Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 13

Post Season Reports
The pdf versions are out for Atlantic storms Arlene and Gert. The pdf versions are also out for Eastern Pacific storms Beatriz, Dora, Fernanda, and Lidia. And JTWC still hasn't finished all of their 2004 reports yet! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, came across these a few days ago. Interesting reads. -- RattleMan 23:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No real surprises from Arlene or Gert. I didn't think Arlene was a hurricane; if anything, I thought she might have been overestimated (after all, the damage was nowhere near what a 70 mph storm would normally produce, especially in Ivan's wake). I'd expect Bret, Harvey, Irene and Jose next...since Cindy is likely in dispute (was she a hurricane?) and they are probably still trying to confirm exact figures for Dennis (although the 150 mph peak seems correct, maybe the other figures weren't?) and Emily (was she Category 5?). CrazyC83 20:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Arlene hit with winds of 55 mph, 70 was its peak intensity. It was also a small storm. No one is likely to be upgraded. At least that's how I see it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we'll see Franklin and Irene next, the two early-season storms that didn't affect land. We might also see Harvey, Bret and Jose at that time, but I think Cindy and Emily will be held off on, and perhaps Dennis as well, though I doubt any changes will be made to Dennis. Lee might also make an appearance in the next batch as it would be very easy to finish. -- Cuivienen 21:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe not with Lee - after all it was disputed whether it was a tropical storm at all, as well as when it became such. Another interesting one to watch will be Vince, for timing purposes - I wonder if they will see that it was a hurricane 24 hours before they officially declared it one. CrazyC83 23:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I posted a new pool on the /Betting Pools page based on Cuivienen's point. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyone notice that on the reports page, Subtropical Depression 22 is listed as "Tropical Depression Twenty-Two"? Is this just a mistake...? -- RattleMan 17:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe they discovered that it had full tropical characteristics? CrazyC83 06:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Doubt it. Sounds like a typo to me. But the name Subtropical Depression Twenty-Two is very long. Maybe someone was tired. These tech guys are not hurricane freaks, they're computer freaks. NHC have their own web designers who have no affiliation to hurricanes whatsoever. They just do what they're told. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Button Bar
a quick idea, i think there should be a template on every hurricane page (katrina, rita, wilma etc) for quick access. The template should have all the major hurricanes of the season on the bottom, with a link to their page. Then, of course, there is a page to the main page. It'll make it a lot easier to naviagate around the hurricanes. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.91.79 (talk • contribs).

How about a button bar? --Ctrl buildtalk 15px| 13:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It would really only work if we made articles for EVERY storm, which would be a time-consuming task plus it would lead to significant duplication. CrazyC83 15:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Look again at what he did.... Most of them link to the appropriate section on the 2005 article; only those with their own articles have links to that article. AySz88 ^  -  ^  15:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the button bar is really cool. It could go at the top and bottom of the main hurricane season page, and on the page of each storm that has its own article. --TimL 15:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Those definately need to be color-, bold-, and/or italics-coded in some way. Something like color for intensity and bold for retirement, perhaps. AySz88 ^  -  ^  15:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be really cool if they were color coded the same way the info boxes are color coded, or if thats too complicated, maybe just color coded to delineate T.S., Hurricane, Major Hurricane. Or simply land falling vs non land falling. (just throwing some ideas out there). --TimL 15:59, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I color coded it for storm categories to see how it looks. --Holderca1 17:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I like it. I would suggest top and bottom of storms section and bottom of the season page and on the pages where storms have own articles. Underline for landfalling and bold for retired or is that going too far? crandles 19:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Shall I templateize it now or should I make the button bar specific for each article? Should it be in all Katrina articles? Should It be in the 2005 Hurricane Season Category? --Ctrl buildtalk 20:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC) --I will italicize if active, how about that. its already templatize by -- see my user page.


 * Why would you need a template specific for each article? --Holderca1 21:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Already Inserted in every article. Jumps up and down like a hyperactive bunny. I hope there are know display issues. It is at the bottom of the articles, It seemed too gaudy for the top. It is at the top of 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season and the bottom. You can see where it links to here.


 * Also, should it be in the disambiguation pages for each storm name? CrazyC83 21:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well since it isn't in every Katrina, Wilma, or Rita article, I think its overkill to put it on each disambiguation page (though I could go into hyperactive bunny mode again.) I hope that does not become a catchphrase. --Ctrl buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]] 21:36, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a question, does anyone here use a monitor resolution of 800x600? I would think that if they did there would be a horizontal scrollbar because of the button bar (which, BTW, is a very good idea). -- RattleMan 21:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I (CrazyC83) just created this:

Testing now at 800X600. If we have two more storms the buttons are screwy, but currently just miss creating a scroll bar. If it reaches that point I suggest: --removing the depressions after two more storms --changing the button width after two more storms --lowering the text size after two more storms --Ctrl buildtalk 21:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC) See [here http://www.interminatus.com/800by600buttons.png] for an image of them at 800x600.

Would two rows work? The depressions should not be removed, and reducing the width or text size would make it harder to see. CrazyC83 21:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to do this now, because it would make it look bad, but the spacing between the buttons can be pushed down. I will do an invisible html note in the button bar to explain which variable should be changed in the event of more storms. --Ctrl buildtalk 21:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC) NEVERMIND -- fixed it but reducing spacing between buttons. Does not look too bad.

That works well. I created another one: CrazyC83 22:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I just tried creating that. oooh Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it. Good thing I checked here. Well...back to work at doing non-wiki work. Yes, that does exist. --Ctrl buildtalk 22:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it matters to you graphical-browser types,but as a Lynx user I am annoyed by the button bar's taking up two and a half screens that need to be paged through.(It may be rendered horizontally elsewhere but it comes across as double-spaced diagonals in Lynx).--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 22:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Could you give me some sample text? It may be due to all the linebreaks in the physical code. Unfortunately, line breaks make the code readable. --Ctrl buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]] 23:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * 12.144.5.2, how does this look?

--Ctrl buildtalk 23:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

That version is also diagonal,but doesn't have blank lines between each link;each link is on the next line and one space over from the previous one.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to put the 2003 button bar on the 2003 relevant pages, and I have already put the 2004 button bar on 2004 relevant pages. --CFIF 23:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I just tried bolding the retired storms on the 2004 bar: What do you think? PenguinCDF 23:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Could the colours be a bit more subtle please? The pure colours are bugging me, it would be nice if they were all a shade darker or something. (e.g. instead of red, you have #cc3333 or something) Jevon 23:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC) like this? --Ctrl buildtalk 23:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest I really don't see the need for this, one could simply look at what is called "contents" at the beginning and click on which storm they want to read. --Revolución (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I myself have found paging to the table of contents (or even the infobox and then to the main 2005 link, or to the category link) annoying enough for each hurricane season. That is why I made the original bar. --Ctrl buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]] 23:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

On the red buttons, it is difficult for me to see the text if the page is marked as visited. Ajm81 23:37, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I like these button bars. When will the ones before 2003 (like 1950-2002) be created? Dralwik 23:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Be bold in updating pages :-) --Ctrl buildtalk 00:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC) A list of them all  --Ctrl buildtalk  00:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this panel is any better than using Category:2005 Atlantic hurricane season. But if you are to create it, you should use the templates for the storm colors - see .  And of course the template needs to be on a separate page (if it's on a talk page then it doesn't have a talk page). Jdorje 01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * By some strange glitch in the wikipedia software

does not create a template. Look at the history for 2004 and 2005's seasons to see this glitch in action. --Ctrl buildtalk
 * It's not a glitch, MediaWiki wont transclude things that are outside the Template: namespace. I personally don't see much benefit in the button bar, but I can move them across namespaces if everyone agrees. Titoxd(?!?) 02:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see whether a link is bolded or not. Also - could a legend be handy? S onson 01:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Then it should be, surely? Jdorje 02:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, since there's no need for it to be a subpage. Titoxd(?!?) 02:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Go for the movement. Signing off for the week. --Ctrl buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]] 02:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Testing it out on a few pages is good, but before trying to put it onto all seasons PLEASE think through the design fully. First of all, use templates for the colors.  Secondly, making each button bar be 50+ lines long will make it really hard to make any future changes (changes which will be needed because the button must point to the appropriate location which may change if a new article is created). I suggest you use higher-level templates:, , and  (each taking a few arguments as needed). Jdorje 02:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

(Ident = reset) I agree with that. Maybe you would like to make a test for this year's season, and then we modify it? Titoxd(?!?) 02:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that they should not be at the top of the pages but resricted to the bottom. That's just my personal opinion. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I just tried something out - User:AySz88/Sandbox. Needs to be fleshed out more, and I haven't put things into a template format (How do you sandbox templates?). AySz88 ^ -  ^  23:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, right now, there are two rows of buttons along with a concise key, which compresses the Saffir-Simpson template into five boxes with tooltips (minus the storm surge information). Feel free to suggest improvements and help out with the code.  There might need to be something to prompt users to use tooltips. AySz88 ^  -  ^  03:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions? Current contents of User:AySz88/Sandbox -
 * AySz88 ^ -  ^  01:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Debate
The buttonbar at the top of the season page is hideous. There is a table of contents. There are DOZENS of links to the major storms in the article. People don't need their hands held THAT much. Furthermore, I'm starting to resent the attitudes of some editors here. Someone put it in saying, quote, "(It has become the standard that due to the length of the hurricane season articles, you put it in twice, storm articles only have it once at the bottom. It is for convienence's sake.)" I'm sorry, I wasn't aware standards were drafted, argued, and instituted in the space of 12 hours. If I missed that memo, please enlighten me. Back to my main point: It's hideous, and we don't need YET ANOTHER link to the 23 storms in this article. It MIGHT be useful - I won't say yes or no yet - on the storm articles, but it's horrible here. How many times do you have to give people links to the storms? Furthermore, it puts too much reliance on the designations. Its only use that I can see is as a graphical indicator of the season's strength - seeing the intensities in order and such. I don't see myself or anyone else ever using this thing for navigation - especially on the season page, where we already have a table of contents! Why, on Hurricane Dennis, would I think, "Hm, let's learn about Tammy" and click T, which takes me, well, here. Then I go back? To learn about another storm? Why not just stay where I am? Again - Do we really think our readers are so stupid we have to give them eighteen different and sometimes horribly formatted opportunities to learn about a vaguely relevant storm? If they want to find out what other storms were notable in a season, and they're on the Dennis page, they can bloody go to the season page, giving them a bar with a link to "K" does them nothing. Was K notable? Should they be expected to click through these to find useful articles? --Golbez 08:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The template has been completed. It uses all of the higher level templates noted.

I'm not a particular fan of the button bar, but PLEASE remove it from the top of the season page. It's really ugly to see that as the first thing, especially as I can't recall another Wikipedia page that has a menu bar at the top like that. TOC exists for a reason. --Goobergunch|? 16:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the button bar is ugly as sin (no offense intended, just my opinion). It is completely redundant to the table of contents. The article is very easy to navigate without it. There is only one section between the storms and the TOC, anyway. It makes the page less accessible for people using screen readers and other assistive technologies. On a related note, the infobox at the top right and the season summary are basically redundant. There is too much junk here; we need to make the article more efficient and get it to a more desirable length. Stuff like "early expectations were blah blah, and these have been born out..." just needs to go. Let the facts speak for themselves. All of the blurbage about records puts the season in perspective already. There is just too much here. --Mm35173 17:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, people have basically nothing worthwhile to contribute of substance to the article, so they have to conjure up useless ideas like this. --Revolución (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The offseason (if there is one) should give us time to clean things up a bit. --Holderca1 20:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * People who help improve the usability or readability of the encyclopedia are just as valuable as those who put information onto the page. Custom easily-readable tables of articles are very helpful - for example, .  I really dislike the above (Revolucion's) ad hominem attack.  Someone going back to this group of articles would probably find the bar very helpful.  (I'm assuming that stuff will be added (bold/italics) denoting the retired or landfalling status of each hurricane.)
 * That wasn't ad hominem. I said absolutely nothing about the editors who contributed any of the content I'm criticising. --Mm35173 21:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not you, Revolucion's post. AySz88 ^ -  ^  21:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * To those who want say the bar is redundant with the Table of Contents: is it possible to exclude or collapse a portion of the ToC? Honestly, I'd much rather see the bar than that bland uninformative list of names in the ToC.  Maybe completely get rid of the automatic ToC.
 * -- AySz88 ^ -  ^  21:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Except storms aren't the only thing in the table of contents. --Golbez 21:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I meant replace it with a manual version; it's doubtful that the table of contents will change enough to be any hassle after the end of the season.
 * Maybe it would be better if the red and aqua were toned down a bit? The red makes the links harder to red, and the aqua is too bright for denoting a minor depression.  AySz88 ^  -  ^  21:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * My complaint is the concept, not the execution. --Golbez 00:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your adversity to the concept; the advantage of the bar seems extremely obvious to me. It's undeniably superior to the ToC, since someone looking for a storm can easily find it by first letter, rather than the A, B, C, etc. jumping around horizontally when one is forced to scroll down the ToC.  If one actually is browsing through all tropical storms or all hurricanes, the colors still provide a faster guide and more information than the text link "Hurricane xyz".  The appropriate links even take you directly to the main articles of storms!  If one is on a specific storm's article and browsing through all the major/landfalling/retired hurricanes, a flick of the mouse wheel and a single click gets you to the next desired storm.  It serves as an entire season's summary at-a-glance, allowing people to see every storm of a season through colors and formatting.  I doubt I can even think of all the advantages of the bar on my own.  What the heck is wrong with the concept?  AySz88 ^  -  ^  01:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your adversity to the concept; the advantage of the bar seems extremely obvious to me. It's undeniably superior to the ToC, since someone looking for a storm can easily find it by first letter, rather than the A, B, C, etc. jumping around horizontally when one is forced to scroll down the ToC.  If one actually is browsing through all tropical storms or all hurricanes, the colors still provide a faster guide and more information than the text link "Hurricane xyz".  The appropriate links even take you directly to the main articles of storms!  If one is on a specific storm's article and browsing through all the major/landfalling/retired hurricanes, a flick of the mouse wheel and a single click gets you to the next desired storm.  It serves as an entire season's summary at-a-glance, allowing people to see every storm of a season through colors and formatting.  I doubt I can even think of all the advantages of the bar on my own.  What the heck is wrong with the concept?  AySz88 ^  -  ^  01:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It is apparently not undeniably superior, since I deny it. I've already explained what's wrong with the concept. Also, the colors are 100% irrelevant without a colorkey, which would just add more space to it. Do you expect people to go to Hurricane Katrina, see the bar, and expect to know what it means at all? --Golbez 01:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC) And furthermore, what use does it have here, which already, again, has dozens of links to the storms, and a table of contents, and a list of names? All this ads to that is unkeyed color coding, which is obsessing too much over what category a storm is. --Golbez 01:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC) My main complaint is using it on the season page. You're just adding more links to an already overlinked article. It might - in a different form - be useful on the storm pages, though I doubt it, since over half of the links link here, and again, the symbols and colors are obscure to the point of being confusing. But even if it's just in the storm article, I think it's obsessing too much about connectin the storms of the season. I'm highly unlikely to do such horizontal research, when the season article supplies all that information easily. --Golbez 02:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with the buttonbar is it's too obscure. Unless you already know what every symbol means, it is just a collection of letters and colors. Jdorje 01:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know why people are adverse to it. It just was removed with the idea of hitting home. On non-ie browsers, browser navagation is more inclined to opening multiple tabs sequentially, than linear navigation. I have attempted to make look as good as possible, but since I cannot insert style sheets, the extra code to make rounded corners and other features would increase the bar code size four fold (I tested this.) I made a button bar specifically because navigating this page was so insanely hard. Each time I wanted to access a different hurricane, I would have to navigate to the infobox for a specific hurricane, click the 2005 season, navigate down, and check the hurricane. This was especially true during september and august when the articles for multiple storms were changing quickly. Unlike other subjects, like video game consel generations, there is was no way of easily navigating between consequitive entries. All I wanted was to be able to check Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Katrina as quickly as I could check Sega Saturn and Sega Dreamcast. Anyway, all of this and the time this has taken up has lead me to want to leave wikipedia for an extended period. I will likely either not respond or respond sparesly. I hope this issue calms down, or if not this, at least this hurricane season. --Ctrl buildtalk [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|15px|]] 02:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally I like the idea. It is a really efficient way of moving through the article. The only confusing part is the greek letters, I'd assume the general population isn't framiliar with the greek alphabet. I'm just not sure how to clarify it though. -- Anon user


 * Golbez, if I haven't understood your complaint, "I've already explained" does not allow me to understand it any more than I had understood it the first time around. You said it was too repetitive with the ToC; I suggested removing the ToC instead of removing the bar.  You didn't see how it would be helpful for navigation, and I explained how.  The stuff about it being an eyesore is a different issue entirely from the merits of its existance.  I honestly do not see any concerns in your post that I have not addressed.  The "too much emphasis on category" thing is rather irrelevant - it is the most convenient way of summarizing the strength of the storm - and I've already suggested toning down the contrast a bit. The color key is in the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale template already - in this article (and, I believe, not in any single storm's article -  one reason why a copy of the bar was placed in this article, I think).
 * (edit conflict) Okay, hold on, what other lists of links are comparable? I have already mentioned that this is probably something of a ToC-replacement, and there doesn't seem to be any other table of contents (the name list might be, partially, but it doesn't jump to the appropriate section in the article for storms without their own article).  Considering that so much work has already been done, is there any reason why it should be deleted instead of refined?
 * First of all, just because work has been done does not grant one the right to implant his work into an article. Second of all, we have the ToC. We have the list of names at the bottom whic have links to the storms with articles. We have many instances of storms being linked, in the summary, in the records, etc. Why do we need yet another that doesn't really help? A graphical timeline of the season might be useful, but I don't think this is it. --Golbez 03:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jdorje: the color-coding key is already built into the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale table template, which can be seen to the right of the ToC. The symbols are rather self-explanatory for the English letters and numbers.  If you mean the Greek letters, that's kinda a one-off thing for this season (hopefully!).  As for the meaning of bold/italics, that might be a real problem, although something simple like  (Retired, Landfalling)  (Retired, Landfalling) might be acceptable.
 * AySz88 ^ -  ^  02:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The bold/italics have meaning? I didn't even notice.  Anyway, adding extra information (colors/bold/italics) that new readers won't understand is okay.  What's not good is concealing information (actual storm names) that users need to see.  The bar is obscure because a new reader has no way to figure out what it even means.  I'm not against the idea of having a navigation tool for storms and the storm article...but I think letters are not sufficient identifiers for storms. Jdorje 03:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

<-- RESTORING DELETED COMMENT If you hover over the color part now, you get more information about each stom, especially for the 22nd and 23rd, and this can be expanded. --Ctrl buildtalk 03:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Leave it in at the bottom at least. There is NO ToC at the bottom of the page. It's much easier to click on the bar than to have to scroll up to the top of the page.


 * That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Otherwise we'll just see both sides continue to add and remove it until we all get sick of contributing....

This looks better... I'm not as opposed to it just being at the bottom; the bottom of the page is not as cluttered as the top. Could you shrink it so that it doesn't cross the whole page? --Mm35173 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to add on some of my problems with the bar. The hover over the letter to see which storm it is is nice, but it doesn't work for all of the storms. Fix it so that when you hover over "L", it says Tropical Storm Lee rather than 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, same with Alpha so it says Tropical Storm Alpha rather than Tropical Storm Alpha (2005). Next thing, get rid of the colors, no one knows what the colors mean other than the regular contributors to this article. Also, I just don't think it is necessary on the main page at all, the storms are already linked to their own articles at least four times already. --Holderca1 19:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the button bar, if nothing else it's colorful. It should be added to the Pacific hurricane season pages too. I'd code it but I'm on the road and in the air this week and it's late here in the US Midwest. To bad we can't do something like this for the Pacific typhoon page where the storms don't follow the alphabet. --SkyWayMan 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Just to provide help for those people who don't know what the colours and letters mean, I've added extra bits to give an indication of these. Hopefully it doesn't clutter the bar up too much. Gringer 11:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Premature buttonbar use
Several of you have taken the button bar and put it onto every hurricane since 1990. The problem is you've used a template in the talk space. This cannot remain like this. You guys need to go through and move every one of them over and fix every article. (In other news, I think the new buttonbars look a lot better and are pretty usable.) Jdorje 01:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Separate Article Poll
In light of the recent discussions and the large amount of time deliberating over whether certain articles are warranted or not, I believe that we need to come up with some form of standard for when a storm warrants a seperate article or not. The old way of when the section in the main article has too much info in it has several problems with it. First it will bias those storms affecting the U.S. due to the larger amount of media attention the U.S. media give to U.S. storms. The second being the large amount of gray area and the ensuing discussions on those articles. So I am creating this poll to see what everyone's opinion is and hopefully we can come to some type of concensus. Just vote under whichever section you feel it should be. --Holderca1 06:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

All landfalling storms get their own article, fishspinners do not:

All landfalling hurricanes get their own article, all others do not:

All landfalling hurricanes and only deadly tropical storms get their own article, all others do not:
 * Titoxd(?!?) 06:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * --CFIF 13:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * --Revolución (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

All storms causing fatalites get their own article, all others do not:

Only storms whose names are retired get their own article, all others do not:
 * Hurricanehink 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - I support this with a twist. If storms are notable in some other way than retirement, we can discuss it if it should have an article (Ginger, Gordon, Alice). There are too many hurricane articles as it is, and we should start merging them (Alex from 2004, Ethel from 1960, etc.)

Keep it the way it has been done in the past:
 * Patteroast 08:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Golbez 09:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - RULECRUFT. We can use INDEPENDENT THOUGHT to figure out when an article is needed, and with only the recent exceptions of Ophelia and Alpha, this has borne out well. We never had this problem in 2004.
 * Rulecruft? This rule has existed before I started contributing here, so please don't imply that I am trying to create one. I am simply just trying to amend it.  Telling people that they cannot create a seperate article because it has not outgrown it's section on the season page is a rule whether you like it or not.  --Holderca1 12:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand me. Trying to make rules about this is rulecruft. The only rule should be to use common sense. --Golbez from work
 * Well it wasn't my intent to make a rule about it, just better guidelines. Some people don't have common sense. ;-) --Holderca1 20:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is utterly exasperating. Use common sense. Not everything deserves an article. Mike H (Talking is hot) 09:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If only it were as cut and dry as the Hurricane Katrinas and Tropical Storm Lees this wouldn't have been discussed. See Talk:Tropical Storm Alpha (2005)--Holderca1 12:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * B.Wind 10:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - Just as long as those with Greek alphabet names are held to the same standard as the ones on the name list. Frankly, I'd rather not have ANY separate article for any active hurricane, and location of landfall should not factor into the determination of whether a specific hurricane deserves its own main article.
 * crandles 13:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Agree with Golbez. --Goobergunch|? 15:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * CrazyC83 16:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC) - depending on length of the article, unless the name appears headed for retirement. Several other past storms that were less notable have articles too (Alex last season, 1994 and 2000 Albertos, Bertha in 1996, Odette in 2003).
 * Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

What's a deadly storm? One that kills *anyone*? Well over half of the storms cause at least one death I believe. And what about indirect deaths? In my opinion we need to have exact criteria: either (1) only retired names or (2) all storms. The latter isn't as bad as it sounds since if *all* storms had separate articles (Hurricane Maria (2005)) we could trim the main article way down...and we could add track maps and other pictures for each storm that wouldn't fit in the main article. Jdorje 07:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * From Maria onward (except for Alpha and Tammy(?)), date modifiers are unnecessary for the storms that developed as they were used for the first time anyway. CrazyC83 16:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree on the main article being trimmed down. I think it should be no more than a paragraph maybe two giving a bried account of the storm.  The section on Katrina is way too long considering all the different Katrina artciles that are out there. --Holderca1 12:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Last year, articles were made for Charley, Frances, Jeanne, and Ivan - the ones that got retired, and obviously the most notable of the season. This year we have more iffy ones - Ophelia and Alpha, to be specific. Frankly, Ophelia needs to be killed, and Alpha, well, time will tell. But my general feeling is, only when the article outgrows the season page, or is very obviously going to be a major event, do we give it its own article. Ophelia fits neither criteria. --Golbez 09:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that is how I have always felt, but the amount of time wasted discussing it on the Alpha page that could of been spent on researching and cleaning up articles is incredible. There is an article for Alex last year as well.  I think the reason it didn't come up last year is that there were not nearly that many storms that made landfall.  The storms last year that made landfall and do not have their own article are Bonnie, Gaston, Matthew.  There were no Central American storms, and only one storm to affect Hispaniola (Jeanne).  --Holderca1 12:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Alex! Thanks, I'd forgotten about that. Alex was notable for unique intensification, but honestly, that does not an article make. Perhaps it should be merged. --Golbez from work

Yep, Ophelia and Alpha definitely need to be weeded out. So does Vince, which is remarkable only in formation and landfall location. Beta's separate article is still premature. B.Wind 10:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the purpose of the poll, but this is instruction creep. I know that the editors here have longstanding ways of doing things, but remember, Wikipedia is a wiki, and is not a democracy. --Mm35173 14:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I say, stick to the current rules. Ophelia is 25k, Alpha is 23k (from a Google search). Vince wasn't an article I would have planned on, but support here and several recommendations made me do it, and I clearly modelled it like Hurricane Faith (which definitely deserves an article). While there won't be articles for every storm (or even every landfalling storm), moderate-impact storms should get articles once it becomes too long on the season page. This will become more common as information becomes readily available. Some recent examples of storms without articles that likely would have one if formed today: Erin (1995), Edouard (1996), Bonnie (1998), Bret (1999), Irene (1999). However, when making articles for moderate-impact storms, we can't break disambiguation pages, which retain the main article. Fish-spinners shouldn't get their own articles unless they are extremely unusual (i.e. record strength - beating Wilma, extreme long-lasting or in an unprecedented latitude) CrazyC83 16:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think we should stick to the way we have been doing it, we just need to be consistent. Why does Hurricane Alex (2004) have its own article, it only caused one fatality and less than $5 million in damage.  There was nothing unusual about the storm.  Not sure on the notability of it. What exactly is too long for the season page?  Maybe that was the question that should have been asked.  On the wiki is not a democracy thing, that was not the intent.  Constant revert wars on every storm and discussions on whether a storm should have its own article that are longer than the article themselves seems like a waste of time to me.  --Holderca1 17:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Category 5 fish-spinners
Just curious, since these are (usually) extremely rare storms (there have only been 28 storms that have reached that intensity), should a Category 5 fish-spinner have its own article in the future? (It has only happened three times and we have little information for any of the three past such storms) CrazyC83 16:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No. I think the criteria should clearly be the impact, not the storm strength. Thus if a hurricane is no threat to land, I don't see why it should be created unless it breaks Wilma's record for hurricane strength. --Revolución (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably only if it becomes stronger than Wilma or is unusual in some respect. That would explain the reason we have articles on two EPac Cat. 5 fish spinners, John and Linda. Then again, most EPac storms are fish spinners. If we get another Faith that also happens to be a Cat 5, it might get an article. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 17:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say no, but perhaps an article on all the Cat 5s, there are several that were fish spinners and do not have their own article. --Holderca1 17:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed with the above statements. Just because a storm is a Category 5 fish spinner doesn't make it notable enough for its own article. That's just how I see it. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Golbez's point of view
The main article is 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. This is the article from which all the others spring off of.

Now, sometimes, these storms are notable in themselves - Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, Wilma.

Sometimes, however, they are notable because of a quirk of history, that they were the first ever known to be something. Vince, Alpha.

And then we have the fishspinners, or the storms that caused minor damage. Arlene, Franklin, Harvey, to name a few.

Now, I don't think anyone disagrees with giving the inherently notable storms articles. They aren't children of the 2005 season article - they are articles in themselves, storms individually so notable that the season is almost irrelevant.

So then we have the remainder. There are two classes of storms here - the ones that warrant enough information on this article to get their own article, because it has outgrown this one, for formatting, readability, or comprehensiveness; and those which were so boring that they rightly consume no more than a handful of paragraphs.

So, now that I've established my premise, let's go over that list again: Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, and Wilma. Each one of these is not only inherently notable, but easily outgrew the article; the Katrina article and its children are longer than the season article.

So then we have the ones that don't instantly reckon an article. The first criteria to look for is: Does the available information we have outgrow this article? Looking at the article, I see:


 * Arlene: Very full section, just below the threshhold for a full article. We would be blessed if every storm in the season article were presented in this fashion, for I like having a full section. It does not, however, warrant its own article.
 * Bret: Slightly less full than Arlene, but similar.
 * Cindy: Another very well-done section.
 * Franklin: Short, but all we can give on a fishspinner.
 * Gert: Again.
 * Harvey: "
 * Irene: Longer than the previous three, even though it's not an inherently more notable storm that I can see. But we simply have more info; it may use pruning later on.
 * Ten: A short but sweet blurb that foreshadows Katrina.
 * Jose: Franklin-length for a Cindy-caliber storm, but not bad. Not worthy of its own article; could be fleshed out more here.
 * Lee: Fishspinner.
 * Maria: Now here we have the first test of "Is it otherwise historically notable"? Because it nearly struck Iceland as a tropical cyclone, and its only recorded deaths were from Norway. We do have an article on Hurricane Faith which was similar. However, the length does not warrant its own article, and I don't find the post-tropical effects sufficiently historic. However, a case could be made a la Faith (a case could also be made to merge Faith into its season article)
 * Nate: Nice section for a mostly fishspinning storm.
 * Ophelia: Bloody hell. This is where it gets difficult. Is the storm inherently notable? In my opinion, not really. So it parked off the coast for a few days and washed away from sand. It happens. It caused anywhere between $50 and $800m damage - we'll have to wait for the Tropical Cyclone Report to be sure. So, in my opinion, it is not worthy of an article on notability alone. But then we have the second criteria - information. The Ophelia article has much too much information to fit into the season article. So, we are left with the question - do we prune the article and merge it back in, or do we keep it where it is, even though it is highly unlikely to be retired, and caused probably not too notable damage? This could use a discussion.
 * Philippe: Fishspinner.
 * Nineteen: A nice short blurb about a failed depression.
 * Tammy: Back to Cindy/Arlene quality, needs a picture.
 * Twenty-two: Again, nice.
 * Vince: Another iffy case. In this case, it lacks information - the article could probably be folded in to the season article with minimal or zero loss of information. Vince was, however, notable for being the only recorded tropical cyclone to strike mainland Europe. So do we give it its own article based on that alone? Worth discussion.
 * Alpha: Notable for several reasons - It caused a fair amount of death and damage, and oh yeah, it broke the record for number of storms. However, ponder this for a moment - Does that make the STORM notable? Or the SEASON? I would say the latter, thus removing that raison d'etre for the article. Lengthwise, the article just baaarely overdraws the limits of the season article; it could be folded back in with minimal or zero loss of information, and I support this. Remember, folks - Alpha was not notable for being the 22nd storm, it was the season that was notable for having 23 storms.
 * Beta: Better case for notability than Alpha if we get any casualty reports in. It has more information than the Alpha article, but I still think it could be folded in to the season article with minimal or zero loss. However, this is less of a major situation, but in the future I would prefer keeping the information in the SEASON article until length/notability requires it. The recent articles - Tammy, Wilma, Alpha, Beta - are being made extremely early in their lives, with no reason.

That's just my take on how the season article and its various children are working out. In related news, the Monthly Summary comes out early tomorrow, and that will have updated damage, death, and intensity estimates for the October storms. Let's see if we can glean any information from it. --Golbez 20:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we have another record, longest post ever on a talk page. j/k, very well said. --Holderca1 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed, agreed, AGREED. Thank you for saying this. I think if we could make a full, interesting article on any storm, it's worthy of having one. That's easy to do for some storms, and others might not make it. If there's enough information available, I think the iffy cases of Ophelia and Vince should have articles. I'm going to reserve judgement on Alpha and Beta until damage and death tolls become more clear, but I'm leaning towards not supporting the Alpha article. --Patteroast 21:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

My basic take on this is that the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article is way too long. Our goal should be to make it into something that a regular person could read through from start to finish, using summaries where necessary to condense text that would otherwise be too long. A related problem is that the text is too "dense" in many places - people don't want to read the exact wind speed or pressure of every hurricane or the distance from some unknown island where it formed; if that's the kind of information we want to present we should do it via a picture of some kind rather than via text.

As storms go, I think each storm should have a two-paragraph summary - Katrina is a good example; as the the most notable storm it now has two long paragraphs for its summary (about 15 lines in total). However this is a problem because Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Irene and possibly others have summaries that are (by my standards) too long...and I don't want to condense them since without a "main article" for these storms that will mean some writing is lost.

So. I have no problem with adding more articles, *if* they have more info than the summary. If we make the summaries smaller, then we can have more short articles that expand on the summaries. The article doesn't have to be that lengthy so long as it is high-quality. There are also additional nice pieces of info we can put into articles (storm track pictures, infoboxes, damage pictures) that wouldn't all fit on the summaries (although having a storm track picture for each summary would probably be better than the text form of the storm history we have now).

My suggestion therefore is that rather than spend more time arguing about it and getting into edit wars, we spend some time simply improving the article (and its sub-articles, including the storm articles but also other sub-articles). During this time new storm articles may be created without a large hastle, with the understand that they'll be deleted later if they turn out not to be useful. The only restriction is that no writing should ever be lost (though it may be moved onto and off of the main article as needed). We set a fixed date - say November 30th, the end of the season - at which time we want to have the work complete. By then we want the main article to be high quality and something that a normal person would find interesting to read. At the end we meet back here and based on what we've learned we can come up with guidelines that can then be used for other (future and past) seasons.

Jdorje 22:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's too much specific stuff in the summaries; in particular, minimum pressure is useless. We have to remember that the Tropical Cyclone Reports will have many times more information than we want in the articles, so when those come out, we can shuffle some minor aspects off to it (like minor preparations, etc). Wikipedia is a reference work, not a comprehensive journal. --Golbez 00:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am an author and I'm going to look at this from an author's point of view. What we need to do for this article is to differentiate between interesting information and nessisary information. All trivial facts, as interesting as they are, need to be cut from the article. Records need to be kept to a two-sentence maximum. Maybe three as an absolute maximum for select cases (ex: Wilma's pressure fall). We seem to want to spend an entire paragraph talking about solitary and sometimes menial records. The introduction needs some considerable shortening. Much of what is said there is better off in the Season Summery section. That's the biggest problem I have with the article over everything else. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

All we know right now is that the big 6 (Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan and Wilma) shouldn't be touched; they deserve significant mention for notability and their names are likely going to be retired - the first criteria is met there. They most definitely warrant separate article.

From there, we get to the next question mark: historically notable. The only one I can think of that meets that clearly standard is Vince (unlike Faith, Maria was long extratropical when it moved northward - which eliminates that argument). Alpha was a lot like Odette and has some merit for an article, on a mixture of impact and notability. I will admit I waffled on the Alpha article; I really see both arguments and don't have a real position on it. BTW the last Atlantic storm that had an article (or warranted one) for strictly historical purposes was Alberto in 2000 (Odette in 2003 was like Alpha).

Next up, you get to the length of the section on the page. That is where Ophelia was broken away. It was clearly too long (the Ophelia article is 25k) and the significant coastal damage (although numbers are highly variable - anywhere from $50M to $1.5B) make the storm somewhat notable, although it definitely would be a lot more notable in a less-busy season (it is in the shadows of many other storms).

I do not support separate articles on any other storms, though. CrazyC83 04:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you on the big 6. We already have main articles on them. We should really keep their entrys on the main page to a brief summery, like was done with Hurricane Gilbert and Hurricane Joan in 1988. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Huh? It sounds to me like Golbez is saying that the "Big 6" are the ones that clearly wanton to keep seperated. Route56 04:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * An Arlene article, Alpha, Ophelia, Vince... Where will it end? There are simply too many articles. I'm sure if we condense it just right, it could work on the main page. I strongly oppose the formation of those nothing articles (as I like to call them). Hurricanehink 12:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Partially agreed with you on that. I think that if the storm is so unnotable that only basic information is available, then an article should not be created. I strongly oppose the articles on Ethel (1960), Bertha (1996), Alex (2004), Arlene (2005), and Alpha and Vince to some extent. I like the articles on Faith (1966, no self boasting here), Odette (2003), and Ophelia (2005). I feel that they have good, concise information that does much more than copy from the main article. And while discretion is clearly not a common virtue here, I believe that we should judge the article and not the storm. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

And now we have a Cindy article. We need to stop this sooner rather than later. There is no point for all these articles. Simply send them to the NHC article when they have one for a full storm history. All that should be mentioned is a very brief history and what, if anything, makes it notable. This page should be based more off the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season page; lots of storms but short enough to read it. Sure, some text will be lost, but with proper links, it wouldn't matter. E. Brown, good call on some of the storms, agreed on discretion... Hopefully this will get figured out in the coming days without having an article on every last storm. Hurricanehink 04:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Button bar poll
Let's just take a vote on the button bar and get it over with.

Keep it Get rid of it
 * 1) KEEP IT.--WolFox 06:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC) It shows more information than just the Table of Contents (ToC). It shows the category and now shows the full name if you hover the mouse over it. The ToC does not show the category. I don't want to have to scroll all the way to the top when I'm at the bottom of the page just to find a specific hurricane. Makes intrapage navigation easier overall.
 * The only people that know what the colors mean are the regular contributors to this article. You think the average Joe will know that yellow means Category 3?  You don't have to scroll all the way to the top without the bar to get to the TOC, hit the home key, takes you to the top of the page. --Holderca1 15:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, the key is the template, which already exists in the article.
 * (edit conflict; I misclicked save instead of preview) Most people would be able to tell naturally that redder means more intense, and there are tooltips. (I think the tropical storm and depression colors need to be dimmed/washed out, though - those colors are too intense and attract too much attention.) AySz88 ^ -  ^  00:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And who'd know that the colours are supposed to represent the Saffir-Simpson scale? The fact that the is there doesn't make a difference if no-one knows the button bar's colours are taken from the template. --  NS LE  ( Commu nicate! ) < Contribs > 00:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So what do you propose to fix that? Perhaps make the bar two lines with a mini-key to the side, unless that's too visually unappealing? AySz88 ^  -  ^  00:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, the Saffir Simpson scale template is not on the storm articles which also have the button bars. --Holderca1 00:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * That is, actually, one of the reasons why a copy should be placed on the main season page, since it, after all, serves partially as a portal to the other pages for the season. AySz88 ^ -  ^  00:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually think most people find the main page by going to an individual storm page first or being redirected when looking for a storm that doesn't have its own article. I don't know if there is a way to do this or not, but is there a way we can find out what the hit counts are for articles?  --Holderca1 23:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Keep, of course. AySz88 ^ -  ^  06:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) KEEP, for reasons already stated by Wolfox. - JVG 12:02, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) STRONG KEEP, for reasons stated by Wolfox. --CFIF 12:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) KEEP. I say keep it, but put it in both at the top and at the bottom.  Like what WolFox said, having it at the bottom of the page would make intrapage navigation easier.  But, placing it at the top of the page will make it easier to find a specific storm when just loading the page from scratch.  --Super-Magician / Talk 13:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak keep. But strongly disagreed with Super Magician. The table of contents serves that purpose the button bar serves. The button bar should be used by people at the bottom of the page who don't want to scroll all the way back up to the table of contents. The button bar is strictly designed for use at the bottom of the page. It has the general appearance of a bottom-table. Keep it where it was designed to be. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 14:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess that would make sense. The only problem is the TOC appears much lower on the page now than before due to all the new templates; it also appears after all the writing in the first section (section 0, not the season summary).  Having it at the very top would make it so that you didn't have to scroll down to the TOC.  In addition, the TOC is a little cumbersome to read/scroll through, as it has the full names of each of the cyclones.  The button bar lies on just one line.  &mdash; Super-Magician (talk • contribs • count) 17:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) KEEP, but only at the bottom. Lord Bodak 14:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Keep at the bottom. Not the most attractive button, but somewhat useful. &mdash;Gaff  ταλκ  17:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Keep perhaps just at the bottom crandles 23:47, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Keep I'm one of those average Joes and I found the notation and the colors on the bar easy to understand. For an article this large, having a compact button at the top made it more convenient to find the storm I wanted.  –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 16:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) KEEP Preferably at the top and bottom, but just the bottom would be an acceptable compromise
 * 6) Keep Rarely is so much information conveyed so simply and efficiently. Kudos to the designer.  This is not my field, but I understood it almost instantly.  --Aranae 03:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) KEEP, a/k/a WHY VOTE IF IT DOESN'T COUNT? Ummm, I find it a really useful innovation. An All-Years Page might be very interesting, where all the button bars could be looked at simultaneously.  But definitely keep the thing.  It's useful in ways the ToC isn't, and isn't designed to be.  But, it seems not to matter how anyone votes; more of us want it than don't, and yet... it's removed anyway!?!?!?  Someone from Palm Beach County, Florida doing the counting here?  Chad?  Chad?  --Sturmde 06:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Calm down please. This may come as a surprise to you but it can be put back. --Golbez 07:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a democracy and this is simply a tool to gather opinion and try to reach a consensus. Until someone starts using some of the criticism on this page to improve the button bar, no one will change their votes, and a consensus will never be achieved.  --Holderca1 14:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) KEEP Contrary to popular belief I simply put it back because I thought it looked good, and because the unilateralism in removing it when there seemed to be a slim majority in favour of keeping it annoyed me. 203.214.26.233 12:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) KEEP Very useful. Dralwik 22:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) KEEP Far more visually appealing than the oversized ToC and a useful tool. Plus, I see no reason for it to not exist, which is more important in my book. -- Cuivienen 03:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) KEEP I think it's actually very useful, and whoever was whinging a few days ago about the colours not having meaning, the colours etc. are at the top of this and the notable cyclones page. I think that's more than sufficient. -- Sarsaparilla39 08:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Bam. Though I am not agreeing that Wikipedia is a democracy by taking part in this. Golbez 06:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if it's not a democracy, we still have to reach a consensus. A vote is one way to reach one. See WP:CON--WolFox 06:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) REMOVE IT and NEVER USE IT in the main articles. IT's absolutely fugly. -- NS LE  ( Commu nicate! ) < Contribs > 11:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Might be of some use in the individual storm articles, but I don't think it fits in the main article. --Patteroast 11:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Remove--Holderca1 15:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Remove in its current form, since the list of storms serves the same purpose. However, on the individual storm pages (and disambiguation pages?), links to other storms of the season should be shown in a different format. CrazyC83 17:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Remove, ugly. Although I'm inclined to agree with CrazyC83. --Goobergunch|? 17:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Remove --Revolución (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Remove, except as an interarticle navigation template (only on the bottoms of the pages). --Mm35173 17:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Burn it. Mike H (Talking is hot) 19:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Remove it. Sure, the button bar may look great and flashy for those who know the hurricane names, but that's what the Table of Contents are for. Also, if it is on the bottom of the site, then it shouldn't be there at all. --Americanadian 03:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think I understand what you said... Would it not help both people who know the names and those who don't?  Those who know the name can find it by first letter, those who don't know it might find it by the information conveyed by the other symbols.  (As for being at the bottom...  is linked at the bottom of Viacom, and I don't think you can argue against it being helpful there as, at least, a very organized See Also list.) AySz88 ^  -  ^  22:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think a template like the one you see at the bottom of the Viacom page is much better than the button bar. I would be more supportive of something like that. --Holderca1 23:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Remove, I won't make a fuss over it, but it is just simply horrible. Titoxd(?!?) 02:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Delete all of them: They add no functionality to the articles because they are redundant to the tables of contents and storm infoboxes. There are already at least two links (section and storm names) in all season articles, and this one also has records set and ACE table. In addition, using colour to distinguish between things is bad from the viewpoint of accessibility. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Remove. Ugly and redundant. 200.124.33.78 23:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) DELETE IT -- without any explanations, the button bar says nothing to the average Wikipedia reader.  Even with the explanation, its purpose has been usurped by the outline.  This is another example of forgetting the people who read the Wikipedia -- and the people who post to the hurricane articles are not the average Wikipedia reader.  B.Wind 20:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a surprising conclusion to me, since I had been thinking the exact opposite - I felt the average Wikipedia reader would rather have the obvious and concise button bar, and above arguments seem to say that there are "enough" other ways to find the other articles - though the other ways aren't as obvious. Besides, the explanation/key is easy enough - see User:AySz88/Sandbox for one way we might make the key.  AySz88 ^  -  ^  22:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I want to know which one of you is using IP sockpuppets to constantly put it back. But hey, you kids have your fun. I've probably gone over my three reverts and I don't care. Report me. In fact, that's what would be required, wouldn't it, since I'm certainly not going to enforce it on myself. (Nor am I allowed to) This is not consensus, it's railroading by someone who had his feelings hurt and is getting other IPs or friends to help him out. --Golbez 06:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If it's only at the bottom of the page (which I think is the best option), it's not an eyesore. Stop making personal attacks on people. I don't know the person who made the bar, nor do most people here. I just saw it and thought 'Hey, that's a great idea!' Stop degrading people whose opinions differ from yours.--WolFox 06:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Will you turn against the sockpuppets at well? Yes, an IP address with no edits miraculously decides, hey, I'll make my first edits by constantly adding the button bar. I wonder who it could be... I'm not degrading anyone that's undeserving of it. Are you a sockpuppet? If not, then congratulations, you're safe from my ire. --Golbez 07:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * With this is the most obvious, 210.84.15.143 and 203.214.26.233 are the same person. Not only do they both constantly keep adding in the button bar, but they both have contributed to Talk:Public Transport Users Association and have similar language usage.  --Holderca1 15:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, not so. I have a fair idea who the other person is, though. 203.214.26.233 12:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, to his credit, he already removed most/all of the personal attacks..... AySz88 ^ -  ^  06:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Who all would be willing to compromise and only have it at the bottom, not at the top? I think that's the best thing to do with it.--WolFox 22:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it belongs on the season page at all, we already have at least 4 links to each storm article in it, including one near the bottom in the list of storm names, why do we need another. I don't feel it adds anything beneficial to the article.  --Holderca1 23:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think there's too much ambiguity within "delete", going by the comments under "delete". There should probably be a difference between those who think it is "ugly" but support the functionality and those who disagree with adding the functionality at all. It appears some people interpreted "delete" as including "needs improvement" or "remove pending improvement". If a seperate option had been added for that, it might have attracted a bigger concensus at this stage. It would seem to me that "remove it" really means permanently deleting it off the face of the planet, like a "don't bother working on it" kind of thing, though others might not have read it that way. (Personally, I think the bar would need to be improved in appearance, which is why I voted "support".) I suggest perhaps just working on it until we get a visually appealing bar and a compromise with consensus, since there's obviously no consensus either way right now (as of a 9 - 9 tie) - neither enough to place the bar on the articles nor delete the template. AySz88 ^ -  ^  00:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I took it as pertaining to just this article. It should be discussed at WikiProject Tropical Cyclones if you want it to cover every usage.  --Holderca1 00:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Subpages
All right, enough already! No more sub pages! We don't want an article on every single storm! That defeats the purpose of the main article. Articles should only be created if the storm is notable. This is getting ridiculous. I was bold and merged Arlene into the main article. I was tempted to do the same for Cindy before it was put up for a vfd. I don't want to become a subpage-Nazi, but if I have to, I will. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 17:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yay! (Round of applause). 100% in agreement. Though the main page needs to be shorter, I would rather see the pointless pages go. Hurricanehink 18:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed...I made a sarcastic comment about when Arlene was created, where was the Cindy, Irene, Jose, Maria and Tammy pages? While you do that, go ahead and create the others, even lonely Lee (who has to really feel bad being stuck in Katrina's shadow and barely even getting the name)... CrazyC83 19:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I almost want to hug you! Thank you! I'll probably ask for Cindy to be merged back when its AfD fails. NSLE  ( 讨论 ) \< extra > 01:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand why there is such a problem with having subpages for storms anymore. This page is very long, and I'm moving more towards having the storms on separate pages than on here so this article can devote more information to the overall affects of the season.  Afterall, a beyond-stub article can be written on just about every one of these storms. -- tomf688 {talk} 01:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Do one for Tropical Depression Ten (2005) and I'll agree :P NSLE  ( 讨论 ) \< extra > 01:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Hell, even that one can get its own article, IMHO. Whats the harm of having another set of stubs on Wikipedia, with a list of links to the storm articles on this page (to reduce the length of the article)? -- tomf688 {talk} 05:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Eric, you weren't "bold" in redirecting Arlene to the main article, you were opportunistic. The best thing to solve the Arlene issue was to develop a set standard. We have two standards being thrown out about: length or notability. In some people's minds, an article only is created if it's a length issue. But at the same time, when an article is created because of a length issue (Arlene) the issue suddenly becomes notability. Be consistent, or don't bother squabbling over what gets an article if you can't make up your minds on the requirement for article creation. --Revolución (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to put in a vote for length as a standard. The fact is, there are dozens and dozens of articles in wikipedia, many of them about subjects we wouldn't find notable.  However, someone has and they put in the effort to collect enough information to make an article.  Wikipedia should encourage the addition of information, not limit it, as long as the information is reliable.  I'm remaining neutral on whether storms such as Arlene have enough information (and I mean real information, not just formatting and filler to make the article longer) to warrant their own article, but clearly the consensus is that the summaries have reached a maximum length to remain in the season article.  This means no further information can be added if they are not allowed their own article.  If there's no further information to add, that's fine.  Notability is subjective, but it goes together with length.  If enough good information is out there that an article can't be condensed to a storm summary, then the storm is probably notable. PK9 20:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

My only real question for those of you who hate the idea of subpages is this: if you think this information is so unnotable, why do you want it clogging up the main season article? Jdorje 00:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Having so many subpages negates the purpose of the main article and and it makes people follow a long path of links just to get to the good stuff. People don't like being led on a leash. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "negates the purpose of the main article " - Okay, what is the purpose of the main article? (To what degree should it summarize the season?)
 * It sounds like you're concerned about inflating the number of clicks it would take to reach the information? (I'm just guessing at the concern - with the current setup, one has to look up the storm in the table of contents, get taken to the in-article summary, then click the main article link for more details. In addition to that, moving chronologically to the next storm of the season is horrible without making some change to the method of browsing.) There already exists a proposed tool to ease access to the information and reduce clicks - the button bar.  Having the button bar replace part of the table of contents allows one to jump directly to the main article of a specific storm without first having to go to the in-article summary.  --AySz88 ^  -  ^  01:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not paper. Having the main article be 63 kilobytes (8500 words + 37 pictures; 31 pages long on my browser) negates the purpose of the main article.  Most of the information in the article is only useful as a reference; the rest of the article seems to be written for the casual reader, but no casual reader would ever make it through the article.  So...the main article is not useful as a whole; only individual parts of it are useful as a reference.  This is the very definition of an article that should be split up, but most authors have no interest in doing so. Jdorje 22:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * NSLE, you caused me a big headache because I was going to reply to this, but you archived the page right then, so I couldn't find this discussion for like 30 minutes. In response to Jdorje, I think there are plenty of authors with interest in splitting up the article.  The problem is that there are also a number of authors who are very interested in NOT allowing it to be split up. -PK9 01:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

What if the sub-articles were called 2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Arlene? Jdorje 22:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There are Wikipedia subpages with the /, which are not recommended as a place to put information.....and the general meaning of "subpage" to which I think E. Brown is referring. (That is, using a / would be worse.)
 * It may be better to refer to (the general meaning of) "subpages" as "storm-specific articles" or "child articles" or something. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  05:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Point taken. Jdorje 06:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Earliest xth storm ambiguity?
(There may be some disagreement here because NHC defines a late-season storm as any storm within 3 months of the end of the prior season, thus the Jan. 19, 1978 storm listed as the record for the earliest forming storm may, rather, be one of the latest forming storms since it technically is part of teh 1977 Hurricane season. If one prefers to deal with just a calendar year, this list would be safe; if one prefers the hurricane season definition, it might throw these records off.

From NHC web site:

E16) When did the earliest and latest hurricanes occur?

Contributed by Chris Landsea The hurricane season is defined as June 1 through November 30. An early hurricane can be defined as occurring in the three months prior to the start of the season, and a late hurricane can be defined as occurring in the three months after the season. With these criteria the earliest observed hurricane in the Atlantic was on March 7, 1908, while the latest observed hurricane was on December 31, 1954, the second “Alice” of that year which persisted as a hurricane until January 5, 1955. The earliest hurricane to strike the United States was Alma which struck northwest Florida on June 9, 1966. The latest hurricane to strike the U. S. was late on November 30, 1925 near Tampa, Florida. (Contribution from Blake et al. 2005.)

-- FunguyVA, 03:00, November 12, 2005 (UTC) (moved from article by AySz88 ^ -  ^ )


 * That would make a lot more sense if the E16 entry mentioned the January storm. Jdorje 07:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That would definitely change some of the statistical charts I used on my website if I were to adopt that premise - however, I'm happy with my stats as it is under the premise I used of year-to-year.


 * Besides, if you want to use Chris Landsea's definition (which is a perfectly good and valid definition!) just shave off any Jan or Feb storms on my lists :) --The Great Zo 15:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Button bars revisited
For any of the people involved in the project of adding button bars to all the seasons: can you please go through those seasons and fix those button bars? The current button bars use templates in the talk space, which is no good. Jdorje 08:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone also needs to update the 2005 button bar for TD27. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.16.61 (talk &bull; contribs) 03:53, November 14, 2005 (UTC).
 * Added TD27. AySz88 ^ -  ^  04:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Button Bar Broken
What happened to the button bar? All previous versions of it appear vertically on it's template page and I can't figure out how to fix it. -- Wol F ox  ( ★ Talk ★ ) Contribs 01:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The HTML Tidy extension of MediaWiki was disabled because it was making the site crash, so all the pages with malformed HTML are not fixed automatically anymore. If someone is brave enough to go fix it, go ahead, but I'd rather take it out. Tito xd (?!?) 01:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? The concerns over the people not knowing what the colors mean were addressed. I don't have any idea how to fix it. I'm sure someone does though. -- Wol F ox  ( ★ Talk ★ ) Contribs 02:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Erm, I'm not sure what, exactly, this refers to... I see no problems - have they already been fixed? AySz88 03:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup, looks like it. Here are some pictures I captured of what it previously looked like:  -- RattleMan 03:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The template itself (Template:2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season_buttons) still appears to be broken. -- Wol F ox  ( ★ Talk ★ ) Contribs 04:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not in IE, I just checked that; perhaps you're looking at a cached version, or does it break only in certain browsers? --AySz88 ^ -  ^  04:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I just checked. It works in IE and Netscape 7.2 but not in FireFox. Odd.-- Wol F ox  ( ★ Talk ★ ) Contribs 06:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Worked in both IE and Firefox for me. -- RattleMan 06:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF
Image:Columbia SEAS.GIF is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)