropical cyclones are automatically notable just because they happen to cross the calendar years and that the page size does not worry me and should not be used as a reason to give non-notable systems articles or justify why a section should be smaller then it should be in this article.Jason Rees (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to merge Zeta, then try using good article reassessment to see if it's got enough info. Chicdat (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"2005 atlantic hurricane seasno" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2005 atlantic hurricane seasno. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#2005 atlantic hurricane seasno until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 01:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

condense[edit]

The article is extremely long. Anyone, feel free to help condense. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about 70 kb worth of prose. That's an appropriate length for the busiest Atlantic hurricane season on record. Are there any parts that you feel go into too much detail? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oil refiners. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Katrina was the costliest hurricane on record, I thought it was important to discuss some of the different aspects of its damage. Katrina has three paragraphs, which is a fair amount for such a significant hurricane. Are there any other parts that are excessively long? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Info Box Error: With Eta-2020, the tie with 2005 is broken[edit]

Eta-2020 (just to future-proof the name) exceeds Zeta-2005, making 2020 the storm season with the most storms. Eta was a major hurricane (Cat 4) when it hit Nicaragua, for the major hurricane count. It's still going and projected to hit the US, so things may change further.

In any case, the Info Box needs correcting, and I don't know how. I suggest it be changed to, "Exceeded by 2020" or nothing since I presume every season doesn't have a list of seasons that exceed it.

I will leave edits to those (1) more capable, (2) more knowledgeable about the standards of these articles, and (3) those with a stake in the 2005 article. Be bold (but not rash).

Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laguna CA (talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laguna CA: The 2005 season has not been superseeded by the 2020 season because there was a unnamed system in 2005, which is considered to be a named storm by NHC as it reached tropical/subtropical storm strength.Jason Rees (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Various grammatical conflicts with 2020's status as the new record holder[edit]

I've just corrected the grammar in the opening lines of the article to better reflect this season's changed status as of this week; however it still feels "clunky" for want of a better word (I'm personally not a fan of having too many commas in one opening sentence, although others may not agree) - however, it's difficult to figure out how to re-word it without losing the gravity of the overall lead section. While 2020 is now the most active season on record, 2005's early activity and significantly higher number of urban landfalls by its major hurricanes while they still maintained major status does make it a stand-out season in its own right.

In my view rewriting the lead section to reflect 2020's new records shouldn't detract from the tone of the current article, which makes it clear that 2005 was particularly devastating in terms of its human impact simply because - thankfully unlike 2020 - more storms made landfall while they were still major hurricanes, while so far in 2020, several of our hurricanes have attained peak intensity further from land and levelled off before threatening peoples' lives. The number of fatalities for instance is thankfully lower so far in 2020 by a factor of ten. For that reason, I certainly wouldn't advocate removing the gravitas of this article by simply stating that it is "the second most active season in history" and not maintaining the current tone which articulates how devastating the 2005 was in its own right.

Any ideas about how we might do this? Does it even need to be done, or am I allowing my personal linguistic preferences to make the run-on sentences seem clunkier than they are to other readers?

78.16.162.16 (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Atlantic hurricane season first sentence[edit]

On the first sentence, I modified and changed the text link for the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season. I added "was at the time" between "The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season" and "the most active Atlantic hurricane season". I also replaced "for fifteen years" with "until its record was surpassed". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seventyfiveyears: Why refer to it in the past tense instead of just referring to the article in the preset? I.e.:

The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is the second most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history, surpassed only by the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season. At the time, the season shattered numerous records ...

Bulhis899 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This does mean that 2005 is the second most active hurricane season. However, the revision two pages before mine shows the similar version, see [1] ([2] for mobile devices). Seventyfiveyears (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Storm names[edit]

Alpha (Alfa) and Delta were used in 1972 for two subtropical storms, and Alfa was used the following year again. Would it be okay to add a section that Alpha and Delta were used in previous naming lists? CycloneEditor (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Zeta (2005) into 2005 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

CONSENSUS AGAINST
Quite clear that consensus will not be in favor of a merge so it's closed as such. Noah, AATalk 12:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Fails on the grounds of notability due to lack of impact. I agree with what Jason Rees said back in 2020 regarding the cross-year thing being non-notable as well since it happens all the time elsewhere. Noah, AATalk 14:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose per WP:NEVENT. As stated before in 2020, the storm is notable for the fact of its meteorological history, in that Atlantic cross-year events or January storms (especially as long lived as Zeta) are exceptionally rare and have only happened once or twice (the last time being in the 1950s!). The argument of “happens all the time elsewhere” does not hold as the Atlantic basin is much different then the WPac. This is like saying we should merge Hurricane Pali (2016) or Hurricane Alex (2016) because it was out to sea where the fact is that that was an unprecedented storm for the Atlantic/EPac in the fact that January hurricanes have happened only once or twice in each basin versus the WPac or SHem where things are far different from either basin. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those two storms you brought up as examples actually had land impact and killed people which makes them notable for a different reason. The notability of this storm is being vastly overstated and the article is bloated to boot (brought up in the prior merge discussion). We have had storms form in June and July in SWIO (probably other basins too) and they aren't getting articles just for that. Crossing an arbitrary time point defined by man doesn't make something notable. Noah, AATalk 15:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These storms are storms so leave them alone 23.126.178.159 (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - so the 2005 AHS article currently has over 11,000 words of prose. That's very much on the long side, and reflective of it being such a hyperactive season. I think that merging Zeta (that is, actually merging any relevant content that's not in the season article) wouldn't be appropriate, since there is enough unique content. The quotes from the NHC show that the storm was unusual. Even the operational downgrade to tropical depression is worth mentioning, and I don't think it qualifies as trivia. I am usually in favor of merging articles if it makes the season article better, but I don't think that's the case in this instance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This article was nominated for merge in 2020, and that failed after thorough discussion. Also, while I get the New Year argument as being created artificially, it is still very rare for a cyclone to exist in this type of year. Also, it would be way too much content to merge especially considering the fact that 2005 was one of the most active hurricane seasons on record, and one of the most destructive. 108.58.37.250 (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1218255331"