Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Article Split?
I'm currently wondering if this article should be split into sub-articles, either soon, or after the end of the season. The main reason is that the article is currently just under 10,000 words long, and just under 30kv in size. Wikipedia:Page size suggests that this is sufficiently long for splitting to be considered.
There are two major sections in the article - the individual storm info (4,500 words) and the timeline (2,500 words). I would suggest moving the timetable into 2005 Atlantic hurricane season/timeline or similar. Also, I think it worth condering putting all the info about non-major storms (those without their own articles) onto a seperate page (say 2005 Atlantic hurricane season/storms).
Comments/thoughts/suggestions, anyone? Tompw 14:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed with the timeline - which should be done at the end of the season. Disagreed with the storms though as it would be out of line with past precedent. CrazyC83 15:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Big file size itself is not good reason for splitting. This article is fairly well organized into subsections, so editing only one per time should solve the possible file size problem.--Jyril 18:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- We'll just do what we did last year. The timeline was moved to Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season at the end of last season and this year's will be moved to Timeline of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season at the end of this season. Moving the storms out of the article is kind of like taking the CPU out of a computer: the season is entirely about what the storms do, so they should stay. We can also lump the records into a final season summary section which goes at the top of the article. --tomf688{talk} 18:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. There is no reason to split up the storms section. The timeline will get its own page at the end of the season.
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't use subpages. --Golbez 23:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Listing the Greek names
It seems to me to be a tad presumptuous to list the Greek names in grey before we get to them. I know it could come to that, but it hasn't yet.
I agree -- the Greek names should be mentioned only as they are being used. 147.70.242.21 16:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- I also agree - have removed them again. crandles 17:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'd actually split the difference slightly. I'd add them after Wanda becomes a named storm, even if Alpha isn't actually being used yet. After the season, delete any greek letter names not used. Naraht 18:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- I still think that it shouldn't be added unless we have a tropical depression form after we've used Wilma (if we use it at all).
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 19:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's Wilma, not Wanda. And we shouldn't add them when Wilma becomes a named storm because we would still not be completely certain that Wilma would not have been the last storm. Add the letters as the storms are named, that is what I say. --Revolución (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think we should add the first column of Greek letters (Alpha to Eta) if and only if a Tropical Storm Alpha develops. If, God forbid, a Tropical Storm Theta develops, we add the second column of Greek letters, etc. --69.86.16.61 01:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- But that is speculation. We don't add the Greek letters for the same reason we don't add "Hurricane Vince" and "Hurricane Wilma" to the article before they ever form. --Revolución (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- It isn't any more speculation than Wilma or Vince. What if we never have any more tropical storms this season? Then Wilma and Vince effectively weren't on the list either as we didn't get to them. By the logic of any storm name on the list being assumed to form, we have been assuming since this page was created that we will reach Wilma, and we still have not. Alpha and the rest of the Greek alphabet are, effectively, on the list of every hurricane season just as much as Vince and Wilma are on this year's list. --69.86.16.61 21:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think we should add them until we know they'll be used; we put the English names up because that information isn't obvious, once you say "they're named after the Greek letters", then we (or most of us) would know the first few names: Alpha, Beta, Gamma... -- VederJuda 02:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Here's my take: no Greek names until Wilma pops up (if it pops up). Then add Alpha in grey as a reference to what any potential future storm would be named. If Alpha shows up, add Beta in grey below it. In this manner the reader will be able to understand what the next storm would be called without confusing the names as part of an official list. RPIRED 14:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- Alternatively, we could put a note below the list of names used that reads: "The next tropical or subtropical storm to develop will be named Alpha." Then, if Alpha forms, add it to the list of storm names and replace Alpha with Beta in the note. --69.86.16.61 21:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I strongly advise doing one or the other of these ideas above, if not both. I realize that the Greek letter are this year's "backup list", and that it lacks the same standing as the primary list. So I agree with not listing all of the letters or even a column's worth. However, I think that it is both fair and informative to the readers to show them what the next name would be. Note that at this time, Vince is not longer speculative. Also note that both the 1995 and 1933 seasons had two stroms form in the last half of October, and that the Atlantic hurricane season lasts until November 30. So I would be surprised if there is not a strom "Alpha". --EMS | Talk 16:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the notion of listing only the next Greek letter in gray, perhaps using (next available name) rather than the (unused) for the primary list. Otherwise, you have to include all names through Omega. Anyone who wants to know five names down the list can refer to the Greek alphabet article. --165.121.81.44 17:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Instead of (next available name) (rather long), we could use (next) instead, and explain what it means above. Here's basically what I think would look like supposing Wilma was active and there has not been an Alpha yet.
|
|
|
- -Tcwd (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I like the idea of adding Alpha as a placeholder when we get to Wilma, but it shouldn't appear way out in the suburbs like that, it should appear at the start of the next column like it was when someone had the first seven letters added, just without the other six. -- VederJuda 01:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- -Tcwd (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Someone added the Greek names again. I've reverted them again. -- NSLE | Communicate! 12:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Separating the Greek letters from normal names
Here is how I think it should be done:
1) This is with Wilma (non-notable) active, and Alpha next. In current examples, the next three names are mentioned (to give an idea in advance if storms develop in quick succession).
|
- The next named storm will be Alpha, followed by Beta and Gamma.
2) This is with Alpha and Beta both active, and Alpha notable. (Don't create the article - the red link is intentional)
|
- Since there have been 23 named storms, the list has been exhausted and two letters from the Greek Alphabet have been used: Alpha (active) and Beta (active).
- The next name is Gamma, followed by Delta and Epsilon.
3) This is after the season, based on 25 storms, of which Alpha was notable.
|
- Since there were 25 named storms, the list was exhausted and four letters from the Greek Alphabet were used: Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta.
Reason for such: I think the Greek Alphabet needs to be separated from the normal alphabetical list, due to the fact that it is not part of the normal storm names in each season. If we reach Wilma and that is the end of it, all Greek mentions are deleted on January 1, 2006 (to keep it mentioned in case of a December storm) CrazyC83 05:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think we should see how far it goes. If we get to Lamda or something, I don't think it reads well to have 11 names in one sentence. PK9 16:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I say, do it like this:
|
- Since there were 27 named storms, the list was exhausted and six letters from the Greek Alphabet were used:
|
-- RattleMan 06:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- What if there are 46 or more storms, and the greek alphabet is exhasted. Gerbilfyed4 03:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- To realistically get to 46 storms, we'd need to be into Greek letters by the end of August... CrazyC83 03:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. 23 is a stretch in my opinion. This is all just speculation.
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 04:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with Rattleman. Once Alpha exists, it exists. The distiction between names that exist and came from reserve list rather than primary list is small. Before Greek names exist the difference between the primary list and reserve list is more important. So when Alpha exists it should be in the same list box. For me a sentence below the list box of names saying that if there is another storm it will be named Beta (or whatever) would suffice as a placeholder but I am not going to argue or revert if the next name is put in the box in grey and with a "next" or some other description. crandles 14:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
With the formation of Wilma, I've made the article read this:
|
<!-- please don't add Greek names here, since there are no Greek letter storms yet -->
- The next three tropical storms to form, if any, will be given the names Alpha, Beta and Gamma respectively from the Greek alphabet.
--NSLE | Communicate! 10:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
How about this, considering that the first line of the segment reads "The following names were used for tropical storms and hurricanes that formed in the North Atlantic in 2005." That seems to indicate that the list is different from the "set list."
Perhaps the table could look like this after the season (assuming 2 more storms).
|
|
- Hurricane Alpha and Tropical Storm Beta were named using the Greek alphabet following the exhaustion of the official WMO list with Wilma on 17 October.
Just an idea. - RPIRED 15:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to add 'Alpha' to the list now, right after 'Wilma' is active. Why don't we vote on the timing of Greek name listing? Giftlite 23:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- CNN and other media are already reporting that the next named storm will be Alpha. I think at least Alpha should be listed. The odds of there being another named storm between now and Nov. 30 is pretty much even money. IMO we'll probably get to Gamma. 23skidoo 21:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Why was this section moved off the main page? I saw someone making a big fuss about most of the discussion page being off-topic for the purpose (i.e., discussion on content for the wiki page). Yet this section is ENTIRELY about how to arrange content for the wiki page and it was scuttled. Instead 2/3 of the main discussion for "2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season" is devoted to one storm (Wilma). PK9 22:26, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Storm Images
I think that there should only be images for storms if they become a hurricane. Therefore, I think that we should take out the images for Tropical Storm Arlene and Tropical Storm Cindy. Any ideas? -Tcwd (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Category vs. category
Shouldn't all instances of "category" be capitalized if it's used in the context of "So and so storm hit this place as a Category 4 system"? Mike H (Talking is hot) 07:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. joturner 12:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you Ajm81 for capitalizing "Category" throughout the article. :) Mike H (Talking is hot) 21:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- While I don't personally care, since Category N is not a proper noun it is not supposed to be capitalized. Jdorje 21:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with Jdorje; category used in that context is not a proper noun. bob rulz 02:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- IMO "Category 5" is a proper noun. It is the name of a specific meteorological category for hurricane intensity on the Saffir-Simpson Scale, just like Monday is a proper noun for a specific day of the week in a certain calendar system, and F5 is a specific proper noun for a tornado intensity scale ranking (not just because it's based on a person's name). DavidH 23:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
WMO-NHC connection
I know the WMO decided to retire names by request but those the NHC has any input on what names will replace those retiring? Those the NHC have to directly report to the WMO on everything it does or what's it formal connection to the WMO? User:tdwuhs
- The country most affected by the hurricane can make the call, and they also choose the replacement name. It can be the NHC or the local authorities. CrazyC83 05:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Alpha
In an extremely likely event of Tropical Storm Alpha forming, will we be 100% sure to create an article on it? Since it is a very rare occasion. Will we create an article even if it was weak and didn't make landfall? -Tcwd (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- It may be a Greek letter but that doesn't mean it would be notable. --Revolución (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think we're jumping the gun a bit here. Wait 'til Wilma forms before we start blabbing about Alpha, although I'm sure there will be some reference to The Little Rascals if and when Alpha does form, seeing as we've already had Dennis the Menace.
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 00:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Highest Wind Speed Ever Naturally Recorded!!!
I checked out the Rita article and it reports that the Hurricane Hunters found a peak wind gust of 235 mph in the eye of the storm. Wouldn't that displace the highest ever recorded, which was on Mt. Washington in NH (believe it was 232 mph)? So, is that another record for Rita, or am I just crazy? The great kawa 01:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, because the record is for surface wind speed. The Typhoon Paka article claims this typhoon broke that record but the measurement was discarded because the instrument was damanged in the process. Jdorje 01:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Also, in 1999, there was a tornado that had wind speeds of 318 mph i believe. Also the Mt. Washington (if I remember correctly) was 322 mph. Fableheroesguild 01:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Mount Washington still has the highest non-tornadic windspeed. The problem is, windspeeds that high are almost impossible to accurately measure, and it's a lot harder to measure a tornado's windspeed (since there's never an anenometer where you need one), and a lot easier to send a plane into a hurricane or have a wind station permanently set up on Mt. Washington. --Golbez 01:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I just checked and I was about 100 mph off on Mt. Washington. It was 231 mph. Fableheroesguild 01:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't want to start an argument over this, but besides "tornadic" winds, isn't this the greatest ever recorded? I don't know how official the statement is, but here it is again right from the Hurricane Rita article (I don't see a source): {Lt. Col. Warren Madden, a Hurricane Hunter and meteorologist for The Weather Channel, recorded a peak wind gust of 235 mph (380 km/h) while in the eye of the storm. "Rita is the strongest storm that I've ever been in," he commented.} Mt. Washington's was 231 mph, and this has no instrument problems recorded unlike Super Typhoon Paka. So why the controversy over it!!! I mean, even though it is basically impossible to find the highest surface wind gust because Hurricane Hunters cannot be in a tropical cyclone 24/7, and of course pre-records for Mt. Washington and hurricanes. The great kawa 04:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that 235 mph gust was a surface measurement, which would not give it the record. --Holderca1 17:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
The Mt. Washington reading was indeed 235 (rounded up from the actual 231). It was a 30 sec.-1.5 min. reading (that is considered a sustained reading by many experts). The Jarrell Tornado of 1997 had a wind gust measured at 318 mph for about 10-20 seconds. That was reported by a storm chaser that was taking meteorological readings. The same storm chasers measured a sustained wind reading of 261 mph! The official records are: Highest Sustained Wind Speed-Mt. Washington, 231 mph, 1934; Highest Surface Wind Gust-outside of Jarrell, Texas, 318 mph, 1997.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Miles
Why does miles keep getting changed back and forth from miles to statute miles? Statute miles are no less ambiguous than just miles. I don't know if they are trying to differentiate them from nautical miles or what. But I have never seen nautical miles written as just miles. This can also be seen when you look at the velocities, miles per hour and nautical miles per hour(aka knots). It is not statute miles per hour. If you are wanting to be technically accurate, it should be international mile rather than statute mile. --Holderca1 18:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- In many places the "international nautical mile" is officially designated as such; the same isn't true of the definition of one particular statute mile (a term referring to any 5,280 ft mile) that was adopted by six countries in 1959. That INM is also much more truly an international mile than any statute mile is, being used for some places in many parts of the world that don't use any of the English units. Using "international miles" would be a step in the wrong direction.
- Nautical miles are often used without being identified as such. Just go try seaching for "Shackleton 97 miles" (not as an exact phrase, just the three terms) in your favorite search engine. Gene Nygaard 20:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Then the wikipedia article on miles is very inacurate if what you say is true. Not sure what you are trying to prove with the "Shackleton 97 miles" thing. I did the search and a page that came up said 97 miles (156 km). 97 statute miles = 156 km, 97 nautical miles = 179 km, so actually that argument was proving my point. --Holderca1 15:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
ACE Table
As the table is now, it adds a lot of white space in the middle of the article. I really like the full table in that link, puts the whole season in tabular format and is easier to get info on all the storms rather than reading through every storm's section. --Holderca1 23:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've reorganized the table to leave much less white space, but someone better than I at formatting should probably fiddle around with it to make the table less visually crowded. --69.86.16.61 04:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've been doing updates after each advisory today, and the table being sorted the way it is makes it really obnoxious to update, because Wilma keeps moving up the list. Could we (1) make this a simple, HTML ordered list in a div float:right, or (2) sort it ascending chronologically instead of descending ACE value? --Mm35173 15:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
User:Holderca1 changed Wilma's ACE index for 1500 UTC 19 Oct, but I think I was right. Here's my Excel (Mm35173 15:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)):
| Adivsory | Wind (kt) | Energy (kt^2)/10000 |
| 7 | 35 | 0.1225 |
| 8 | 40 | 0.16 |
| 9 | 45 | 0.2025 |
| 10 | 55 | 0.3025 |
| 11 | 60 | 0.36 |
| 12 | 65 | 0.4225 |
| 13 | 70 | 0.49 |
| 14 | 95 | 0.9025 |
| 15 | 130 | 1.69 |
| 16 | 150 | 2.25 |
| 17 | 150 | 2.25 |
| Total | - | 9.1525 |
See my table above in the Wilma section, you shouldn't have include advisory 15, it was a special advisory issued at 1 am. --Holderca1 15:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. Sorry. I wish they would have numbered that 14A. --Mm35173 15:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
In the ACE section it reads "The ACE values for the 2005 season are deceptively low compared to the season's actual activity since only two long-lasting Cape Verde hurricanes, Irene and Emily, formed, a much lower number than in an average season". After having just read the pages on Cape Verde hurricanes, it seems that 2 cape verde hurricanes is the average, and for last few years there have been 2 a year, so two would be normal, not below average as quoted here. Or am I missing something or misreading ir or being stupid? --
Wilma PIC
How do you think of the Wilma photo that i taken from a NOAA public domain. How'd you think? If you have a better image, just replace it. :) Irfanfaiz | Message Me - 2.21PM (GMT +8)
- We should wait for Wilma to hit maximum intensity, then use the pic from when it was at its strongest. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 06:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Any picture is better than no picture. Until a better one is taken it should stay. Jdorje 07:02, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- All right then. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 07:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Times
We are not on EST or EDT because we are not all in the US, and nor is this an article about the US. Please can we keep to international time, SqueakBox 18:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- We have actually always included both, it seems whoever did the 2 pm (1800) update deleted the latter. It is good to have both for those in the effected area, most people are not familiar with UTC and can relate to a local time, and the UTC time is included for everyone else. --Holderca1 18:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Fine to have 2 times but you are wrong to think people in Latin America and the Caribbean would understand US time, because we don't, SqueakBox 18:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I am not following you, it's not US time, time zones go from pole to pole. Are you saying that Central America only uses international time and has no local time? --Holderca1 18:45, 18 Oct
- We don't have UTC-4 or EDT time here so it isn't commonly used. We are on Central Standard Time Zone but people are not familiar with that. People will be actually be more familiar with GMT (papers etc), but when I used that ages ago I was informed it is called UTC, so I would say that this is what poeple are familiar with here in Central America. Local time is just local time and isn't called anything normally, as there is no daylight saving, SqueakBox 18:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, so what exactly is the point here? We have always included both local and UTC and will continue to always use both. I am not seeing what the problem is. --Holderca1 19:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW we should be using km too as miles ios US centred and this storm is merely predicted to go to the US, and even if so it doesn't make the US more important, SqueakBox 19:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well, that is due a majority of the storms affecting the U.S., but if you feel like changing every instance in the article, that is quite tedious work. --Holderca1 19:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't know about them all, but maybe Stan at some point. The one I am interested in right now is Wilma and I would rather spend the time I have adding to that. I am still hoping won't get a separate article but that uis up to the Hurricane, SqueakBox 19:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- The article uses whatever times the National Hurricane Center uses. The National Hurricane Center uses whatever time zone the storm is located in and UTC as well, and will switch to Central time when the storm actually enters into the central time zone. Furthermore, if you have read the article you linked above, you will see the U.S. uses central standard time as well. --tomf688{talk} 21:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The The National Hurricane Center is national to the US. The Hurricane is closest to Cayman islands which are at UTC-5, according to wikipedia, not at EST, though UTC-5 is EST. It is not located at EDT. Obviously I know the US uses CST as well, but what is standard in the US is not standard outside the US, which peiople seem to be foprgetting, SqueakBox 21:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, actually it's not, the NHC is part of the U.S. government, yes, but it is responsible for the entire Atlantic basin whether the storm is a threat to the U.S. or not. They are one of the World Meteorological Organization's Regional Specialized Meteorological Centers (RSMCs). So the advisories issued by the NHC are official for the entire north Atlantic coast just as the Japan Meteorogical Agency issues advisories on typhoons for the entire northwest Pacific Ocean. --Holderca1 22:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
What about El Instituto Meteorológico de Guatemala? SqueakBox 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- The articles on induvidual hurricanes are going to have wind speed measurments in both miles per hour and kilometers per hour. The wind speed complaint now addressed, I don't see what the time zone arguement is about. Central Time in Honduras is no different than central time in the US. I have been to many countries abroad and they use the same time zones that the US does. I do know of a handful of countrys that operate on a different system, like Australia, Greenland and some places in Asia, but I'm pretty sure North America is all uniform.
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 22:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I am lost on it as well, did a little research, most of North America (as well as other parts of the world) observes Daylight Savings Time. Cuba, Mexico, and the Cayman Islands use it. This is not a U.S. only thing, it actually started in Europe before the U.S ever used it. North American countries that observe Daylight Savings Time: Canada, United States, Mexico, Cuba, Cayman Islands, and Haiti. It should be noted that none of the Lesser Antilles observes DST, but advisories for storms in that area are issued in Atlantic Standard Time. --Holderca1 22:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem arose because I did not have a clue what EDT meant. It's not a time zone in Central America, Mexico otr the Caribbean, and it was confusing. While a lot of people know what EST is very few outside the States and Canada have ever heard of EDT. I know Mexico uses daylight saving but still doesn't extend anything like that far east. Wikipedia says Cuba may be under EST at the moment but is confused itself on the issue, SqueakBox 22:46, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Cuba, Haiti and the Cayman Islands are on EDT right now, so I wouldn't say no one in the Caribbean uses it. The Yucatan is on CDT right now, when the hurricane enters the Central time zone, the advisories will be issued in CDT. From Havana issued Sept 30, states "Meanwhile -- so as to increase the generation capacity -- Daylight Savings Time will be extended until October 2005..." --Holderca1 22:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW none of Central Anmerica has daylight saving, SqueakBox 22:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well you can't make everyone happy, that is why the UTC time is listed. --Holderca1 22:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Please source that Cayman are on UDT. According to wikipedia they are on EST, SqueakBox 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- SqueakBox, STOP REVERTING! I'm getting slightly agitated here. Daylight Savings is not a US only thing. Nicaragua and El Salvador have NOT issued warnings. El Salvador is nowhere close to the danger area. The storm is turning away from Central America, winds in Nicaragua never got above 10 mph (16 kph). No danger here, not even from surf, not beyond the usual at least. Now enough!
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 00:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Can you source the time in the Caymans please, rather than reverting to US East coast time without sourcing your claim. Your further claim that it is not going to affect CA is not backed up by anything. Stop only trusting US sources, it is the metereological organisation, abnd it is US centred, which in the context of an article like this can be very offensive, SqueakBox 00:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Cayman is on EST. See [1]
Please can it now be changed as the storm is clearly not in EDT, SqueakBox 00:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I say stick to the NHC forecasts. If they release it at 8EDT (mind you, 8 EDT = 7 EST), then so be it. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 00:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Why? The storm is not in EDT, it is not a known term outside thje US and Canada, and sticking to NHS will only result in a US centred article, which is not acceptable for an international encyclopeedia dealing with an assuredly non US centred topic. You cannot source that it is the most legitimate source, I an sure, SqueakBox 00:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I hate trolls *cough* squeak *cough*. If you are saying the NHC is less-able to forecast the storm than your local meteorological agency, then you are simply wrong. I'm sorry, but they have equipment at their disposal that no other nation in the western hemisphere has invested in. What they say is what goes in this article. The end. --tomf688{talk} 00:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The simple answer to that AySz88, is that I wanted UTC time but compromised to dealing with American zone time. Apparently the other side feels less able to compromise, even though from what I can gather the nearest place on EDT tiome is Miami, which hopefully it will not even approach before dying a death whereas it is already over the Caymans, which are confirmed on EST time, SqueakBox 01:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- We are using UTC, we always have and always will. You are the one trying to monopolize both time formats. Cuba is on EDT, I have said that several times and posted a source. --Holderca1 01:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Geez, if you don't know what EDT is, then click on the Wiki link, it will go to the EDT page and say it is UTC-4. Your anti-American attitude is getting very tiresome. The NHC operates under the World Meteorological Orginization. They may be a part of and funded by the US government, but they issue advisories for everyone. How many weather satelites or recon aircraft does the El Instituto Meteorológico de Guatemala have at their disposal. They are not recognized by the WMO as the authority in the region, the NHC is. End of story. --Holderca1 01:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I am not anti-American at all. I am just not American, which is something very different, nor do I even know the States. To try to counter US centrism in this or any non US wikipedia article cannot be considered anti-americanism, and I find it offensive that you suggest that my behaviour could be construed as such. This is an international encyclopedia, and people outside the US are also actually affected by this hurricane. SqueakBox 01:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
BTW it was me who linked, originally there was no way to know what EDT meant, SqueakBox 01:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- I saw that we stick to the NHC, especially since they ARE the officially-appointed RSMC. You guys also ought to note that I'm not American; I'm Singaporean living in Singapore. My feeling tells me to stick with whatever the NHC is giving. -- NSLE (Communicate!) <Contribs> 01:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Also we have to use legitimate sources in encyclopedia article creation, not official ones. Big difference, though I dispute your claim that the NHC are the official source of info for Central American countries. The NHC is probably the primary source, but that is something different. And I am not contradicting any of the NHC reports either or anything they say in my stance, (ie if the NHC said the wind is 7- miles an hour and the Honduran one said 120 I would stick with the NHC too, but what we are dealing with is something very different, ie the fact that where the storm is is in EST time, officially, SqueakBox 01:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- You said you wanted UTC time, but UTC time is already in the article - what else do you want? (FYI, Cuba also uses EDT UTC-4 during Daylight Savings, so Miami is not the closest place which uses EDT (actually, it would be Key West whether or not Cuba observed EDT).) AySz88^-^ 01:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
All I want is articles that can be easily understood by an international and not merely a US audience. The NHC make no statements about time zones whatsoever and to imply that they do is odd. I am not contradicyting or disputing any statements made by the NHC. They are a metereological centre, nothing to do with time zones, so there is no reason at all to use the NMA clock. Trying to impose international standards on articles that are US centred (or any other country centred), and to make articles intelligible to an international audience is not trolling but defending wikipedia integrity, SqueakBox 04:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- It is trolling when it already has UTC on it. What do you want? Do you want to list local time for every time zone in the world? We put down the time that is issued on the public advisories. We don't pick the times. Daylight savings time is not a U.S. centered concept. It was started in Europe in Germany and the UK. If you don't know what time EDT is, then the UTC time is there for you to figure out what your local time is. Damn, I can't wait for two more weeks and the entire planet will be on standard time. I will say it again, because obviously you have not picked it up from the numerous other posts on this waste of space topic, there is nothing U.S. centered about the time. There are a lot more people in North America that are on Daylight Savings Time than that are on Standard Time. If anything, you are the one that is trying to make it centered around you, you had been changing it to CST, if I remember is your time zone. We will continue to put the time the advisory has listed on it, and the UTC time for that. --Holderca1 12:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Just call it Local time people! Local time. Local time is what matters - not EDT, not EST, not CEST - as long as it doesnt happen at those places, even if its the same timezone.
- Hmm, not sure how that would work, local time for who? Cuba is on EDT and the Yucatan is on CDT. --Holderca1 21:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Folks, the articles have both the time listed by the National Hurricane Center (local) and GMT (UTC). It's time to stop beating this poor, dead horse and give it a decent burial. B.Wind 22:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Warnings
Please don't add speculative warnings about evacuating Florida (merely one of many places threatened). This is an encyclopedia and such warnings are not appropriate, SqueakBox 21:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- I believed that was removed several hours ago. --Holderca1 21:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Huh? You just replaced them [2] I guess accidentally? We could have warnings for everywhere otherwise, so best just to report official warnings from everywhere and nothing else, SqueakBox 21:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
It wasn't an accident. It is from the advisory. Every place in the projected path are either under a watch/warning or advised to keep an eye on the storm. Nothing biased towards the U.S. --Holderca1 21:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
It was written like a warning and not like an encyclopedic entry about a warning, SqueakBox 21:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- It was an advisory telling all people in the forecast path and cone of uncertainty to pay attention to this thing. So in a sense, it was a warning, just not a designated one with pre-set precautionary measures. Like if I were to warn you about a traffic accident ahead or something.
- E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - my dropsonde 00:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)