Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Modified ToC

The Table of Contents for this page is enormous. Unacceptably so, in my opinion. I've created an alternative ToC that takes up far less room. I want to present it here first to make sure it meets approval and see what people think could be changed for the better. I think it covers everything and could be put at the top of the page.

-- Cuivienen 04:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Check out my (beta) version of the ToC here. -- RattleMan 06:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with both of these options and with the opinion that it's too long. For one thing, both options omit the storm strength from the ToC. --Golbez 07:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Why should the ToC tell the strength of the storms? Isn't that the purpose of the storms section? The ToC is just a navigational tool, not a source of information. -- Cuivienen 14:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It offers much more context than just a name, thus aiding navigation within the article. (Note that this was one of my complaints with the button bar - they lacked context, giving you only a color and a letter.) --Golbez 15:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Would it be better with the 3 boxes at the top put side by side? ie left, centre, and right aligned. crandles 11:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should get into making such layout decisions. Also, it would split apart the hurricane infobox and the SS scale, even in its original smaller form, thus requiring about as much whitespace as we have now - in other words, no change in length, but with less information and IMO poorer layout. --Golbez 15:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This feels like the button bar issue again. There has to be a way to make something small enough to please everyone, without loosing all the information. People tend to use memes (uniform colors, well known cues, political preferences) to provide this additional information, but if one wants to provide the information without these additional cues, and just direct text, it becomes unweildly, yet provides enough information. If one provides no cues, and just text, it is small and tiny, but no context. The unfortunate problem is wikipedia tooltips cannot be uniformly applied, and the nature of HTML itself prevents one form providing expandable information without an additional standard like javascript. Anyone got any ideas? Status bar messages have been eliminated due to their ability to insert malicious code. Javascript cannot be applied indvidually to an article, and hovering tool tips are hard to apply, because links always float above divs or table cells.--Ctrl build<sup>[[User_talk:Ctrl_build|talk]]</sup> [[Image:Columbia_SEAS.GIF|15px|]] 16:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The proposed reformating above would reduce the TOC size by eliminating the storm subsections. Another option would be to replace the "===" surrounding the storm titles with "<h3>" and "</h3>". This would create the same visual effect but would eliminate the individual storms from the TOC. As for the proposed revised TOC: I find it to be dense and clumbsy. Let's deal with the underlying issue, namely that the storms section itself is a mess, and one way or another needs to be tabularized. --EMS | Talk 16:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with tabularizing it, every solution I've seen looks ugly (IMO) and doesn't help the supposed problem at all. I don't think we should be using hacks, either. What's wrong with having a long article and a long ToC? --Golbez 17:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The ToC is, ultimately, what's causing the excess of white space at the top of the article. With a smaller ToC we can move the SS scale into the summary section and have a reasonably small amount of white space at the top of the page. -- 168.229.34.40 19:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The ToC is too long because the article is too long. Wikipedia is not paper; there's no reason not to use structured articles here. Jdorje 20:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that I disagree with both TOCs above. If we either took out the == == heading format, or convert to the tabular format above, this problem would be solved since the TOC would be much shorter. --tomf688^{talk} 20:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing the ToC would leave no way to navigate the article, and is not a solution. Jdorje 22:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

How about the button next to the name - second one in User:AySz88/Sandbox? It gives the strength of the storm, like Golbez wants. --AySz88^-^ 22:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC) (Oh, that's only a rough idea, so don't just dismiss it because it's ugly.) --AySz88^-^ 22:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Better than the above options, but I still prefer the normal ToC. For one thing, as I've said about the button bars, it relies too much on categories. "Oh, "S" whatever S is was white, must not have been major." At least the normal ToC is somewhat neutral on that front (Before you ask - there is a structural difference between tropical storms, tropical depressions, and hurricanes, but not so much between a category 1 and a category 3). I do not want to assume the reader can figure out the colors, or categories, or what not; I only assume the reader knows how to read, which is why I tend to dislike the tabular options here. There is still such a thing as prose on this pedia, rather than rote information. (And then there's the obvious accessibility concerns - using color as a method of imparting information is frowned upon, not everyone using Wikipedia can see/has color.) --Golbez 00:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What about using "TS" / "TD" / 1-5 instead of the initials, or add a column for number of deaths? --AySz88^-^ 03:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm personally not liking the direction this is going. Let's try not to divert too far from the standard. --tomf688^{talk} 01:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, maybe just split it into columns for now? I'm pretty sure that wouldn't be objectionable. --AySz88^-^ 03:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I can see creating a 4-column TOC, with one entry per cell. The leftmost column would navigate people to the main sections. The next three would navigate people to the storms. With nine navigation rows per column, you would have rows 2 and 3 full with the A - T stroms, and the V, W, and greek letter storms in the last column. It may look nice.

On the other hand, do not go off adding statistics to the TOC. That is not what it is there for. What you can do is to create a season overview table, with one storm per row. The columns could be dates, maximum winds, lowest pressure, landfall(s) (when, where, storm stregth at landfall). Perhaps one of you may wish to play with this.

Finally do note that I thank that the best way to deal with the Storms section is to tabularize it as shown above. Note that this would not conflict with the breifer table that I am suggesting here, since the two would contain different information. --EMS | Talk 03:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not a good idea in the least. Wikipedia has a standard TOC box used in every article, and it is not necessary or wise to make one specifically for this article. If the TOC is too long, it should be a message to you that either A) the article is too long and needs to be split into subpages, or B) there are too many subheadings. --tomf688^{talk} 00:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the subheadings for the storms and replaced them with plain, bold, size 4 text in hopes that it will resolve the TOC issues. --tomf688^{talk} 00:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it's just me, but I reverted it because it caused the SS templated to merge with text. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 01:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No issues for me. If anyone else wants to test it, it's located here: [1] --tomf688^{talk} 01:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't correct - see Wikipedia:Section#Compact_TOC. I interpret that to mean you're allowed to condense long ToCs into lists. --AySz88^-^ 03:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with changing the ToC at all. It's fine the way it is. It is a navigational tool, and removing the subheading would make it harder to navigate. bob rulz 08:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Fixed mine up a bit - second one at User:AySz88/Sandbox. Feel free to edit and suggest improvements. It really condenses the size of the ToC vertically. --AySz88^-^ 01:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I like this version very much - it really solves the vertical length problem without losing any of the ToC content (and it looks much better than the usual ToC). - Cuivienen 01:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No one has stated the obvious...the ToC is too long because the season had too many storms. I'm sorry...perhaps we'll just ignore say...Lee, Maria, Alpha, Epsilon... LOL... Just because 2005 was extraordinary, does not mean that normal ToC conventions should be thrown out. Instead, we should marvel with awe at the power of the 2005 Atlantic (mostly Gulf of Mexico) Hurricane Season. Hopquick 05:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You miss the point. All of the seasons' ToCs have the same problems, it's just that it's far more obvious with this specific one. There's also a reason why we can remove the automatic ToC - so we can come up with a better one. --AySz88^-^ 05:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I like the universal ToC. Gives wikipedia a nice standardized feel. Hopquick 05:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Because no one seems to have noticed recent comments under the previous ToC section, here's a new section. We have a much-improved template for the ToC, one that does not remove any of the information provided in the current ToC but is much more vertically compact (which is the primary issue). It was created by AySz88.

- Cuivienen 03:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a few things left on my todo (shift links from buttons to names, make code more like {{Saffir-Simpson small}}, perhaps templatize buttons, and maybe make links only to within 2005AHS). Of course, that does not preclude including it in the article while improving it at the same time. --AySz88^-^ 03:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I was considering adding links directly to the pages for Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Ophelia, Rita, Stan, Wilma, Alpha, Beta and Gamma to it on the storm names, though it might be better to simply make the internal page link on the storm name. Button templates sound like an unnecessary complication, IMO, although they would make it easier to replicate such a ToC for future seasons. - Cuivienen 05:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The link should be to the section of this article, not to an external article; that's the point of the table of contents. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 05:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I hate it.

Here's why: I don't see why we can't use the more simple, easier TOC that Wikipedia by default uses. It is easier to click on which storm you want to go to with the regular TOC. another "solution in search of a problem" in my opinion. --Revolución (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Could not possibly agree more with Revolution. There is nothing wrong with what we got. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Plus, the one we have right now is idiot proof. That one is too confusing, out of order, and makes the article even more graphics intensive than it already is. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm, there aren't any graphics in it, and please be more specific with what the problems you see are (what do you mean by out of order?). We've gone through the problems with the current ToC before, I think, such as too much whitespace and poor alignment. --AySz88^-^ 15:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if I turn of the Toc? --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 03:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)--Freiberg

The one that's on the article, without replacing it with anything? Yes, I do mind, it is a violation of the Manual of Style guidelines. Tito xd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 04:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read my ToC posts in the other Toc section...why are there two? Someone should make a subpage. Hopquick 05:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

See the first sentence of Cuivienen's post as to why she created a new section. And yeah, it's about time for another archive. --AySz88^-^ 05:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

AySz88: "...there aren't any graphic in it." Uhh, so? Does there have to be? I thought we all grew out of that after kindergarden. The page is very graphics intensive as it is. Let's not make it worse. What I meant by 'out of order' (which I thought was quite clear) was that the storms section and the other sections are treated like they're on different planets. The See Also and References links come before the storms section. And the way that template's formatted won't allow that problem to be easily fixed. The links are too small, it would conflict with the infobox if placed where the current TOC is. And, going back to Revolution's point, I don't see a problem with the one we have now. If you're doing this just to put colors in there, it's a waste of time. I have yet to see a reason to replace the one we have. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What I'd meant was that I'm not sure how something is "graphics intensive" if it doesn't have any graphics - it's just a table, not some on-the-fly animation with 10^5 polygons.

The storms section and the rest of the article kinda are on different planets; that was the point I'd been trying to make weeks ago.

I was already planning to move the links from the numbers to the names eventually, which would make the links bigger.

Previously, it was already said that:

There's too much vertical whitespace and scrolling with the current ToC
It's too difficult to locate storms alphabetically with the current ToC, since the "Hurricane", "Tropical Storm", etc prefix causes the names to dance left-right as you go down. I'm not sure if everyone suffers from the effect, but I'd conjecture that a new user would also get annoyed with squinting through a big list of text.
The new ToC tends to make it easier to locate major storms

The break between groups of links can be shifted up to make things somewhat "in order".

I see what you mean by the conflict between the infobox, but that can be easily changed by moving the infobox up. The related-article "Statistics" link also wouldn't be needed anymore if we put it within the ToC (we have several of those, don't we? "Timeline", "Records"....).

--AySz88^-^ 23:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the left and right dancing you're refering to. I just see a list of storms. Nor do I see the vertical white space. I do see how the new one could make it easier to locate major storms, because the one we have now assumes that the reader knows their names. But isn't that kind of spliting hairs? How big of a problem is that? If we shifted the infobox up, then it would be out of line with the text. It's very hard to shift the pieces of the puzzle around, so to speak, but not impossible. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Katrina report

The post-season analysis report on Hurricane Katrina is finally out and there are a few changes.

First, Katrina never made landfall as a Category 4 (That's a bunch of BS in my opinion), but instead hit Buras, Louisiana as a strong Cat 3 with 110 knot winds (roughly equal to 125 mph).

Also,It hit Buras with a minimum pressure of 920 mbars instead of 918 mbars.

It then made landfall at the MS/LA border with 105 knot (120 mph) winds and a minimum pressure of 928 mbars.

-Fableheroesguild 18:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Link? I don't see it on their list of released reports. --tomf688^{talk} 19:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see it either, and I doubt it was a Category 3. If anything, it was stronger, more like 130-135 knots at Buras and 120 knots at the MS/LA line. I have no idea where they are making their estimates from. CrazyC83 19:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I have it downloaded to my computer, but now I don't see it anymore either. Maybe they're fixing it, realizing it really wasn't a Cat 3. (sarcastically) This really helps out my credibility. Fableheroesguild 19:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The number that blows that all away: wind gust of at least 110 mph (95 knots - instrument broke) at the Jones County EOC in Laurel, MS, more than 100 miles inland and 5 hours after final landfall. If the sustained winds were, say, 80 knots (90 mph - strong Cat 1) at that point (to assume the strongest winds were not recorded), the decay chart suggests that Katrina was around 135 knots (155 mph) at landfall - high-end Category 4. I personally would mark it down at 130 knots (150 mph) at Buras landfall, as a slight compromise. The Pearlington landfall I would mark at 120 knots (140 mph). CrazyC83 20:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing those charts are designed based on a smaller hurricane. In fact the whole SSS claims to predict storm surge, but fails to take into account size. Refer back to our discussion at Talk:Hurricane Wilma#894.2F155. Jdorje 10:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I found it - [2]. --Golbez 20:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

New Colors

Not sure where to bring this up, but the new colors for the SS Scale are very colorblindness-unfriendly. I can't easily tell the difference between the most of the colors and can't tell the difference at all between TD and TS. - Cuivienen 01:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Why were they changed in the first place? --CFIF 03:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics#Overcoloration - we can still change them. --AySz88^-^ 03:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, I agreed that the original colors were very bright, but I also mentioned that I hated the easter egg colors. Those new colors are just sickening and cannot stay. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 20:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Needing citation for Adrian -> Arlene

Couldn't find one on a quick google. Several news sources say that Adrian could become Arlene. "If Hurricane Adrian crosses Central America without breaking up, it would become reclassified as an Atlantic storm and be called Arlene.

"We'd say the first one disappeared and then another one formed," Martin Nelson, a lead forecaster at the National Hurricane Center west of Miami, told the Orlando Sentinel. "It really would be two different systems." Sun-Sentinel and "Only if the system should maintain tropical cyclone status throughout its passage over land would it retain the name Adrian in the Atlantic basin". NHC discussion on Adrian, which obviously didn't happen.

But nothing that tells me Arlene formed from the remnants of Adrian. A forum post says it didn't, but that's not citable. "Passage over land disrupted the circulation and caused the system to become disorganized; once it emerged into the NW Caribbean, it became entrained in the upper-level trough and never redeveloped. Nevertheless, it became the precursor for what has shaped up to be an active season.

Early June brought about the season's first tropical storm, Arlene, from a tropical wave in the western Caribbean on June 8th." [3] --MeekSaffron ^{(Jaffa,Tree!)} 09:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, what is this post supposed to be about? Where does it say that Adrian became Arlene? bob rulz 10:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"Arlene could have developed from the remnants of Hurricane Adrian, the first storm of the 2005 Pacific hurricane season. [Citation needed]" I'm gonna remove that. --Golbez 10:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh...who put that in there? bob rulz 10:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. --MeekSaffron ^{(Jaffa,Tree!)} 20:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Minor fail

Under the purpose of translating this articel to danish i have discovered a minor fail in the article (or just som unclearness). Under the section "Mid-season-outlook" it is stated that Dr. Gray followed suit whit NHCs update. It appears to me this is the first time NHC is mentioned in the article, and im therefore in doubt whether its NOAA og NHC there is issuing the forecast, or whether there is referenced to NOAA forecast there is mentioned just before... Hope someone either will take the troble to explain a stupid dane or make the sentence more precise. Thanks Jonatanj 14:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The NHC (National Hurricane Center) is a subdivision of NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association); they're the same thing in this article. joturner 14:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I know, but is it to the reader not better to use the same name or make this thing clear? Jonatanj 14:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That's true which is why I'm glad someone changed it. I was thinking of doing it myself earlier, but it seems like NOAA and NHC have both been used quite a few times in this article. joturner 20:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

For consistency, I substituted NHC with NOAA. No more problems. :) --tomf688^{talk} 20:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should have just spelled out National Hurricane Center instead of putting NOAA in there. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Infrared-Optical Pictures

Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma and Emily all have infrared pictures, while the rest have optical pictures. Is there a reason? Are the four abovementioned storms given infrared pictures due to their strength? Or could no others be found? Merely looking for continuity mroe than anything else, I'm unsure if such an agreement has previously been reached. -- Sarsaparilla39 00:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but I personally hate infrared satellite pictures. When possible, it should be visible, which show a truer form of the storm. Hurricanehink 01:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I like seeing different pictures. Satellite pictures over and over again get boring; some variety is good. Jdorje 01:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I also like having a variety of pictures shown. Visible is only a "truer form" in that it's what you can actually see. However, infrared will show you more of the actual structure of the storm. Also, my personal favorite imagery for viewing hurricanes is color-enhanced water vapor imagery, which produces some amazing images for hurricanes. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 07:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Zeta formation time

Why is the formation time of Zeta given with "c." (circa) in the timeline? Other storms give formation times without that abbreviation. Previous practice appears to be to give the time of the first public advisory as the formation time, without qualification by "c." --Cam 16:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the time is given with the circa notation is because the exact time that Zeta formed has not yet been determined and/or confirmed. -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 16:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What form will this determination or confirmation take? --Cam 16:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The final storm report. It will be released some time befroe the next hurricane season begins, probably before March. - Cuivienen 15:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Cam 17:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

'This year' references

Fixed references to 'this year' as, although Zeta is active, the season has officially ended. Feel free to revert those if you feel it's not appropriate, yet, but please leave the merging of discussion of devastation. Happy new year! :)--Dan ^(Talk)|@ 16:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo of Zeta

Is it me, or does Zeta, in that pic, look a bit too organised and circular for a tropical storm? XYaAsehShalomX 16:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No more than Harvey did Jamie C 17:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

To me it doesn't look too organized in the picture, as it definitely wouldn't qualify as a minimal hurricane or even a strong tropical storm, in my opinion. -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 17:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Number of November Storms

The article currently says:

2005 also set a new record for most storms forming in November, with 3 storms (Gamma, Delta and Epsilon); the old record was shared by six years, most recently 2001.

Didn't 2001 have 3 in November? ( Hurricane Michelle becoming a tropical storm on Nov 1, N & O ) crandles 20:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Also have we got different records to mention such as most storms forming after 30 September, and after 31 October? crandles 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That is correct re:2001 and Michelle - it became a tropical storm on November 1. CrazyC83 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Circular reference

Why does main article: Tropical Storm Zeta in the Tropical Storm Zeta section link to it's own article (this one)? 218.214.23.223 04:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

2005 or 2006

RE: Timeline -- Quote: "For continuation of Zeta, see Timeline of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season." I find this inappropriate. For Zeta is a 2005 storm and should only be refered to as a sidenote on the 2006 page. Recommendations? Hopquick 04:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Put it on both pages, for convenience of users? --AySz88^-^ 05:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing new to mention about Zeta yet. Strengthening and weakening could be added on both pages when it comes up. - Cuivienen 05:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeta is a 2005 storm, so thus Zeta should only be casually mentioned, but not treated as if it were a storm of 2006, as is the case currently on that page. --Revolución (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)