Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

New infoboxes-having pic probs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HurricaneCraze32

The link to the updates i made to those infoboxes. I added the Catgeory that was their peak intensity and even made a link to the Saffir-Simpson Scale. Read the link. And give me your opinion,.

user:HurricaneCraze32

Uh, I absolutely don't think the ACE of the storm, which is a rather quite useless value, should be included in the infobox. However I do think the idea of adding the highest category could be a good idea; see User:Jdorje/Sandbox. However I haven't quite figured out how to do this in the context of the templates while still making it work across all basins. I'm okay with using the US-centrism of applying the SSS to typhoons and tcyclones in all basins, but it's not correct to call them "hurricane"s. Jdorje 22:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Similar "useless" values are in a lot of other infoboxes, such as the Effective radiated power thing for broadcast stations (see WWL-TV). If someone puts it in as an optional value, I don't see the harm. --AySz88^-^ 16:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm. Looks like nobody listed the hurricane box at Wikipedia:Infobox. --AySz88^-^ 16:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

i had trouble getting the ace rating in the table-i did it right-it didnt show up for some reason. Now i've also added the storm number to the infoboxes.I was actually able to make a lot more. They're missing pics though.

User:HurricaneCraze32

Take a look at [1]. It looks really good... Jdorje 06:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Can't we just replace our Infobox with Modèle:Cyclone? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that easily, because we don't want to break all of the hundreds of infoboxes we have now and I'm not too excited about making a new one from scratch. However I've started merging in some of the new fields that they have...changing the formats (colors) is another thing to be done. Jdorje 20:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

That being said, the winter is the time to make changes (those are AMAZING)...and yes, now I support articles FOR ALL STORMS, including fish-spinners and tropical depressions...I might make sandbox articles for Arlene, Bret, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, TD10, Jose, Lee, Maria, Nate, Philippe, TD19, Tammy, TD22, Delta and Epsilon... CrazyC83 02:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of the infoboxes have pics now, something's wrong with Harvey,Maria and Phillippe. There's no pic for the TD and STD's.Update:Maria,Phillippe and harvey's pics have been replaced by paths and most of the others are ready for use.

HurricaneCraze32 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Where are we going to put them, on their own separate articles? CrazyC83 22:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"now I support articles FOR ALL STORMS" There's your answer right in your own sentence. HurricaneCraze32 00:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

All completed. Just inform me on anymore things to add.Lemme put them in ok.HurricaneCraze32 16:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The first of my test-articles are completed. The links to completed ones will be added below (italics indicate article already exists):

Arlene - Bret - Cindy - Dennis - Emily - Franklin - Gert - Harvey - Irene - TD10 - Jose - Katrina - Lee - Maria - Nate - Ophelia - Philippe - Rita - TD19 - Stan - Tammy - TD22 - Vince - Wilma - Alpha - Beta - Gamma - Delta - Epsilon- Zeta

I started with those three because Maria and Epsilon were long-lasting storms with long and interesting stories and TD19 was probably the least notable storm of the season and I wanted to test what an article would look like for a storm that did nothing and quickly would be forgotten. CrazyC83 18:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be easier to at least add the storm number to the infobox like i have.HurricaneCraze32 18:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not think adding the storm number to the infobox is appropriate, because numbering depends on what is considered to be an enumerable storm and that varies by basin and time. Storms in a different basin or from older seasons may not be numbered the same, and thus renumbering is possible. Jdorje 21:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

These are individual storm articles though. CrazyC83 18:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Plus i think we're gonna need a color for STD. (Because of 22)HurricaneCraze32 18:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Same as for a tropical depression. Likewise when we get to 2004, Nicole will get the same color as the tropical storms. We should disregard the prefix "sub" and treat them as tropical. CrazyC83 18:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In the new track maps, the color only indicates wind strength. Tropical/subtropical/extratropical are indicated a different way. In the infoboxes this should be done simply in text. However the {{{type}}} and {{{category}}} fields of the infobox are not set up to handle subtropical or extratropical...though this can be fixed once there's a sample infobox user to test it out on. Jdorje 21:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd still think it would fit in:There's been notable ones:

1972
--------------
Subtropical Storm Delta
Subtropical Storm Alpha

2000
--------------
Unnamed Subtropical Storm

2005
-------------
Remnants of 22 and Tammy flood the Northeast

HurricaneCraze32 19:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Some information that got removed from some of the summaries in this article were noted in the talk pages of the redirects; I think one's at Talk:Tropical Storm Harvey (2005). I don't think I noticed them all, so it might be wise to dive into the history. --AySz88^-^ 19:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok.By any chance, does anyone know the mbar of hurricane Erika (1997)HurricaneCraze32 19:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's all in the best track file. You can download it from NHC or from UNISYS. Jdorje 21:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Best track file?HurricaneCraze32 21:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)have a link?

New section to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HurricaneCraze32#Infoboxes_of_Storms_left_for_Forgotten.28Except_Epsilon.29

(Epsilon is in the way) HurricaneCraze32 20:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

No, articles on every storm is a BAD idea. We've been over this before. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of information. Let's not do this again. I've had my share of headaches dealing with all this obsessive subpage nonsense the first time. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles on the least notable storms do not meet any of those criteria listed. This is an educational site, and it is meant for people to learn about things like this. CrazyC83 03:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

m:Wiki is not paper and Wikipedia:Summary style. (I wish I had those links the first time around.) --AySz88^-^ 17:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Agree entirely with the above. If we have the information, it should be inserted. Separate articles allow the season page to maintain summary style. There is no reason why information should be kept out of Wikipedia that is not vanity information. Tropical cyclones are not vanity information. - Cuivienen 17:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Crazy i just thought of something. Because Tammy and STD22 worked toghether why dont we just put them toghether. Both Infoboxes in it. 22 Still needs a pic.Can someone find that pic for me? The teamwork storms of 2005. If you havent started theirs lemme do it.HurricaneCraze32 20:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Except for a couple of changes-you've been using mine right.HurricaneCraze32 16:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

That's correct. I've added the year to the formed/dissipated dates, removed the storm number and made a few corrections (although the major corrections were already done on your talk page). CrazyC83 16:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll go straight to making Zeta one ok.

HurricaneCraze32 17:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd be more comfortable if we'd wait for the final report before making an article on it. That would give us more than basic information and records to put in the article. And I'm still against articles for every storm and always will be. Many of the storms were so boring that the info on the main page is basically all we got. So for storms like that (Leecough*) should not have an article. I'm against having articles for Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Nate, Maria, Philippe, and Tammy and partially against ones for Jose, Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta. All based on lack of info. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I meant an infobox and i have to agree with something. Crazy you seem awfully hyperHurricaneCraze32 21:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I just saw a bunch of talk about new articles and I was expressing my dissent. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 21:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

As early as 2006, it would be 'Zeta' or 'Alberto'?

If Zeta remains in activity as far of January 1st or 2nd of 2006, could the storm still be named as Zeta (2005) or the storm will became Alberto, the 1st official storm of 2006? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.42.232.131 (talk • contribs) .

It stays Zeta. That's also what happened with Hurricane Alice in 1954-55. CrazyC83 00:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, they did steal the name Alice from 1955, but I agree that the name is maintained. - Cuivienen 03:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That's because there weren't any satellites back then and Alice was caught on January 1 but was later proven to have developed on December 30. CrazyC83 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in, but don't wiki to know how to start a new topic. Is there a way to get to read the Tropical Storm Zeta Advisory Archive? The National Hurricane Center's link isn't working. 66.47.77.94 13:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, 66.47.77.94! You're right that the NHC's link for Zeta is not working. Try here: [2]. However, you won't be able to see any advisories between 5 pm AST last night and today as their archive doesn't seem to be updating (it's supposed to be automated). Update: The link actually is working now, but you still can't see any new advisories. -- Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) ★ 16:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would they rename it? That would be too confusing. The present naming system may be stupid, but I'd doubt they'd be that anal about it. :-P Good kitty 14:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd say because it formed in 2005, they would keep the name Zeta. --Revolución (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The article says that the Hurricane season is June-November. Does this mean that naming won't start again until June, or will any possible January tropical storm be named Alberto? Perhaps someone who knows could update the article to include what the 12-month period is for the naming of storms. --65.91.102.204 17:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, even if the storm forms during the offseason it will be named after the naming list. so, if a new tropical cyclone forms in January it'll be called Alberto and if one forms in December it will be named after the next name on the list--WmE 18:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The name obviously stayed the same. However, it should be mentioned that if a storm were to pass from the Atlantic to the Pacific, its name would change from the Atlantic basin name to the Pacific basin name. I'm having trouble finding an instance where this actually happened. myselfalso 05:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hurricane Hattie, Hurricane Cesar, Hurricane Joan. Jdorje 05:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The last and final topic about ACE restoration

If Zeta survives the shear, as one model predicts, and lives to become a hurricane, then it is possible that we can have the #1 ACE season. Then it would be significant to restore ACE charts and ACE values. I know this has been discussed ad nauseum but with it approaching the 243 mark (it's currently at 240), it is now a possibility that we have the #1 year. I know the storm counts as a 2005 storm, but does the 2006 info for Zeta apply to its ACE number? And the season ended 4 minutes ago...right?! Hopquick 00:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It counts to 2005, just like Alice2. --24.83.100.214 01:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. Wow. That ACE number is getting so big. :) Hopquick 01:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Zeta page

Is the Tropical Storm Zeta page really necessary? I don't think the article is long enough to merit its own page. 200.119.236.216 14:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's got enough information for those who want it and it's a current event, so I see no reason why there's a problem with it. It might not be as long as Katrina but does it really have to be? Also, as only the second Atlantic hurricane to go through to a new year, it merits some inclusion as a future article anyway.--Dan ^(Talk)|@ 15:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Now there's a zeta page there's one for all the greek storms except delta. Why doesnt't Delta have one? Shouldn't it? It destroyed a landmark after all... Jamie C 16:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think people are already working on it? --AySz88^-^ 16:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Created a main article link for Delta but that currently leads to the disambiguation page (here). I was going to copy the basic template stuff over from Epsilon and modify a few details but the hurricane infobox will need to be done. In the meantime, I have requested that the redirect to Tropical Storm Delta be removed. Dan ^(Talk)|@ 16:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Crazy was already working on it at User:CrazyC83/Delta (2005) - you can probably start with that. --AySz88^-^ 16:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheers m'dears. Dan ^(Talk)|@ 17:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've got all except for Harvey, Tammy and TD22 done at this point; I hope to get them done tonight. CrazyC83 23:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Geez people, I thought we were going to wait for the report. I suggested that up in the /97L.INVEST section. We don't have enough information. This fetish for subpages is giving me a headache. You people all lack patience. We need more than just a storm history. If that's all we have, then that article shouldn't exist. That's the case with Zeta right now. The report will probably give us more and more accurate information. The fact that Delta toppled an ancient rock formation doesen't mean that it deserves its own article. It was extratropical when it did all that anyway. Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Jose, Lee, Maria, Nate, Philippe, Tammy, Beta, Delta and I'm tempted to say Epsilon don't deserve articles and I'm being generous with Vince. The fact that these storms weren't notable is important because there isn't any info beyond storm history and perhaps a few records or brief, one-sentence impact statements. Look at say Emily for example. You have storm history, preparations and evacuations, intensity info, landfall and damages and cleanup. That's a lot of good information. With Delta what do you have? Storm history, intensity info, and a short impact section. Minimal if any useful information beyond what is said in the main article. There is no point in creating articles like that, it's just stupid. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Summary style. We shouldn't cram everything into 2005AHS, even if one thinks it's "just" storm history, intensity, and a short impact section. --AySz88^-^ 20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Beta definately should due to its damage. Jamie C 21:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You guys have been staring at that policy page too much. If it fits nicely in the main article (which Cindy, Delta and others do), then leave it alone. A page on Cindy is definitely unnecessary. Nothing sets it apart. It will fit just fine in the main article. When you say we shouldn't cram everything into the main article, how much cramming would we actually be doing? Not much, I think. Also, some of those details need to be removed. They just aren't notable. There's also a lot stuttering in there. Word economy is a virtue. And it's a skill many of us need to work on. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the word economy's going to be as good as we're going to get it - it feels like everyone has probably combed through once or twice now (or at least, you've done it twice and I've done it once). Trim and move details; no sense in taking them off Wikipedia.

Also, I don't think one can brush Summary Style off as if we're reading too much into that policy page; I for one had already restated and applied it in my own words without being aware of such a policy.

(btw, "necessary" or "unnecessary") --AySz88^-^ 02:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hurricane Eric. Why? These names are going to be used again and again in the future years which might be more powerful and maybe destructive, that leaves us with making new articles with the same name, and the articles that are made on these storm, like hurricane eric said, dont even have much information, some of them are very repetitive and should be only put once on the 2005 HS page. DanielES15

That's why (2005) is added to those that have been used in the past (except for names likely to be retired, i.e. Katrina) and will be added if they are used again or agreed upon. CrazyC83 23:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The (2005) suffix should be added to all non-retired storms IMO. (Of course we don't want to speculate about which storms will be retired, which is why either name is okay until we find that out.) Jdorje 23:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course some, like Katrina, are obviously going to be retired though... CrazyC83 00:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

All the remaining articles are now complete...I just finished the last few.

Arlene - Bret - Cindy - Dennis - Emily - Franklin - Gert - Harvey - Irene - TD10 - Jose - Katrina - Lee - Maria - Nate - Ophelia - Philippe - Rita - TD19 - Stan - Tammy - TD22 - Vince - Wilma - Alpha - Beta - Gamma - Delta - Epsilon - Zeta

Have a look at them all and see what you all think. CrazyC83 00:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes are messed up!

Help! Someone (or someones) has mangled the footnotes! There are {{ref}}'s without {{note}}'s and vice-versa all over the place. I have fixed one and commented out two cases where someone thought the parameter the a {{ref}} was the URL being referenced! However, I cannot put more time into this tonight. --EMS | Talk 04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I had noted this above... We should eventually change it to the new method involving <ref> and <reference>, but perhaps wait until Zeta gets out of the way and the editing rate dies down. --AySz88^-^ 04:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Since it is completely messed up now, let's just go ahead and change them to <ref> and <reference> now. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Jose and Lee's missing images

I was tired of seeing Jose and Lee lonely without an image while all the others do, so I have added images for them.

If anyone objects or could do better than me, let me know. Wikipikarefulgenschu 00:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My friend and I both said at the same time that those pictures are the stupidest we've ever seen. There's is a good picture of Tropical Depression Lee on www.nnvl.noaa.gov

Alpha

The NHC report for Tropical Storm Alpha is out. 200.119.236.216 00:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Only real change was the intensity was adjusted downwards from 50 to 45 knots (60 to 50 mph). CrazyC83 01:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally! Another report is out! I was worried Zeta was stalling up the reports. Fableheroesguild 01:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Another report is out: for the least notable system of 2005, Tropical Depression Nineteen. CrazyC83 16:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)