Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Two interesting summaries of the season

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.122.9.83 (talk • contribs) 05:21, December 2, 2005 (UTC).


Hurricane Emily's Catgeory

(HurricaneCraze32)

I know there's been trouble with some reading showing Emily being a Category 5 hurricane not just a Cat.4. What i've always done is make it a 4/5 Hurricane so make it half orange and half red. I'll try it out in the sandbox to see if i can make it.Its only a suggestion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.197.30.16 (talk • contribs) 19:02, December 2, 2005 (UTC).

Just wait for the TCR and go with the Category given there. --Ajm81 19:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes i know.But its just like a sub thing till the category is given. --User:HurricaneCraze32
Wait for the official report. --tomf688{talk} 14:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Our standard should be the national hurricane center, since none of us on our own have a government's worth of resources (ie satellites, planes, software, and computing power) to challenge the NHC's expertise. When it upgrades Emily to Cat. 5, then we pop the champagne! Hopquick 14:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL. I'm 14-i cant drink it. though i'd love to see a Category 5 Hurricane. HurricaneCraze32

Heard from local newscast

That the NHC/WMO is going to abandon the use of Greek letters by next year. Anything to back that up? --CFIF 23:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I did a quick search on Google News, but did not find anything. --tomf688{talk} 14:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Look at the Back up list discussin above. tdwuhs

They should have a 7th list in this situation. The names would be human names, but they would be of ambigous gender; Avery, Bobbie, Courtney, Dale, etc. This way it would keep the male/female pattern, yet not have unknown Greek names. No one will likely listen to this, but I think it could work. You wouldn't run into the problem of retiring a greek letter, as you could just have a human name. Hurricanehink 00:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
A 7th list sounds a bit aggressive to me. We don't even know how badly we'll need it. I just say add 'Y' and 'Z' names to the list. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

WMO News talks about it: 

When the Committee next meets, in March 2006, it will decide which names to
retire and their replacements and will agree on a new back-up list.

[1] --Ajm81 19:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I brought this up a while ago in the speculation thread, but no one seemed interested in the subject back then. The reason I can see them considering a change is this (now deleted) line from our wiki page: The next three storms this year, if any form, will be named Zeta, Eta, and Theta. Precisely what the naming system was meant to avoid, confusion by having similar-sounding storm names. "Category 5 Hurricane Zeta takes aim at the Gulf coast. Meanwhile Tropical storm Eta is drenching Cuba with its rains, and Category 2 Hurricane Theta remains out in the Atlantic, no threat to land... Wait, or was that, Tropical Storm Zeta aiming at the Gulf Coast and Category 5 Eta battering Cuba?" --PK9 21:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

From a greek (and english) standpoint this isn't much of a problem. But trying to get anyone in the native spanish speaking world to pronounce a theta, TH, correctly is a bit difficult. Since Central America and the Spanish-speaking Caribbean are a definite target, it would be adviseable to reconsider. Plus would anyone pronounce hurricane Psi correctly (no, the P is not silent), or Hurricane Xi vs. Chi? Would we have been better off with our alphabet: Aee, Bee, Cee, Dee, E, eff, Gee, aycH, Ai, Jay, Kay...? Hopquick 14:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Delta Editing?

Should be revise Delta's article? The NHC November report stated that it became a subtropical storm on the 22 before turning into a tropical storm on the 23rd. So should be revise it? tdwuhs

I'm a bit wary towards that season summary. Let's wait until the official report for that particular storm comes out, since it will likely be much more thorough. --tomf688{talk} 14:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Storm Images

There're some good images of most of the storms here. Some might be useful for editing down on the main page. Others are kind of weird (like TS Delta). There's already a couple of images for Hurricane Epsilon. Good kitty 02:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never much cared for the pics on that site. Really good pics are here: [2], [3], [4]. These pages have some of the best pics I've seen. I have tons of good sat-photo websites in my favorites. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 07:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
As long as there are no more infrared images. I hate those. People looking for information want to see cloud patterns. Good kitty 16:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. We can leave the infrared images of Emily, Katrina, Rita and Wilma on their pages, but they should really be replaced on the season page. Plainly put, they're ugly. - Cuivienen 16:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
The image for Franklin is worse. They were changed by Revolution when he (or she or whatever) instituted that table thing for the hurricane track and picture. We did have some good ones. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I like this one of Franklin. Tammy needs an image. Here's a better one of Cindy. Good kitty 00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been fiddling around with the sizes of the image thumbnails and the storm track thumbnails to get them to be equal in height; I've done Arlene to Gert and Irene, but Harvey's image is too tall to do just by changing the size of the thumbnail. That would also be a problem with a few others such as Alpha and Beta. Mostly this is for aesthetic purposes and shouldn't be a major priority, but, if anyone finds images that are wider and less tall, please insert them. - Cuivienen 03:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I really like this site [5] that Hurr. Eric pointed out, but how to remove the storm's names that are written on top of the satellite image? Weatherman90 (My tilde key has somehow broken)


Just a suggestion, but do you think we should get an Image on Wilma at her strongest point? Bloing


I've been searching the web for pictures of storms and finally found one. [6] The only problem is there is a picture of Tropical Depression Lee, not Tropical Storm Lee.

fishhead

Hurricane Epsilon Article Split?

Can we split Hurricane Epsilon onto its own page?

It's notable because

  1. It's a December Hurricane
  2. It's the 26th named storm of the year, meaning if no letters were skipped, this would be storm Z
  3. Currently, it's the last tropical storm of the most active season ever
  4. Currently, it's the highest Greek-lettered storm ever

(3&4 are not the same, even if they are currently functionally equivalent)

I admit if there's another storm, reasons 3&4 are dropped, but that does not exclude reasons 1&2.

— 132.205.44.134 04:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Unless it causes some damage, it would be better to leave it as-is. The hurricane is a fish-spinner right now, and there isn't anything particularily interesting that we could say on a daughter article that we couldn't say here. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 07:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed for now, pending off-season projects (if we decide to break off all the storms onto their own pages). Fish-spinners very rarely have their own articles. CrazyC83 20:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely not. --Golbez 01:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

With the fooling around he has been doing, I am starting to lean towards splitting it off onto its own article... CrazyC83 17:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, it has now spent more time as a December hurricane than any other, and is the second strongest December hurricane, so it seems sufficiently notable to me. 132.205.45.148 18:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
That is a better pair of reasons than the 4 originally listed. However as CrazyC83 said fish-spinners very rarely have their own articles. If there were one or two more records then I would think that there is enough to make it notable. Anyone know what the records are for # ACE for a storm that has persisted into December, and # duration for a November storm. crandles 19:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The original 4 reasons are crap. At this present time Epsilon is not notable enough for an article. --Revolución (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's as notable as Hurricane Faith I'd say. Which is to say...not very. Less notable than several other 2005 storms which don't currently have an article. Jdorje 19:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed; I suppose eventually we'll make more articles later for the others. Notability isn't a big hurdle for something to have an article on Wikipedia. --AySz88^-^ 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
(To Revolución, not Jdorje) Please don't post "xyz is crap", it's only inflammatory and isn't constructive. --AySz88^-^ 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
(To Revolución) The original 4 reasons are crap? The last is notable in many respects. Why do you say it's crap? Last man on the moon, last person executed. As is the thing that tops things off, like the person who beat Ken Jennings, ...
The press and public certainly think it notable as the last storm of an extreme season. 132.205.45.148 18:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
How do you know that this is going to be the last storm of the season? --Revolución (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to make a sandbox article at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Epsilon-test and see what you all think...just in case. CrazyC83 20:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Great Idea, Agreed! Weatherman90 22:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
With the personaltiy of the NHC responses, I could see this getting Featured Article if it's presented well. Hopefully a journalist or two gets the same kind of idea and talks about this storm's effects on the NHC forecasters. --AySz88^-^ 04:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Now there's some original thinking! Instead of saying "wow it's a long-lived fishspinner", focus more on the frustration of the NHC. If you could build the article around those, I'd support it. :) --Golbez 21:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
That test page is a perfect place to write such up. CrazyC83 03:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks good to me. 132.205.45.148 18:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed with Golbez. Let's do something different. Give good info on the storm but also include how baffled the NHC was by this storm and how frustrated they were trying to forcast it. I tried to do that for Hurricane Andrew's section in my article Catastrophic Florida Hurricanes: 1961-present but someone changed most of it to a copy-paste section from the NHC's report. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
For now, the sandbox article seems short of what AySz88, Golbez and Eric are talking about here - the NHC's advisories. If anything, try to phrase the article around the NHC and Dr. Avila's advisories (the poor man!). NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 04:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The sandbox article is the perfect places to make the changes!!! CrazyC83 17:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
How is Avila more important than any of the other forecasters? James Franklin also puts a personal, human touch to his discussions. Stacy Stewart does it frequently. She had some of the best discussions during Epsilon, I think. Even Richard Knabb does it on rare occation. When you're under a lot of stress, laughter is the best medicine. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
If you have things for the other forecasters, perhaps start their articles? --AySz88^-^ 15:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Stacy Stewart is a man. Just a tip. -- Jake 04:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I think there should be a separate article for Episilon, especially since we now have lots of beautiful new images from NASA. Its going to need its own article to incorporate these. Good kitty 17:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Season article summaries

From here:

Rather than opening with a bland statement of the dates of the season, can you engage the readers more effectively by characterising the season—was it a particularly bad one? Was it unusual in other ways? (I'd like to know right at the start why you chose this particular season, and I'd like to be able to place the Pacific hurricanes in the larger context. Some big statements would capture our attention at the start: major climatic phenomenon for a number of countries in Central and North America??? Maybe introduce the scale before you cite a Category 5 storm. Many readers won't be familiar with these categories. I wonder whether there are some graphical representations of the number of storms and their severity for each season, for example. That might be good after the lead, before we focus on this particular season.

I find that the way every TC season article is introduced with the dates does not make for interesting reading. In a sense this is a question of interesting writing versus good reference writing; however, to qualify as a featured article (for instance) both need to be satisfied. I wanted to use the 2004 AHS for a featured article in the Portal:Tropical Cyclones (see here), and although it's my belief that the article summary should just be copied directly to use for the featured-article summary, this paragraph is just too tedious to include (so I skipped it and took the second paragraph). Now, my suggestion is that - for all single-season articles - this dating paragraph be moved down into the newly-created first section of the article, which can be called "Season dates" or something to that effect. Jdorje 05:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I had gone ahead and swapped the paragraphs - I didn't see any reason not to - but E. Brown reverted it with "this belongs at the beginning, it's always been formatted that way". :/ (I suppose he hadn't seen this yet.) --AySz88^-^ 06:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Well...he's right, it is a standard that that paragraph goes first...look at all 150+ AHS articles and you'll find it's that way. If it is to be changed we must come to a consensus first. Jdorje 07:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed fully. I reverted it for the reasons Tom has just stated. And because it looked sloppy. There was no transition between the two paragraphs the way you guys re-ordered them. Jdorje, I am a full advocate for 2004AHS as a featured article in the tropical cyclones portal. That article is so well formatted. The information is well stated. Word economy is good, so there's less chatter. One or two more pics could hurt. And not I DO NOT mean ten or twelve. I mean one or two. Then buff up the references section and it will be perfect. I think this article should have been modeled on 2004, but apparently others thought differently. Sigh -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 07:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
*doesn't remember stating anything* :) I do agree, though, that the intro paragraphs are a bit technical and uninteresting. Considering how loooong these articles are, they need a good intro to keep people's attention. --tomf688{talk} 13:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The boring part is brief. It gets interesting pretty quickly, that's my take on it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
But for a featured article (a WP:FA, not a TC portal featured article) there shouldn't be a boring part at all. I still say this rote-and-repetitive listing of dates does not belong in the summary, but should be put in the first section (not the way AySz88 did it, but actually in a new subsection). Jdorje 19:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the 2004 season article is still set up to be next week's TC featured article. I can tell you why it didn't make WP:FA however: because, like the 2005 season article but to a lesser degree, it's too long and boring. However it's still a good article so I took the second intro paragraph, fixed it up a bit, and used it for the featured-article text. See Category:Tropical_cyclone_featured_articles. Now it's time to choose an article for the following week (I think we should keep them 2 weeks ahead at least...though I wonder how long I can just go on picking them myself before others will start to take an interest). Jdorje 19:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because it's long and uninteresting to some should not be limiting factors. It's the quality of the article, not the quantity or the subject, being judged. Just look at the list of featured articles in the link you gave. How many of those subjects do you find fascinating? DNA repair, several Latin names I can't spell or pronounce...come on! It's the quality, not the subject. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Exactly: it's the quality, not the subject. The subject here is already interesting; we just need to make sure the quality of the article is such that it stays interesting. Giving trivial information in the introduction does not make for interesting reading. And the specific "official" dates at which the season starts and stops is indeed trivial: for older hurricane seasons I suspect it's not even accurate to put it in, since there were no official dates at that time. Everyone intuitively knows that the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season occurred during 2005; we don't have to spend a paragraph explaining it - at least not in the introduction. Jdorje 01:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Epsilon picture

The Hurricane Epsilon storm track (Image:Epsilon 2005 track.png) hasn't been updated since 2 December 9PM UTC. The time is now 09:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC). Shouldn't the picture be updated with recent movements? Thelb4 09:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

We should get a picture of the storm itself as well. There is a great picture of it on nnvl.org recent pic. Very fine quality and good should form for Epsilon. tdwuhs

NHC giant picture

If you look closely at the NHC giant wall [7] board, it shows Tropical Storm Cindy upgraded to 75 mph, hence Hurricane Cindy. It also shows Wilma upgraded to 185 mph. (It hasn't changed Emily yet; they must still be debating if it is going to be restrengthened). CrazyC83 17:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. It could just be tenative, but I'm glad Cindy and Wilma were upped. I'm personally a little disappointed that Emily was not a Cat. 5, but you can't win every time. Good find. Hurricanehink 17:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, those are probably tentative. They are probably still debating them (including Emily - I am sure some in the NHC are saying it should be 160, others 155). Emily's central pressure of 929mb may be holding them back, although Category 5 storms with pressures in the 930s are not unheard of. They should be noted in brief on their articles, but no major renaming should be done until they become official (i.e. Tropical Storm Cindy references should remain such, not changed to Hurricane Cindy, until officially released). CrazyC83 17:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm kind of relieved. Because Wilma at 882 and just at 175 I thought that was odd I'm glad they upped her to 185. tdwuhs

Again, these are quite tentative and we shouldn't take this as solid proof until the post season reports and best track are out, regardless of this particular map's educated lean. The NHC are experts but not infallible. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The sad thing is that they already have Zeta on the board. You think the staffers there are a *tiny* bit gunshy?Naraht 14:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I think I remember seeing Zeta on the board from way back, so they weren't that far off. --AySz88^-^ 19:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Records

I notice in the records section that the records for the most storms forming within the season before the end of a month (e.g. October or September). Shouldn't it also be noted that although 2005 may have had the most storms forming before the end of September (17) it does not hold the record for the most storms during September (which would be 8 in 2002)?72.27.29.45 18:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Another question: Does 2005 hold the record for most hurricanes in a season with 14 or 13, since Episilon became a hurricane outside the season? -PK9 23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

14. Officially storms that form up till December 31 are part of the season, so, yeah. NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 00:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Timeline Atlantic Hurricanes

Tried to create a timeline on the basis of hurricane season 2005. Many other seasons can be added. The black lines in color bars indicate the landfall. Please comment if this way of depicting the hurricanes is worth. --Saharadesertfox 00:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC) {{Timeline_Atlantic_Hurricanes}}

Do NOT change this template as it strecthes the screen. Leave it as a link. NSLE (讨论+extra CVU) 00:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I like it, but it isn't terribly informative as it stands. If it were changed to show varying intensities then it might be more useful and perhaps worthy of inclusion in the article. - Cuivienen 00:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Also, beware that the colors might change on you sometime soon.... --AySz88^-^ 01:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
No Problem, will add TD and TS and the varying of intensities during the storm. Can anybody help on where to get the data of the varying during the storms. Thanx --Saharadesertfox 09:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
How about adding tropical storms to the template? Thelb4 08:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed with both Cuivienen and Thelb. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Jose, Lee, Tammy, and Gamma's missing satellite images

These four storms look so lonely with only their paths shown. Is someone by any chance ever going to add their satellite images (at least what can be found that conforms to WP's copyright policy)? 128.138.96.35 04:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd do it now but it's midnight here. I'm tired and I have school tomorrow. Maybe tomorrow afternoon. It's something that definately needs to be done regardless. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Here is an archive of the all the images that appear on the Navy site. Once you get into the storms, /ir/geo/1km_bw images are the ones that you see by default when you select storms on the left on this page`. I tried searching other areas, but they only had the storms as Depressions, not looking good at all. -- RattleMan 05:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


As I said above in Storm Images, try this website. [8] fishhead

Epsilon boxes

Now that the storm pictures have been put in a box, the writing is squashed. I have tried to put it in a table, but to no success. Could I have some help at the bottom of my sandbox? Thelb4 20:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Now the Current Storm Status and Recent Timeline text are running into the rest of the text. It looks worse than before, plus the image is gone. Thanks whoever did that! Why not try to keep it the same as the rest of the article? Good kitty 05:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I see no problem. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 05:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you're looking at a cached version of the page. It had lots of whitespace in IE, but that's fixed now I think. --AySz88^-^ 06:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't use IE, so the revision after me was messed up. The screenshot posted here is crossing between two sections, btw. Also the image that replaced the previous one was horrible! Good kitty 15:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I dont know why people keep changing Epsilon's image back to that ugly one with the orange lines. The original one was 10x better. Weatherman90 01:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Always use one at maximum intensity, or at least try to use one. That is at max intensity. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 01:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Huh? There is no such rule, because if there was, half the images wouldn't be up there. Besides, the one I put up WAS at maximum intensity. If you spent half as long looking at it as you did messing it up, you would've known that. Please stop putting the ugly images up there. You are forgetting the whole point that this is an encyclopedia, and people want to see the nicest images possible. Good kitty 02:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Maximum intensity = 4 Dec 2005, 11 am AST = 85mph/979mbar. Secondly - WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Please read those two - you are coming very close to violating these policies with that message. Your pic is from the 6th of December - two days AFTER max intensity. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 02:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Look at the date aquired. It says December 4th. December 6th is the date they posted it. Again, there is no such rule about the images, and you should not make up ones. Good kitty 02:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Moved to Good kitty's talk. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 02:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Bleh

"Another incredible fact about the 2005 season was the near complete lack of lull periods common in most seasons. In the 26 weeks of the hurricane season, only two saw no activity.... That means that 2005 saw 19 weeks of near solid activity!"

OMG I think I just wet myself with excitement. This trivia is so delicious, so incredible, why don't we add some more bold and italics, just to emphasise how incredible it all is? Or not. Please stay away from bold and italics in future. Other (much better) articles get by fine without them. - Mark 06:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and don't use exclamation marks. Just because the article's contributors find hurricanes very exciting, it doesn't mean the readers will. - Mark 06:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

You could always change something like that yourself when you notice it, instead of being nasty and insulting towards all of us. I've changed it now. --AySz88^-^ 07:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I do think it's something that needed to be said, though, snark or not. This talk page and a lot of the editors on it are on their own hurricane planet. There is a line between "interested" and "over-invested" in a topic, and I think many of the editors crossed that line on like June 2. Mike H. That's hot 07:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I do agree that Eric's passage is a bit overboard, yes. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 07:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, Mike. I don't think there are any other examples of such a tone in the article (though I haven't combed through it), nor anyone advocating it. --AySz88^-^ 07:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I should point out that if I thought it was an isolated example of article badness, I would have fixed it myself. I wrote my messages here in the hope that whoever wrote that bit would take note. I'm sure there are some excellent contributors to this article and I did not intend to paint them all with one brush. - Mark 07:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It you are talking about other things in this article, it might be helpful to give an example or two. (If you aren't, never mind.) --AySz88^-^ 07:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Mark, why are just standing here insulting my edit? I hate people who just stand there and whine and insult the authors of articles, sections and edits who did much more work than you did. Instead why don't you do something about it. Someone (perhaps you) changed it to a version filled with bad grammer, incomplete sentences and emotionless periods. We've got to have some emotion here, otherwise, readers are guaranteed to get bored out of their minds. Notice I put italics there. What do those italics mean? They mean empheses. Why do we consider emphesis a bad thing. We want people to feel why this is important. The best way to do that is with interesting phrasing of sentences and use of emphesis. Without it, the lack of emotion betrays the importance of what's being stated. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
The use of emphases to convey emotion to the readers is dubious at best. First off, why are we trying to draw an emotional response from the readers? The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake article, which deals with an unarguably more important and damaging natural disaster (~200k people killed), uses no bold or italics to emphasise the very human element of that event. Here is an example from the opening section of that article:
"In May 2005, scientists reported that the earthquake itself lasted close to ten minutes when most major earthquakes last no more than a few seconds; it caused the entire planet to vibrate at least a few centimetres. It also triggered earthquakes elsewhere, as far away as Alaska."
That conveys all of the relevant facts in a readable and interesting manner, without using terms like "incredible" or emphases like bold, italics or exclamation marks. We're trying to inform our readers, not entertain them. As for readers getting bored by dry language, if they have managed to reach this section by first reading the preceding 7000 words, then we can assume they aren't bored by the topic. - Mark 02:08, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Mark. Encyclopedias aren't made to make things sound incredible or amazing or to capture the reader's attention with exclamation points, emphasis, and bolded words. Encyclopedias are designed to provide information, not entertain people. bob rulz 21:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
We shouldn't just present it like it's no big deal, which is what you guys seem to want to do. This is not a paper encyclopedia. There is a place for emotion here. Nothing excessive, just human. We want to convey the facts in an interesting way so that people will want to read instead of being bored out of their minds. And now my original text has been replaced with something boring as Hell. "The following days had no activity...". ZZZZ...wake me up when you're finished! Is the goal of an encyclopedia to present facts in the most boring and stoic way possible? No, and certainly not this one. It's like listening to an airport announcer read the dictionary. Please, let's be humans, not robots. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia" does not refer to writing style, and you have to admit what you added was overboard. --AySz88^-^ 14:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that didn't mean make it a boring piece of crap. I think my latest change takes the best of both worlds. It hammers the facts home without being overzealous. Hope that we've reached a compromise. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

It reads fine to me as it is right now. But it doesn't look as though a compromise has been reached - it appears that you have completely bowed to what I said! That's not much of a compromise. Maybe it's been edited by someone else since you, Eric. - Mark 07:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Lee

Lee's report has come out. SargeAbernathy 15:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No real surprises from Lonely Lee. Just a moment in the spotlight for him (finally, he was stuck in Katrina's shadows the whole time) with Epsilon gone just in time for the report... CrazyC83 17:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I see the NHC was kind enough to actually "up" Lee to a whole TWO data points as a Tropical Storm. The Great Zo 08:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Accumulated Cyclone Energy

You should put the accumulated cyclone energy of all the 2005 storms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.221.14.48 (talk • contribs) .

We had it, but it was moved to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Which was unfortunate, but the majority had their way. 70.177.68.209 04:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

N. Atlantic tropical cyclone

I started work on North Atlantic tropical cyclone, but I thought there'd be a lot more sources than I've been able to dig up, so I've hit a wall. Feel free to discuss, contribute, and generally mess around with it. --AySz88^-^ 04:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Should be renamed as Atlantic hurricane. Jdorje 04:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
What about South Atlantic tropical cyclone then? --AySz88^-^ 04:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Atlantic hurricanes are one of the 5 basins; we have agreed-upon names for these basins (which all the categories, season articles, lists, etc., follow). South Atlantic tropical cyclones are not one of the basins, so this article is outside the scope of the basin naming scheme. Jdorje 01:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Would "Atlantic hurricanes" have some sort of mention about the South Atlantic storms since the distinction in the title is gone?
No, the "Atlantic hurricane" basin is the North Atlantic. South Atlantic storms do not currently have their own basin but are lumped in with other Southern Hemisphere storms. Jdorje 20:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Personally, it feels mistitled as this particular article doesn't focus or emphasize strong storms like other applications might ("X hurricane season", "List of notable X hurricanes"...). It doesn't matter that much though.
I don't see what you're saying. 20:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
By the way, where/when was the naming scheme agreed upon? --AySz88^-^ 02:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Via common practice (i.e., the ~150 Atlantic hurricane season articles), discussion in certain articles (like South Atlantic tropical cyclone and 2005-06 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season), and on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Jdorje 20:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd thought "Atlantic hurricane season" refers to the fact that we call it a "hurricane season", i.e. a hurricane season which happens to be in the Atlantic basin. That is as opposed to interpreting the phrase as a "season of Atlantic hurricanes", which would be incorrect as it includes tropical storms too. A "hurricane season" focuses on the stronger hurricanes, as any categories or lists of "Atlantic hurricanes" - that is, they are indeed about "Atlantic hurricanes". The "Atlantic hurricanes" article isn't describing or focusing on systems of only hurricane strength, but the all tropical systems, including tropical storms. --AySz88^-^ 20:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't quite follow. If you want to break down the nomenclature, each basin we have now is of the form place + type (Atlantic + hurricane, Pacific + hurricane, Pacific + typhoon, etc.). This could mean either "season of Atlantic hurricanes", or "Atlantic season of hurricanes"; either breaks down to "season of hurricanes in the Atlantic". The fact that tropical storms and depressions are included in the season is just historical coincidence; "hurricane" here is used as a synonym for tropical cyclone. As for the South Atlantic, it really cannot be lumped in with the North Atlantic (which is shortened to just "Atlantic"), for the simple reason that it's in the Southern Hemisphere and the seasons won't match. Jdorje 21:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
<--
Eh, okay, I just saw the meaning of the names completely differently. (And I wasn't trying to lump the Southern Atlantic in. :p) I tried moving the page but it didn't let me, since there's a redirect there already. --AySz88^-^
What? Move what? Where? (I'm an admin, I can help with that) Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 03:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks! :) North Atlantic tropical cyclone to Atlantic hurricane. --AySz88^-^ 03:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm opposed to renaming it 'Atlantic hurricane'. Not all tropical cyclones that form in the Atlantic become hurricanes, you know. And exactly why are we creating this page? What about the Atlantic makes it more important than any of the other six basins? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
What's stopping you from making articles for the other six basins? --Golbez 15:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
:) Time mostly. I'm in the middle of exams right now (point taken though). I still don't think it should be renamed though, for the reasons stated above. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Why So Active...

Should this article be mentioned here? Among other things, it says that, "Ocean temperatures recorded in the northern hemisphere Atlantic Ocean have also been the hottest on record." - Cuivienen 02:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I would look for more confirmation of that, and some understanding of the context. In 2005 the Carribean got hot early and stayed hot, with that heat spreading to the north as the year went on. That is why so many storms formed in or near the Carribean (which in turn explains why so many of them impacted North America). However, the rest of the north Atlanic seemed to me to be relatively cool. This is quite unlike the situation in 1995, when the ocean 2/3 of the way to Africa got hot. (The 1995 situation also caused storms to form way out in the Atlantic and to usually start north before they got near land.) Now towards the end of the year, the North Atlantic became warmer than it should be, and has stayed that way (which is why we had Vince, Delta, and Epsilon). However, since the bulk of the ocean was cooler than expected for much of the year, I am surprised that a record temperatures for 2005 are being claimed here. Then again, this is a newspaper report, not a scolarly article. --EMS | Talk 02:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Why? I'll tell you why. We're entering a new age of heightened activity. We've been in a lull period since the early 1970's. The last active cycle began in 1933 and ended in 1969. That inactive cycle ended in 1995 after lasting 25 years. 2003-2005 have confirmed that the ocean currents have warmed in accordinance with its 30-year cycle. Say what you want about global warming, it has little to do with it. There was an active cycle that lasted from 1875-1900, the first, the 1933-1969 period, and now what should be the third; 1995-2025 period. Expect a significant amount of activity during that period. It'll be a bumpy ride over the next 20 years, that's for sure. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 07:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Relax, no one is accusing global warming of anything! Warmer waters this year don't necessarily mean warmer waters every year. - Cuivienen 23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Sadly, the supposed relationship between the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and global warming has been nominated as the #1 science story this year by the Discover magazine. TIME also had this story on their cover, and a bunch of anti-Bush politicians have rushed to accuse him of somehow causing monsters such as Katrina. 200.124.35.243 14:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, apparently he now controls those hurricanes and is using them to kill black people everywhere. The rascal! (end sarcasm) -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Epsilon report

Surprise, surprise. The Epsilon report is out, unexpectedly came out this fast. I guess they took notes on the run while making difficult decisions on other storms? [9]

Also, in the Speculation folder, I created a new game... CrazyC83 18:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Despite changes in the intensity from the original track, Epsilon's ACE remains about the same, 13.3625. Just so no one else bothers calculating it. - Cuivienen 00:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Surprise indeed. Another interesting thing is revealed in the report. It appears that Epsilon was not as amazing as originally thought. The storm remained south of the strongest shear. That explains its complete defiance of something that in fact wasn't there. It did experiance moderate shear and cool water throughout its life however. Its longevity in December was amazing as well. Epsilon never weakened to a tropical storm until it began dissipating as origianlly thought. There was only one peak intensity and one period of weakening. The track has changed little, however. Our man James Franklin seemed pretty nonchalant about this very unusual and very rebelious tropical cyclone. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_17&oldid=1136284735"