Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms

[edit]

This list was originally spun off from 2005 Atlantic hurricane season when that article became too large, but it has become a detailed and valuable resource of information rather than a mere dumping ground for excess information since then. While not all of the storms listed have their own articles, 17 of the 30 (16 if Tropical Storm Tammy is merged, as is under discussion) do, and the rest are fully covered in this list as it was concluded that they were not significant enough for articles on their own. This is a self-nom on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 03:45 (UTC)

  • Support, although I don't like the modified TOC very much... and I would also add the list of related articles found at the top of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season as a navigational aid. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The old version of the ToC did not allow direct linking to the External Links or Notes sections. Or do you mean the default ToC? I removed the related articles template because it was redundant to the new ToC. Better to condense links. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 03:55 (UTC)
  • Object. To be a featured list, I think each entry (storm) in the list needs to have a level of information/detail proportional to its notability. This is currently not the case, primarily because some sections for storms that have articles are shorter than sections for storms without articles. The problem is only with a few of the more notable storms (from Ophelia on up) that just need a little more detail, so in the short term this should be easy enough to fix. However if articles such as Tammy, Maria, and Epsilon were to be merged back in the problem would come back, since people would want to see all of the information contained in those articles and this would again imbalance those sections. I don't really have a solution to this problem, except to say that this problem is a large part of the reason the storms-list page was split from the main season page in the first place. — jdorje (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be frank, every other featured list does not do this. Compare, for example, within the WikiProject, List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. Hurricane Andrew is surely more notable than Hurricane Dog, but the two are covered equally. The same is true in this list. However, I will make some effort to equalize length. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 15:55 (UTC)
      • I've expanded the sections on Dennis, Emily, Ophelia, Rita and Wilma. Katrina and Stan both already seemed sufficiently long. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 16:44 (UTC)
        • Ok, I withdraw my objection. To Cuivienen: the difference between this article and those others is that they contain only tables. While I think tables should be an intrinsic part of a list of storms, I won't insist on it for this article. If those other articles had text, they should follow the same principle. And even if you disagree with that principle, you probably think that each storm should have the same level of detail - which would naturally make the more notable storms longer since there is simply more information available, contrary to the old setup (still visible in many older AHS articles) where some storms with sub-articles just have stub sections in the storms list. — jdorje (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent list. well referenced, images, complete, and easy on the eye. -- Ian ≡ talk 07:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. (Yes, you can consider that a support.) —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 12:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones editors are discussing a reorganisation of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season articles here, Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Articles for every storm. This article may be severely reduced as a result, making this nomination nonsensical. -- Nilfanion 23:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that conversation is trying to find information to fill new articles, not cut this one. Several editors who would severely object to such a cutting have not commented yet. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And even if the article was cut, that's an issue for then and not now. Here, we are discussing the article as it is currently. We should not crystal ball too much. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As Titoxd pointed out, none of the original mergists have yet entered the discussion there. In any case, even if articles are created for each storm, the list page shouldn't change. After all, we only need articles if there is additional information to present beyond the list page. 69.86.17.202 (I really need to remember to log in.) —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 6 April 2006 @ 01:08 (UTC)
  • Support. A strong article. Soo 00:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Efforts like this must be rewarded! Very good article. Keep the good work! Afonso Silva 23:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - Too much information to be an FL, merge it with 2005 AHS (which it should be an inseperable part of) and put it up for FA. I always have and always will oppose the seperation of the two articles. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As brought up on the peer review and the discussion linked from above, doing so would be considered unacceptable by many. I'd like for it to be merged too, but we're in the minority. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • E. Brown, do you really need to be sore about this? The consensus was to maintain this page, and you are doing nothing productive by opposing the nomination. Stubbornness on your part is not going to make the overwhelming majority opinion (as it currently stands) change. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 03:50 (UTC)
      • I have every right to be sore about being repeatedly ignored and even critisized on this issue. Just because a bunch of guys disagree with me isn't going to change my opinion. I reserve the right to maintain my opinion and not support based on that opinion. I'm getting a little tired of being lectured by pro-split gurus who will berate anyone who opposes them. You don't see me going around telling supporters "Hey, your vote is pointless! What's wrong with you?", which is basically what you're saying to me. My opinion is my opinion and you guys saying it's worthless is not going to change it so quit chiding me. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look, I'm not accusing you of anything, nor am I saying your vote is pointless. However, I would like you to take into consideration the fact that your opinion is in the minority, and apparently quite severely so. I am not one of the "pro-split gurus", and I am not going to repeat the arguments for and against the split here, but I think it would be most productive if those who opposed the idea, yourself included, attempted to reconcile themselves with the situation rather than unproductively recite their opinion, which is essentially what you are doing. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 @ 17:28 (UTC)
  • Comment How does the unnamed subtropical storm affect this FLC? It at least needs to be listed in the TOC. — jdorje (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll get around to that as soon as I can (or someone else can do it if they want). I'm not sure how to label it, for one, but I suppose "Un" would suffice for now. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 03:50 (UTC)
  • Conditional support. Everything looks good. There are however three statments in the lead that I think would be better off sourced.
  1. "The 2005 season was the most active season on record."
  2. "Among these Category 5 storms was Hurricane Wilma, the most intense hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic."
  3. "These storms made a combined twelve landfalls as major hurricanes (Category 3 strength or higher) throughout Cuba, Mexico, and the Gulf Coast of the United States, causing over $100 billion (2005 USD) in damages and at least 2,048 deaths."

The second sentence, while it looks like it is already sourced later on, should be sourced here as well. Many readers will not make it to Wilma, and may only read the lead in this article/list. Everything thing else seems fine. I'm not sure, but I think this would be a nice article to feature on the main page - a first for a list if it happened. Pepsidrinka 05:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was bad style to have a citation in the lead? Because these are easily cited, but I was not sure about the style... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Never heard that. Is that what the Manual of Style says? If that is the case, then I would change my vote to an unconditional support. Pepsidrinka 05:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Off the top of my head, I remember a conversation about this on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia, which pretty much said that something that is covered in the lead should be covered at greater length farther down the article, and the references should be there. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great, great article — but if they start following the links to the Katrina articles, people are going to find a huge difference. Still a lot of work left there, if anyone's interested in pitching in. *cough cough* Tijuana Brass 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a list of things to do at Talk:Hurricane Katrina. *cough* Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This list is very complete. juan andrés 03:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season_storms&oldid=1138480982"