Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Better organization of hurricane projects

I've been reading some volcano articles and I ran across Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains. These guys seem pretty organized (as I'm sure other wikiprojects are) and I think some of these ideas would be helpful for work on tropical cyclones.

Now I'm not saying a wikiproject should be created immediately. The first step in further organization would be to get some useful templates going (templates for infoboxes for hurricanes and hurricane seasons) and a more centralized place for discussion of these issues. Current discussion (that I have read) seems to center in this talk page and in Talk:List of notable tropical cyclones but is pretty spread out.

Does anyone object to this idea? Is there actually more organization out there that I don't know about? Is there somewhere else I should be suggesting this?

Jdorje 02:50, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, my mistake! There is already Template:Infobox hurricane and Template:Infobox Hurricane Season. These are good (though not used everywhere, which is I guess why I thought it was just infoboxes being used). What's missing then is a Template:hurricane that can go on the discussion page for each hurricane (season) and serves to point potential editors to the location where standards are given (and where standards discussion takes place). Compare to Template:mountain. (P.S. Why is it "hurricane" rather than "tropical cyclone"? This is shortest and makes sense to me but may be too America-centric.) Jdorje 03:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles on Typhoons seem to be a bit disorganized, it would be great if a Wikiproject could cover them. I think it would also to help expand articles on past hurricanes, though it may be hard to find more information. --Revolución (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Is there interest in making a wikiproject for hurricanes? Anyone interested in this should first check out Template_talk:hurricane where I've put the beginnings for some guidelines and standards (feel free to edit it, of course). Only if there are enough contributors (the Wikiproject guidelines say at least 5 people or so) should a Wikiproject be made. Jdorje 09:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Greek name question

I'm just wondering...what happens if we get into the Greek Alphabet, and a Greek-name storm is so bad that the name calls for retirement? Would they just skip over that name in future years and still retire it, or ignore the request? CrazyC83 03:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I presume they would retire it. --tomf688^<TALK> 03:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been wondering that myself. The odds of that happening are rare since it will be a late season storm, what is the latest storm in a season to get retired? I know Mitch was pretty late in the season. If we do in fact go into Greek letters this year. I would not be surprised if the WMO creates two standby list of X, Y, and Z names for future years. --Holderca1 03:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Lenny (1999) I believe was the latest storm to be retired - third week of November and just under Category 5 strength (going backwards too right across the Caribbean!). However, since we had two July storms likely to be retired, what's to say the same can't happen in November? CrazyC83 03:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The waters in July are warmer than they are in November. That's just a fact. I mean, it's the middle of summer for crying out loud. Julys can and have been active in the tropics. This one just surpassed all that had come before (in records that date back to before the Civil War). November has harder-to-predict upper level winds and cooler waters, not hurricane friendly. That's why Hurricane Alice in December of 1954 was so insane. Shear can sometimes let up a bit, but the waters are frigid compared to the bountiful heat of summer.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 05:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which: there's a few problems with that Hurricane Alice of 1954 article. On the 1954 Atlantic hurricane season page, it cites Alice as the first storm of the season, yet it formed after the other storms that are later on the list. Can someone go clean that information up please or clarify? Thanks. --tomf688^<TALK> 13:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, based on the info Holderca added, I clarified it further. Now back to greek letters... ;) --tomf688^<TALK> 17:31, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Current pressure

For those who are regularly updating the "current" sections for each tropical system...why is the central pressure never included? This is the most important measurement of strength, and the most reliably reported one. I added it to Ophelia and it was kept updated after that, but I see for Philippe and Rita it is again gone. Can we start including this in all hurricane reports? Jdorje 05:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

hey there... i had wondered the same thing earlier in the season, and was told i think by the great zo, or golbez - can't remember, that we should include central pressure once it gets very low, or if it drops very rapidly in a short period of time. Usually a tropical depression will form with a central pressure of about 1009mb to 1006mb or so... and tropical storm down to about 998mb or so. These values then, if we were to include in every single update is redundant in a sense. However i do agree with you, central pressure in many cases gives a more accurate account of the storm - often the central pressure may drop and then it will take several hours for the sustained winds to 'catch up' to it. Boort 06:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Generally, it hasn't been included, probably because until a storm is massively powerful, it's simply not all that useful. When a storm is 100mph, that matters to the people who come here looking for breaking info about the storm (more than we'd like, I think); but "940mb" doesn't really say anything to them. When it's 920 and under, though, then we're talking. --Golbez 06:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

But it is useful! Perhaps not to the general public (I don't really know) but to someone who knows hurricanes the pressure is the most important reading. For instance when Ophelia's pressure dropped 5 mb (988->983 or so) right before landfall, it was obvious that strenthening was to come; Ophelia had a lower pressure than one would expect for a low-end-category-1 hurricane and voila - it was more destructive than one would expect. The same was true of Katrina of course. While it's true that pressures for tropical storms (in the 995-1010 mb range) aren't that useful, I don't see that they hurt anything either. It only takes about 7 words to include the pressure. Jdorje 15:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JD. For hurricane enthusiasts and experts alike, central pressure gives an idea of the storm's health. It's like its heartbeat. If the pressure falls, it means the storm is likely getting stronger (healthier, or extratropical but that's besides the point). If the pressure rises, it means the storm is weakening (or getting sick, I know, I'm horrible at analogies). If the pressure is falling (like it's doing in Rita), you know you're in trouble. The JTWC doesn't properly respect the usefulness of central pressure in my opinion. Notice that when ranking the strongest storms on record, most lists go by central pressure.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

Do you think it would look better if we put some of the satellite pictures on the left? All the pictures are on the right, and it looks a bit unbalanced. --Revolución (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't look that good considering the images would infringe on some of the headings, thus pushing them off balance. I'd say it's actually quite balanced the way it is. --tomf688^<TALK> 23:52, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think pictures on the right is better I agree with what tomf688 says.

I agree with Tomf688. Provides continuity between storms. -- Bladeswin 00:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think all of the storms need a picture. The picture for Jose doesn't really give anyone an idea of what exactly the storm is on that picture. The weather looks worse on the Pacific coast of Mexico than it does on the Gulf side. --Holderca1 00:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried removing images for some of the minor storms and/or crappy images in general, but they were reinstated. --tomf688^<TALK> 00:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can just have pictures for the hurricanes? And take off all the pictures of the tropical storms/depressions? --Revolución (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, but the article will be light on pictures near the beginning of the season while being heavy on pictures during the maria-nate-ophelia period. --tomf688^<TALK> 01:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

For myself I love photos of all Tropical Storms and Hurricanes alike. For one thing they are their own entity and have their own personality like people do. So I think satellite photos show that. Like everything in this world no two things are exactly alike and that goes for Tropical Storms and Hurricanes and I love to associate a Name to a picture.

I think that all the pics are good except for Jose and Bret. (On both of them, the weather actually looks worse on the Pacific.) Phillipe and Rita need pictures that aren't of the forecast track. They need some satellite photos.Fableheroesguild 01:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I've mentioned a better source for pictures on this talk page and said that many of the ones in there now should be removed, but someone (Holderca knows who I'm talking about) felt insulted and started...basically a war...he's (or she's or it's) been berating me ever since. You can see why I gave up. Fable...(I hate long names :) ), I also think the picture of Franklin isn't very good. I've seen the website they came from. The pictures there generally aren't that good. The pictures from the Navy site (the place where Gert's picture came from) are pretty good. Also, the picture of Lee is not of it as a tropical storm, (however brief that was). The Navy site has a few decent pictures of it as a storm.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 02:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added {{clear}} after each storm section. The images for the storms at the bottom with less information were aliggning so they overlaped sections. The template caues the next section to drop down untill it can clear all the way right. It differentiates the sections in a way I think is nice but I suspect some people may dislike the added whitespace in the articles. I also added the template to the sections that were formatting properly in my browser as screen resolution and font sizes will impact this. You can't really tell they are there except at the bottom. Dalf | Talk 01:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

There are many pictures of storms on the Wikimedia Commons, but they don't need to clutter up an article here. Perhaps we should make an article on the Commons regarding images from the 2005 season, link to it from here, and leave this article nice and uncluttered. --tomf688^{talk} 12:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Why leave out information?

Not mentioning when a storm is downgraded leaves a gap in the timeline. Who cares if it's over land or water? It's legitimate info IMHO. --tomf688^<TALK> 22:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it should only be included when it is important. Otherwise half the timeline would be about Hurricane Ophelia changing back and forth from a T.S. and hurricane. --Holderca1 22:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Is length really an issue? The timeline will be moved into it's own article at the end of the season anyways. --tomf688^{talk} 01:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I never said length is an issue. --Holderca1 02:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Holderca. Only significant changes in strength should be noted. Even with a fish-spinner, strengthening is more important than weakening. Because it is good to know what SS Category the storm peaked at. It tells you what kind of storm it was. With a fish-spinner, the only weakening that should be mentioned should be designation changes (major hurricane to minor hurricane, minor hurricane to tropical storm, and tropical storm to tropical depression) and, of course, dissipation. For hurricanes within 24 hours of landfall or closest land approach, the same should apply with a twist: major hurricanes changing minor designations (like a Saffir Simpson categories) should be noted. That's my take on it.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well that's my argument too. See the page history when I added Philippe being downgraded to a tropical storm. Golbez disagreed with it's significance, so I made a post here on the talk page. --tomf688^{talk} 12:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

My argument is: Strengthening is a notable event no matter what. Weakening is not, and restrengthening isn't particularly. I guess it depends on what you want this to be a timeline of - all events during the season, or only the notable events of strength and impact? --Golbez 01:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)