Jump to content

Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Alpha Article

Is an article on Alpha really neccesary at this point? Maybe, if God forbids, it wrecks havoc on Hispaniola but at it present state I do not see the need. Only thing is it's the only storm to use a greek letter but that's it. tdwuhs

no need for separate article yet, but why was the link to NHC forecast/advisory removed?
If it wreaks havoc on Hispaniola, then yes, an article would be necessary. Even if it were only a tropical storm upon landfall. --Revolución (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Alpha's death toll has gone up to 26. Although it may not be similar to Stan's, it seems to me that this is going to keep rising. Perhaps, an article should be created? --Cool Genius 20:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes --Revolución (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, we need an article, after all, there won't be any other Alphas soon... hopefully. Titoxd(?!?) 01:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)\
Maybe a year from now unless they change how they name storms. --Holderca1 21:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I oppose an article. Most of the information is in the 2005 article anyway. What more could be added without making it too long. Heck, the summary for Katrina is longer than the entire Alpha article. No offense to Hispaniola, but any storm it seems can cause major damage there. A tropical wave early last year caused 2000 deaths. What about other storms that caused more than 25 deaths? Should Bret from 1993, a tropical storm, get its own article because it killed 184 people in Venezuela? What about Gert that killed 76 in the same year? Isabel in 1985 for killing 180 in Puerto Rico? Beryl in 1982 for killing 115 in the Cape Verdes? Tropical Storms and Hurricanes are deadly, but an article isn't needed for every storm that killed 22 or so people. Sure, it is important now, but in the long run, it will seem like any other storm. It is noteworthy for being the first Greek storm ever by running out of names, but if you look at the storm at itself, it isn't very important. I vote for no article split. Hurricanehink 02:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I support an article if it is long enough to justify it, otherwise leave it where it is. 26 dead in Haiti isn't worthy of retirement (if 26 were dead in the US, or Mexico, or even Cuba, then that would be a good candidate), so it shouldn't be moved automatically on that thought. Due to the presence of the disambiguation page, the article should be at Tropical Storm Alpha (2005). (If there was no disambiguation, it should be at the main article) CrazyC83 15:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the article should stay right where it is. It's important even in just being the first to resort to the Greek alphabet to name a storm, and even more so for the 26 people it has killed. There's also too much information to merge it back here. Frankly, I think if there's ever enough information for something to have its own article, there's no reason to force it onto a parent article. Holding it here just means that pieces will need to be clipped off, and even if it doesn't seem notable enough for an article now, considering Wikipedia's rate of expansion all new tropical storms will probably have independent articles within a couple years. I don't see a good reason for a merger. Sarge Baldy 21:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
There isn't any additional information in the seperate article that isn't in the main article, it was just divided into sections. I actually checked by looking at the edit history from the time the article was created by copy and pasting the section from the main article until today. Nothing new has been added. --Holderca1 21:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, but I don't think it all should be here. This article is already 77k, which is far above the 32k suggested article size. If anything this article needs more branches for primary discussion on these storms. I don't think this is the place to discuss all storms comprehensively, and it means a lot more expansion to this page. At the same time it discourages expansion to each individual storm, since you can only say so much here before you put too much weight on that tropical storm to keep this page sensibly balanced. Sarge Baldy 22:20, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

infobox?

Why doesn't the article have an infobox? Well, one problem is (amazingly) it seems impossible to find a season track map. But nonetheless I think this infobox should be added. Jdorje 19:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC) {{infobox hurricane season nopic|basin=Atlantic hurricane |first storm formed=[[June 9]], [[2005]] |last storm dissipated= |strongest storm=[[Hurricane Wilma|Wilma]] - 882 [[mbar]], 175 [[mph]] |total storms=22 (Record) |major storms=6 |total damages=estimated over $100 billion [[USD]] (Record) |total fatalities=2,500+ confirmed |five seasons=[[2003 Atlantic hurricane season|2003]], [[2004 Atlantic hurricane season|2004]], '''2005''', [[2006 Atlantic hurricane season|2006]], [[2007 Atlantic hurricane season|2007]]}}

Because so much stuff is unavailable. "not available", "so far", "so far", strongest storm needs a "so far", "not available", etc. --Golbez 19:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Well then let's drop the "so far"s since they are implied. How's this? Jdorje 20:29, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
To clarify...since the article is documented as a current event it should be expected that data will change. Active hurricanes get a {{infobox hurricane}} which lists the highest winds, but this doesn't have a "so far" on it. Only in areas of particular confusion (like tallying the death tolls from Katrina and Stan, where the hurricane is no longer a current event but the data is still likely to change) is a "so far" qualifier needed. Jdorje 20:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

How about a {{SeasonActive}} template of some sort (See here for an example? -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. However it should be called {{infobox hurricane season active}}. And it should have a picture somehow...I changed {{infobox hurricane season}} and {{infobox hurricane season piconly}} to automatically include the track map picture (to make it easy to add these to all 100+ atlantic seasons, which I did)...but for the active season a track map is generally not available, it seems. Jdorje 01:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Also the 5seasons might not want to list future seasons but instead the previous 4 ones. Jdorje 01:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
The way to allow inclusion of an image is just to add {{{image name}}} and {{{image caption}}} back to the infobox. The question is what makes a good image - are there guidelines we can set here? Should it be a picture of the latest active storm? Or of the most intense or worst storm of the season? Or (best of all) is there some way we can get a season track map for active seasons? Jdorje 02:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
{{infobox hurricane season active}} has been created, although any other comments are appreciated. Should we also put this into the article, or stick with the current one first? -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 04:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Sure, we should use it. Jdorje 06:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
You can actually write into the code for the template to only show an image if their is a value for it, otherwise it will get hidden. See Template:Infobox River fow what I mean and the specific code needed to make it happen. --Holderca1 20:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Track maps get published by the NHC at the end of the season. You could look at the UniSys page, which has an uptodate track map. It's rather crowded... Tompw 21:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The strongest storm section should be sepperated into Pressure and Wind Speeds like the other seasons. Fableheroesguild 03:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect?

Should Tropical Storm Alpha redirect here? There were Subtropical Storms Alpha in 1972 and Alfa in 1973. A disambiguation page would look something like this:

The name Alpha has been used for two subtropical cyclones and one tropical storm in the Atlantic Ocean. It was used to name subtropical storms in 1972 and 1973, and is used to name the first storm in excess of the last name on the basin's list.

In the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, the list was enhausted and Alpha was used to name the season's 22nd tropical storm:

Should the East Pacific exhaust its list, the Greek Alphabet will be used to name storms in excess of 24. This has never happened. However, the 1983 and 1992 seasons exhausted the list. The 1985 would have exhausted its list, but instead Xina, York and Zelda were added during the season. As the season ended with Hurricane Xina, there would have been a Hurricane Alpha that year. Had there not been X, Y, and Z names in 1992, that season would have had a Tropical Storm Alpha.

PAGASA and the Southwest Indian Ocean also use annual lists to name tropical cyclones in their areas of responsibility. It is not known if the Greek Alphabet will be used should those lists be exhausted in a season. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 19:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

PAGASA has some additional names, but not Greek Alphabet. RSMC La Reunion has no policy on how to due with an exhasuted name list for Southwest Indian Ocean. Momoko 09:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
Agreed on the disambiguation. The 1972 and 1973 Alphas could be confused for a tropical storm. CrazyC83 22:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Agree on that change. It would at least ameliorate some of us who felt others forced the redirect without a consensus. Are you going to go ahead and do the page Michelle? What you've written above sounds fine.--Sturmde 15:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)\
I made a page. It has since been edited by others. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 22:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Picking up after ourselves

In the progression of each hurricane article, we upload many, many images which will probably never be reused on Wikipedia. For example, after the forecasts are discontinued, we typically have a forecast image page which has been updated many, many times, eating many megabytes of space on the servers. Should we be nice and pick up after ourselves? The currently recommended procedure which would apply in this case would be to list these images on IfD as orphans. Some images actually cause copyright problems when they are orphaned, because the fair use rational no longer apply. For example, Image:Wilma forecast track (Canada).png. The original uploaders cannot speedy them because they were not uploaded accidentally. --Mm35173 12:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Rankings, Records and Statistics

Hmmm is it just me, or is this article a veritable orgasm of rankings, records and statistics.... often repeated over and over... with very little actual content, with real meaning? Where is the information to *EXPLAIN* these statistics, rankings and records?

Which ones in particular would you like explained? Earliest formation of nth storm, most storms during a particular month, and most intense storm on record are fairly self explanatory. ACE is fairly well described on this page and is linked to its main page on the topic. Also, please sign your comments. --Holderca1 03:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Separate Article Requirements

Can someone please explain to me what would count as a separate article? Are the requirements different if the storm lands in America as opposed to a non-english country (seeing as this is en.wikipedia)? If so what are the different requirements for that? I make this point only because I take note that Opehlia did 2 ... 3 fatalities while both Jose and Alpha killed more than her. Why is it that despite the higher fatalities and the scarier possibilities (both landed in places that could see mudslides), Ophelia has an article all of her own and even some people saying she would have a better chance at being retired than Jose or Alpha? --SargeAbernathy 07:38, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind with José and Alpha that only one storm name has been retired without the storm reaching hurricane strength, Tropical Storm Allison in 2001. It caused over 50 deaths in the Houston area. Although I am sure, Jeanne would have joined Allison had it not reach hurricane strenght due to what it did as a tropical storm. I also highly doubt Ophelia will be retired and am not so sure that it merits its own article. But, these are things we can take care of in the off-season (if there is one) and we have more time for cleanup. --Holderca1 15:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The only way Ophelia will be retired as a name in 2006 is as part of a seven-pack. Considering that the greatest number of names retired in one year is four and we will most likely have Katrina, Rita, Dennis, Stan, and Wilma be retired (and Emily is much more "worthy" of retirement than Ophelia), I seriously doubt that it will happen... particularly considering that Ophelia never had landfall as a hurricane. B.Wind 07:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

My only criteria is article length. If the "summary" text for a hurricane in the main article becomes too long, it should be moved into a separate article. If a separate storm article exists but has the exact same text as the main article, it should be merged back into the main article. There are a few border cases (like Alpha currently) where I'd say the summary text is about 1 paragraph too long for the main article, and it's hard to judge whether a separate article is justified. For active storms it is better not to have duplicate copies of the updates since then they'll end up out of date - for Wilma this was solved by just adding a disclaimer to the main page that said only the storm page had updates; for other storms it's been a problem since people make articles for just about every new storm and these quickly become out of date. Jdorje 08:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I do not think there is value in writing an article that is only useful as a piece of current news (as some anonymous user or other has tried to do for just about every storm this season). This is an encyclopedia not a newspaper. Consider all the articles in Category:Hurricane Katrina; most of these were written in the current tense and are badly out of date or obsolete. Maybe someone should go through and update them but many are of little encyclopedic value. If a new article were created about each new storm this is the chaos we'd end up with. We should strive for quality, not quantity. Jdorje 08:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
People have complained about how US-centric the articles are. The above criteria are only US-centric because US citizens have more to write about hurricanes that affect the US. In a supposedly global encyclopedia this is a problem, but I don't see what we can do about it. The people who are complaining that Alpha is more "deserving" of an article than Ophelia (which is probably true) are obviously also US citizens because they, too, have nothing to write about Alpha. Jdorje 08:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I had thought of that point. This is an en.wikipedia site, not spanish. The storms Jose and Alpha did not effect English users, so interest in creating an article for them is not as strong as it was for Ophelia which struck an english nation, and Emily which struck a tourist destination with english speakers and was large enough to distrupt a lot of people. I suppose Jose and Alpha would be good articles to write about in the spanish wikipedia site. --SargeAbernathy 09:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Oh please, that's about as anti-NPOV as one can get. Linguistic chauvinism? So, what, should we take out all articles on the Koran because it is only authentic in Arabic? Or articles on the Louvre because only French speakers would care? Just in case you're not awares, Jamaica, Belize, the Virgin Islands, the Bahamas, the Caymans, Grenada, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and....so on... there are many English-speaking nations scattered throughout the Caribbean. Wikipedia is for people of all nations; other language editions aren't supposed to be totally different Wikis... In any event, going by your rationale, the article information on Martian dust devils should be thrown out, because only Martian users would have interest in such an article! --Sturmde 02:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

The main reason for the Ophelia article: the section got too long on the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season page. Due to the Internet availability and the high presence of local media information in that region, the information was enough to move it off. Same with Alex (2004). That didn't happen with Alpha or Jose (or Arlene or Cindy, for that matter). Note that some other past storms that don't have articles likely would have them if they formed today with all the information available. CrazyC83 15:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Some other storms not retired from 1993-2000 that possibly or likely would have had their own articles if they formed today based on current information available (*indicates article later made):

  • 1993 - Bret, Emily, Gert
  • 1994 - Alberto*, Gordon*
  • 1995 - Erin
  • 1996 - Bertha*, Edouard
  • 1997 - (none)
  • 1998 - Bonnie
  • 1999 - Bret, Dennis, Irene
  • 2000 - Alberto*

There are none since 2001 that were in that position.

CrazyC83 15:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

On why Alpha deserves its own separate article:

  • 1. The death toll: Alpha killed 26 people total.
  • 2. Tropical Storm articles are nothing new, as you can see here:
Tropical Storm Alberto (1994)
Tropical Storm Allison
Tropical Storm Odette (2003)
  • 3. Some people are claiming that the article was created only because it was a Greek letter, no that was not the reason. And I was one of the people who said no to an Alpha article at first, but after seeing the death toll, I couldn't see why you couldn't have a separate article.

--Revolución (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

If you believe that to be the case, then by all means add to the article. The current three-and-a-half paragraphs that it has is not enough to justify a separate article, but I'm sure if you do some research you can find some more. In particular some pictures would be nice. As I said before, length is my criteria not notability: the current article is the exact same length as its "summary" in the main article. Jdorje 20:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
The only factor should be length. It's not about being US-centric, it's simply the fact that there are only a very small amount of people who hold a personal interest in Beta, for example, that contribute to this Wikipedia. It's up to them to write the article, or for someone to take a vested interest in seeking out the scarce news information that comes out of Central America following tropical storms. --tomf688{talk} 20:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
About those tropical storms, in the case of Odette, it was originally placed at the main article (since it was the first use of Odette) but later moved once confirmed it was not retired (although there wasn't much chance of it). Same will happen with Ophelia next spring - if not retired, it will be moved to Hurricane Ophelia (2005) (currently a redirect), as will Vince to Hurricane Vince (2005), with both main articles redirecting to the date-modified pages - unless there are dissenting voices here. In the case of Alpha, it was necessary due to the disambiguation page. CrazyC83 20:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

What follows Epsilon?

Or alternatively which Greek alphabet? If we're talking numbering storms after the moment we ran out, should it be Digamma? Or is it (boringly) Zeta? 82.36.26.229 21:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Digamma is an obsolete letter. It is no longer used. So if we get a storm after Epsilon (God forbid), it would be named 'Zeta'. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 21:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
One should follow the flush-right Greek letter chart, and not the full linguistic chart in the Greek alphabet article. That means digamma, vau, stigma; san; qoppa; sampi; and apostrophe wouldn't be used. I believe the National Hurricane Center consensus is that if it ever comes to What follows Omega?, storms will simply retain their tropical depression number. Frankly, if we ever get to a TD47+N (where N is the number of TD's not turning into tropical storms), we will have plenty of other climatological worries on our hands. But Tropical Storm Forty-Seven+N after Tropical Storm Omega seems rational. Then again, numbering them Roman style like Super Bowls or Jovian satellites might have merit. Tropical Storm LXIX anyone? --Sturmde 02:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
If we start getting into Greek letters frequently, what they should consider is a rolling list that doesn't follow years at all...for example, assuming the list started with the 2005 season list, Alpha ---> Alberto, Beta ---> Beryl, Gamma (if formed) ---> Chris, etc.. The first storm of the following season (2006 in this case) would pick up where the last storm of the previous year ended, regardless of position on the alphabet. CrazyC83 03:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Let's hope we won't have to do that. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
There should be a back up list with names of ambiguous gender; Avery, Brook, Casey, Devon, Everette, Farley, Gerry, Hayden, Indigo, Jamie, Kelly, Leigh, Marty, Nickie, Ollie, Pat, Robin, Shayne, Taylor, Vic, Willie. This way we can keep the human names, but not have to worry about the female/male problem at the end of the list. Hurricanehink 22:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
The above is prudent since it won't give the NHC or whoever moniters hurricanes the trouble of retiring and replacing a greek letter. What happens if a greek letter is retired anyway? Px010

Poll

Can we take a poll on how we can the alignment of the pictures to be so we can get it over with. Please state if you like then on the:

Left:

Right:

  1. tdwuhs
  2. Awolf002 14:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Holderca1 15:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Alternating Left and Right:

  1. Hurricanehink
  2. Jdorje
  3. CrazyC83
  4. Patteroast
  5. Titoxd(?!?) 05:19, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. TimL
  7. AySz88^-^
  8. EMS
  9. RattleMan
  10. PK9 Not that my vote counts much I haven't actually contributed to the article.
  11. Revolución (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. --WolFox 05:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. B.Wind 10:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Makes no difference:

  1. NSLE
  2. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


Comments:

Vince Picture (cont)

As talked about at Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/October#Hurricane_Vince, we might want to put a better picture on the page.... The current one is low-contrast and a little blurry. However, as I don't know how to work with images well, I'll defer to the rest of you to decide which image to use and how to put it in the article. AySz88^-^ 05:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)--WolFox 04:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that was the best image we could find, since NASA didn't take a real shot of Vince (like they did with other storms) -Tcwd (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe [1], the picture referenced in the previous discussion? AySz88^-^ 14:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The one linked above is an excellent replacement, IMO. --tomf688{talk} 23:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes! Finally someone who listens! I said that exact same thing three or four weeks ago! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Who put up the one that's there now? It's horrible! Should we replace it with AySz88's pic? --WolFox 04:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone owns that image but I don't know who. Plus Vince imaged are rare. Ppl hated the old one so I added a better one. Good kitty 05:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Question about opening sentence

Apologies for making an edit without discussing it first, and I admit I may be alone in thinking this, but nonetheless I am somewhat offended by this article's opening line, "Early indications were for a very active season, and these expectations have been borne out." Obviously, early in the season, such cautious wording was commendable, but now that this season has officially broken nearly every Atlantic record, caused a hundred billion dollars in damages, and killed nearly three thousand people, it comes across as a poor attempt at ironic understatement. Serendipodous 13:46, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I had to revert your edits. I know your intentions are in the right place, but some of that was not the "standard" of the Atlantic hurricane season articles. The first two sentences in these articles, 99% of the time, is always, for example, "The 2002 Atlantic hurricane season was an ongoing event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclone formation. It officially started June 1, 2002, and lasted until November 30, 2002." I feel that the "Early inditcations..." sentence serves as a sort of "intro" to the displaying of the records from this season. I'm sure that, when this season is over, the truely destructive and heartwrenching aspect of this season will be found in those paragraphs. -- RattleMan 14:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Rules for new tropical cyclone articles

I think we should have a rule (or more) for new tropical cyclone articles. Maybe something along the lines of "Only if the hurricane reaches Category 3+ and makes landfall" or "Only if the tropical cyclone's death toll exceeds x". I think this would stop the constant arguing on wether to keep a page or not (such as Tropical Storm Alpha). Do you think this is a good idea? -Tcwd (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe the existing consensus is based on length - if the section grows too large and there is enough information to create a new article, then create it. I don't see any reason to change that, except to define what is "too large". AySz88^-^ 14:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There are really two rules for gaining its own article:

  • If the storm does so much damage and destruction (or is expected to) and the name is likely to be retired, the storm automatically gets the main article, and if the main article currently exists on a disambiguation page, it changes to Hurricane xxx (disambiguation)
  • If the section in the season page is too long and contains too much information (particularly in the introduction and storm impact), then the storm can get its own article on a vote by the members. It will get the main article if it does not exist elsewhere (or at least a main article redirect), otherwise, it will get the year modifier. CrazyC83 15:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree whole-heartedly with these rules. --Patteroast 08:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

separate

Why isn't there a separate artical on Hurricane Beta?--Akako|☎ 14:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not important enough to warrant an article yet. -- RattleMan 14:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
It will likely come, it just needs to strengthen some more (for us to be almost certain that it will be destructive) or make landfall. CrazyC83 15:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Most definitely. I have a bad feeling about this. In response to the post below, it's when it makes the big landfall (not over small islands) and causes lots of damage. -- RattleMan 15:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
It has made landfall now, and doesn't it warrent the creation of an artical due to the fact that it is the first time that a hurricane has been named Beta, let alone Alfa? I could be wrong, but as the hurricane has made landfall (even if on a tiny island, Providencia, according to CNN.com) shouldn't it have a separate artical?--Akako|☎ 15:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Beta only has three small paragraphs written on it, hardly enough material to merit its own article.--Holderca1 16:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The fact that it's the first storm named Beta is not a reason to create its own article. Personally, I don't even think we should have articles on Ophelia or Vince, but there's nothing we can really do about it at the moment. bob rulz 19:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, if Vince gets one than Beta should.

Beta probably will get an article - possibly later tonight - but I'm waiting for it to strengthen some more. At least wait for it to get up to Category 2 or a Category 3 landfall forecast. I'd say by the 11:00 pm advisory, the time will come. (Although if someone jumps the gun - not recommending it - I won't redirect it back, I'll build it up) Also, neither the Ophelia nor the Vince articles were made with the storm yet to have effects on land... CrazyC83 21:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Storms only get articles if they have enough content to warrant having one; the "if Vince gets one, Beta gets one" argument above isn't going to work. If there is significantly more content added about Beta, then and only then should it be moved to its own article. --tomf688{talk} 23:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I am strongly against an article for Beta. It isn't notable. It hasn't done much damage. Nobody's died yet. Ophelia was borderline. Vince didn't deserve an article any more that Odette (2003) did. I disagreed with the creation of a Hurricane Alex article for last year's Alex storm. No damage or notability, no article. That's the way I see it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The storm is about 18-24 hours or less from landfall, and strengthening. I think the time has definitely come. I think the big story from Beta will be the loss of life, unfortunately :'( CrazyC83 05:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Sadly, I agree with CrazyC83. Beta is going into Nicaragua. Lots of rain there = Mitch, unfortunately. I think it's better to keep up with the updates on a separate article. Titoxd(?!?) 05:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Jesus people! Let's have a positive outlook on things! (Although reverse psychology is sometimes a useful tool). It could end up like Hurricane Greta in 1978: Stronger than Fifi (1974) with a similar track but minus the death and destruction wrought by Fifi. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/Archive_11&oldid=1140249568"