Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 28

Spaghetti intro

The intro is flawed in that it does not cover what is really important about the season. Four storms are mentioned, but of those, only one is among the 5 most notable storms of the season. It mentions the 1950 Atlantic hurricane season, but not New Orleans. It spends several sentences making comparisons to the 2004 season, but doesn't mention that the most intense hurricane of all time happened this year. Jdorje 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction was meant to have a meteorological overview though, not an impact overview. CrazyC83 04:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction probably should to be reworked to have both. --AySz88^-^ 04:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction should definitely describe the impacts. Somebody just looking at the intro would be confused as to why the most important aspects of the season were not covered there (and, frankly, even people who don't just look at the intro, like me). I usually count on the intro to provide me with a basic overview of the subject at hand. bob rulz 04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro blub is supposed to tell the reader what the 2005AHS is definitionally. This is an encyclopedia, I don't care what kind. This is supposed to be kind of like a Hurricanes For Dummies". -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro does badly need work. It's needed work for a long time; no one's done a significant update since Stan except the recent slimming down. If I have a chance I'll rewrite it. - Cuivienen 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The length of the intro could probably be slightly increased, but it is about right. The content should also be somewhat renovated, such as having the fact that the season was unusually long moved to the bottom while having the fact that thousands of human beings died moved to the top. --tomf688^{talk} 00:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The intro shouldn't be more than 3 paragraphs (as it is now), but the content needs to be changed. Important points may include:

Meteorological:

• 27 storms (most ever)
• Greek letters
• 14 hurrianes; 7 majors
• Strongest storm ever (or, 3 of the strongest 6)
• 3 cat5 storms (most ever)
• 5 cat4+ storms (ties record)
• Extended into January

Impact:

• 100+ billion in damages
• Costliest season ever
• Damages to U.S. and Mexico
• 1300 (or however many) deaths
• Deadliest U.S. season in 75 years

Storms to be mentioned by name:

• Katrina
• Wilma
• Rita
• Others up for debate.

Information we don't need:

• Epsilon or Zeta by name.
• More than a couple of words comparing to 2004
• Comparisons to 1950 or 1969
• Mention of the weather system involving Stan (pending the Stan TCR).
• The pre-season forecast.
• That 5 seasons since 1998 have extended into December
• That 2 seasons since 1950 have extended until January

Fitting it all into three paragraphs won't be easy; some of it may have to be cut. Jdorje 00:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's the beginnings of a rewrite. It's only two paragraphs right now but it has all of the "essentials" in it.

The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season officially began June 1, 2005, and officially ended on November 30, 2005 though effectively the season persisted into January of 2006 due to continued storm activity. Forecasters originally called for a modestly above-average hurricane season in 2005. However, the 2005 season unexpectedly became the most active season on record, shattering the previous records on repeated occasions. A record twenty-seven tropical storms formed, of which a record fourteen became hurricanes. Of these, seven strengthened into major hurricanes, a record-tying five became Category 4 hurricanes and a record three reached Category 5 strength, the highest categorization for Atlantic hurricanes. Among these Category 5 storms was Hurricane Wilma, the most intense hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic.

The impact of the season was widespread and ruinous with record damages over $100 billion USD and at least 1,777 deaths. Mexico was struck three times by major hurricanes and the US states of Florida and Louisiana were each struck twice. The most catastrophic effects of the season were felt in New Orleans, Louisiana where Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge breached levees protecting the city and caused over $75 billion in damages as well as more than 1,300 fatalities. However, Katrina was not the only catastrophic storm of the season; Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Wilma caused extreme damage in Louisiana, Texas, Mexico and Florida.

- Cuivienen 04:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Too short for the moment. There's a run-on sentence near the end of the second paragraph, and some things, which include "3 of the 6 strongest storms on record," are missing. I agree completely with Jdorje (for once) on the information that should be included in the intro. bob rulz 01:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the run-on sentence and replaced the old intro with this segment. I know that it is not the highest possible quality, but it is more likely to be improved while in the actual article and is an improvement over the sloppy and incomplete intro that was previously there. - Cuivienen 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents: "The season began in june an ended in December blah blah" is not the best way to open the article. Even an enclopedia article needs a lead that grabs the reader's attention:

The 2005 Atlantic Hurricane season was one of the most active, destructive and costliest since hurricane record keeping began. The season (officially June to December) included the most Category 5 hurricanes in one season (three), the most intense Atlantic hurricane on record (Wilma), and the most destructive hurricane in U.S. history, Katrina, which devastated New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast."

Something like that, maybe. I agree with Jdorje about the important and unimportant points. DavidH 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with the current introduction (specifically the last sentence seems forced), but I'll note that we should wait for the TCRs of Emily, Stan, and Rita before discussing if other storms deserve mention in the intro. Jdorje 07:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro revisited

It says:

Mexico was struck three times by major hurricanes, and the US states of Florida and Louisiana were each struck twice. The most catastrophic effects of the season were felt in New Orleans, Louisiana where Hurricane Katrina’s storm surge breached levees protecting the city and caused over $75 billion in damages as well as more than 1,400 fatalities. However, Katrina was not the only catastrophic storm of the season; Hurricane Dennis, Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Wilma caused extremely heavy damage in Cuba, Florida, Louisiana, Texas and Mexico.

This text could use some improvement.

• What are the three Mexico strikes? Emily, Emily, and Wilma? Or Emily, Wilma, and Wilma? If "strike" means landfall, shouldn't Wilma be counted twice? Or better yet, shouldn't we limit mention to the Mexican state: "The Mexican state of Quintana Roo, and the US states of Florida and Louisiana were each struck twice by major hurricanes."
• The text implies that $75B in damage was done in New Orleans. However this isn't the case; that value is the total damages from Katrina.
• The last sentence just repeats information from earlier; we already know that Louisiana and Mexico were struck.
• The last sentence obviously needs to mention Mississippi (coastal mississippi was the hardest hit area) and probably Alabama too.
• Wording of the last sentence needs to be improved.

I'm not really sure what the intro should say, however, so I bring it up here.

Jdorje 19:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• The "three Mexico strikes" were Emily, Emily and Wilma. Wilma's double landfall was essentially one strike; it isn't as if the storm circled away and then struck again. That said, the change to refer to Quintana Roo is a good change.
• Changed it.
• Yes, but it also mentions Texas and Cuba, not previously mentioned.
• Alabama not so much, but Mississippi would be nice. That sentence was done by landfalls; I included Louisiana and Texas because no one's really sure which state Rita made landfall in.
• I agree.

—Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 01:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Katrina did landfall in Mississippi, but I agree "strike" doesn't mean the same thing as landfall. Anyway, I rewrote the second paragraph a bit to go first by storm and then by location, with the final sentence reserved for New Orleans. I considered just dropping the Katrina numbers (the last phrase), which don't really add much to the paragraph. However the new format is a little shorter so there may be some room to add more info. The problem is deciding what. Jdorje 02:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also - because the old format was to list major hurricane strikes, and in the new format I just list the major hurricanes explicitly, Emily now gets a mention. I don't see any problem with this since the text is now short enough to fit it easily. It is rather remarkable that the major strikes were responsible for virtually all of the damage this year - though this is pending the Emily, Stan, and Beta TCRs. Jdorje 02:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Forecasts section

One section I'm still not happy with is the seasonal forecasts section. Specifically, it is too long and detailed. It should be shortened and made more "readible" - the problem is since we probably shouldn't have a 2005 Atlantic hurricane season forecasts sub-page (or should we?) we need to shorten in without losing any important information, and this won't be easy. One problem is the section includes too many numbers, which do not fit well in text form; maybe these would be more appropriate in a table form but I'm not sure what such a table would look like. We can probably shorten the dates - we don't need to know the exact date each forecast was released on; simply giving the month would be enough. It's also possible that some of the forecast "updates" can be removed - there are 2 pre-season "updates" given by Dr. Gray's team, and maybe one of them can be dropped. I don't want to sound negative about this section though, it has some really good content (the last sentence for instance is brilliant). The problem is the reader is likely to be lost in the numbers before he gets to the end. Jdorje 07:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. However, I think making it into table form will make it too complicated to read. Maybe a solution would be to limit the number of sentences. It is not worthy of a sub page though. M cappeluti

Featured Topic

From Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates:

start copying

To be a featured topic the collection of articles must meet the following criteria:

1. There should be a clear similarity between each of articles – they should be able to be grouped under one collective name
2. There must be at least three separate articles
3. All articles in the series should be linked together, preferably using a template
4. There should not be any obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic
5. Each article should be of a good quality, including references

As well as these requirements, the following are recommended:

• The articles should be in the same category
• The structure of the articles should be similar (having the same section titles and order where possible)
• Each article should have been peer reviewed

end copying

Perhaps, once all the reports are out and consensus is reached on what to do with the storms article, we can try and get this topic as a Featured Topic? The pages I count are the timeline, statistics page, main season article, the list of storms, as well as the storm articles. I think that once all of these articles settle down and become more stable we can get a featured topic. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to that. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 02:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be a good idea. We have a Featured Portal Candidate, a few Featured Articles, I don't see why not we can get a Featured Topic. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but let's only feature one thing at a time. To get this featured we will all have to work to improve the quality and consistency of the sub-articles. Jdorje 02:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. We can certainly get the 2005 season page to FA, the List of 2005 storms to FL (those two are just waiting on all of the final reports) and the Portal to FP. Plus, of course, Hurricane Dennis is already an FA and a number of the other storm articles could easily become FAs. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 04:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

B-Class

Huh, why is the article down to B Class now? Jamie|C 20:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I assume it is because, for whatever reason, some people believe that every single bit of information on every single storm needs to be squeezed into this article rather than distributed over subarticles. --tomf688^{talk} 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

E. Brown provided his reasoning on my talk page after I requested it. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 21:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO it shouldn't be A-class until all info from all TCRs is merged in. But it doesn't matter much; the assessments are mostly useful for keeping track of low-volume articles and so the exact categorization of this one isn't crucial until the editing settles down. — jdorje (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

From my discussion with Eric (carried on on both our talk pages under the heading "2005 AHS", though it probably won't make much sense since it's split between the two pages), I think (and I believe he agrees with but I could be wrong):

• The current length and level of detail of the storms section is good, though of course the individual storm paragraphs can be tweaked and improved.
• We need a method to index the individual storms through a TOC. I don't think (though Eric probably disagrees) that giving each storm its own subsection is a good idea. The problem with that is that it makes the TOC obnoxiously large, and many of the sections are too small for their own good (several of the storms have just a single sentence). However there are already anchors in place so that 2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Hurricane Katrina links to where you'd expect. So we can make our own indexing mechanism - for instance the pastel monstrosity currently at the top of the storms section could easily link directly within the storms section, instead of linking to the "list of storms" sub-article.
• More pictures are needed. The storms section currently only has meteorological pictures since I'd originally thought it would just cover the meteorological histories of each storm. But there's room for more pictures there, and there's a need for more damage photos in the article.
• The economic impact section needs to be rethought. This section has basically been unchanged from the original article (before it was shortened), and it doesn't really fit in as its own top-level section.

— jdorje (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What references?

For each storm there are three possible references:

• The NHC advisory archive.
• The NHC TCR.
• The HPC advisory archive.

Which of these sources should be referenced? Does it just depend on what information is put into the section, or do we aim for completeness? Currently all storms that have a TCR reference that instead of the NHC advisories. But we still give the HPC advisories for these storms, even though they are unlikely to have any data we include and may also be superceded by the TCR. So should we just reference the TCR? Or both? Or all three? — jdorje (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Reference the TCR first, the advisory archive only if the info is not in the TCR. I say we should still give links to the NHC/HPC advisories with each individual storms, but not too useful here. Keep a link to the main list of NHC and HPC advisories. --Golbez 08:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Delta Report

It wasnt upgraded to hurricane... Jamie|C 13:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Can't see it - the NHC site is down... CrazyC83 15:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I got, added to references. Not much to speak of. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 15:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Records Broken by the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season

Hi Guys - My name is Cory Pesaturo and I ade the List of records that is currently being fixed up so it can later be "officially" put on the Main "2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season" site. I was wondering if any of you guys can help me with it because I don't know how to put links and sources and the many things Wikipedia wants me to do before it becomes an "Official" article

Thanks -

Musically and Snowily - Cory Pesaturo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.27.163 (talk • contribs) .

He's referring to List of records broken by the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. — jdorje (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was working on the article, but I've been focusing on Flcelloguy's Tool (the editcounting program). --AySz88^-^ 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Irene

Who deleted the article? and what did you do with all the info in it. I just don't understand what force inside people that possesses them to delete perfectly good, necessary, and high quality articles. --Weatherman90 14:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete it, but it certainly was not necessary or high quality. The storm did nothing.WotGoPlunk 14:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

E. Brown merged it into List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms. The article was mostly padding, and no information was lost. Please don't recreate the article; Irene was not notable. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 16:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Boxes for 2004

This is for the 2004 Season, but I wanted to get the opinions of the people that visit the 2005 Season. I have a poll running on the 2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season talk page, whether I should put boxes for each storm as they are done here. Please VOTE!

We have 15 votes! 11-3-1!HurricaneCraze32 22:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't putting a 15-vote requirement a little arbitrary? Mike H. That's hot 19:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It cant go forever.HurricaneCraze32 20:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Vince Report

[1] I'm pretty sure this one is new Good kitty 13:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It spent a while as a subtropical storm without them noticing it. Impressive. Do subtropical storms count towards the ACE? —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 14:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes.Look at 2000.Subtropical Storm has 3.78 ACE.70.18.92.122 15:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? This discussion is at Talk:Accumulated Cyclone Energy and I have not seen anything definitive (some sources indicate each). — jdorje (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats what was up in 2000 Atlantic Hurricane Season until someone got rid of it.HurricaneCraze32 11:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So we were right! I remember we called that one more than 12 hours before it was officially named! CrazyC83 16:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

According to the report, the highest count of the rain in Spain fell mainly on the plain. (sorry, just had to do it!) -- RattleMan 21:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

ROFL, I was thinking the exact same thing. :D --Golbez 22:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

James Franklin waits for the post-season writeups before unleashing his BEST of the 2005 season... that one had me in tears. The Great Zo 21:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Heh. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm intrigued: apparently Jerez reported sustained winds of 31kt. Wouldn't that make Vince a low-end tropical storm, or was that just the edge of Vince's windfield before the centre came ashore?

EDIT: 34kt is needed for a tropical storm, my bad. Still, Vince was very close to making it... Pobbie Rarr 19:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what part of the storm produced it. If it was on the northern side, or behind the storm, it should have been declared a 35kt tropical storm at that point. CrazyC83 16:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I believe Jerez is inland. Cádiz however is a nearby seaport: I wonder what the measurements (if any) were there? Pobbie Rarr 09:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

track maps

I uploaded the best-track maps for Delta, Vince, Tammy, and Stan. — jdorje (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Where? Or did you post this before doing it? :) --Golbez 20:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, they're in the same locations as the old advisory maps: Image:Delta 2005 track.png and so on, as used in List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms. — jdorje (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Tropical Depression 27

Apparently Unisys has a TD27 up before Gamma.Like this:

• 27 Tropical Depression TWENTY-SEVEN 14-16 NOV 30kt 1004

• 28 Tropical Storm GAMMA 18-21 NOV 40kt 1004

You think we have a possible TD27 sitting around in the Atlantic in 2005?

Links:

• http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2005/index.html
• http://www.weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2005/TWENTY_SEVEN/track.gif

HurricaneCraze32 15:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

TD 27 became TS 27 without being named, fell apart, combined with another system, and regenerated as TS Gamma. They're the same storm according to the NHC, though it's very very close because of the combination of two systems (see Tropical Storm Gamma (2005). --AySz88^-^ 15:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Then what should we do?Put up Unknown Cyclone 27? But they cant be both the same unless the NHC missed something.HurricaneCraze32 15:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Its just Unisys. Bonnie and TD#2 are both in the Unisys storm stracks for 2004, but if you look at the Best Track version for 2004, they've fixed it. Jamie|C 15:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Think we should put up a mention in the storm summary on the main page?HurricaneCraze32 17:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe something like "It is also possible that an unnamed tropical storm developed out of Tropical Depression 27, which may have been seperate from Tropical Storm Gamma" should be added. Jamie|C 17:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I like it and also add it to the storm page.HurricaneCraze32 18:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

When we hit 27 votes,i'll end.

• YES:(Vote here if you want it)

HurricaneCraze32 18:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Jamie|C 18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (It may well have been a different system, so its important to mention it)

• NO:(Vote here if you don't want it)
• It's Unisys. It's not official. They just report what the NHC reports. In this case it seems like it may have been a bug. We don't report every damn tropical system that we THINK existed. We report what authorities SAY existed. Unisys is not an authority. --Golbez 18:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• IIRC, the confusion is aleady noted at Tropical Storm Gamma (2005), which is probably enough. --AySz88^-^ 18:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• Why are we even having a poll about this? The confusion has been properly documented in the Gamma article, and remember, polls are evil. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with Titoxd. This poll is pointless. It's already been documented, so we should just remove this poll, because it's trying to solve something that has already been solved. Mike H. That's hot 21:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• It already has enough mention in the Gamma article, so it is pointless. TD 27 = Gamma. Unisys is the one with the error. CrazyC83 02:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• No way. Hurricanehink 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Golbez. The Unisys system is known for this type of problem, which needs to be fixed manually after the fact. --EMS | Talk 03:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a waste of time. Polls are evil!!! NHC says they were the same storm. UNISYS does not have the best track data for 2005 yet. The only map there is the one used during the season. TD 27 formed and then dissipated without being named and thus UNISYS closed the door on it. When it reformed, UNISYS treated it as a new system. That's just the way UNISYS operates. They did it for Bonnie in '04 even though NHC knew and reported that it was Tropical Depression Two regenerating. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 23:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Did it occur to anyone that a poll is not the best method of figuring out how to edit? --Golbez 22:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that occurred to several people. HurricaneCraze, this depression should not be included in the article because although it received advisories operationally, in the post-analysis it turned out to be the same system as Gamma. — jdorje (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind this poll. It is making it clear what the consensus opinion is on this issue. --EMS | Talk 03:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)