Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 15

Proposal for reformatting of article w/ subpages for every storm
Yes, a subpage for every storm. It doesn't matter how "noteworthy" the storm was, it won't hurt anything for it to have it's own article. Furthermore, forcing these "unworthy" storms to stay on this page, and only allowing them one paragraph of information, is not what Wikipedia is about.

The new layout that I put together would siginificantly reduce the length of the page, which is far too large at the moment, and it would also organize it nicely, since it is quite the mess at the moment. Basically, the only section that would be affected is the Storms section, which is, of course, the largest. Below is what the new "storms" section would look like. Notice how the tracks, storms images, and descriptions have been consolidated to present a brief understanding of the storm, while the "more information" link will send the reader to the full article which will have more info on the storm.

This, or something like it, really should be done. -- tomf688 {talk} 05:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am definitely in favor of using subpages for more information, and just using a table to give the basic storm information. My own idea of the storm table was a little simpler; see User:Jdorje/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season.  Although I like having the two images be shown in the table...but given how much resistance there is to having them in the article now I suspect that might be difficult to convince people of. Jdorje 05:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Reminds me vaguely of my previous idea ("Radical Reorganization") - but this has less numbres and more text. Maybe yours is a better implementation.  Nice job!  --AySz88 ^  -  ^  05:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, those against the use of subpages for non-notable storms might be less against using an actual sub-page like 2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Bret. Jdorje 05:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I doubt it; you're not supposed to use those kinds of subpages for that purpose (see above). --AySz88 ^ -  ^  05:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What exactly is wikipedia about, Tom? Furthermore, it does actually hurt things. It implies the storms are more relevant than they actually are, it magnifies the number of pages and links to patrol, and it adds nothing. This is an encyclopedia and an almanac, but it is not a primary reference - most things that could be added to artificially inflate these articles will be found in the Tropical Cyclone Reports. Which means, for the minor storms, the outline we can provide does not justify its own article.


 * Second of all, using a table just .. doesn't seem right. The bulk of the article a table? What's wrong with paragraphs? (see next section)


 * Thirdly, please explain why it really should be done. See below. --Golbez 08:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Subpages for every storm, including tropical depressions? Also remember - from Lee down, date modifiers aren't immediately necessary. CrazyC83 15:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Except for cases like Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita, where there is no doubt that the storm name will be retired, I strongly support including the date modifiers immediately. Sooner or later, the retained names will be used again.  As a matter of policy, it is much better to make things right the first time than to have to go back later and fix them up.  As I see it, naming an article "Hurricane Maria (2005)" now is better than forcing people in 2011 to have to rename "Hurricane Maria" to that and then remove the redirect so that the Katrina-like Hurricane Maria of that year can be placed under that name.  In fact, I see pages like Hurricane Ophelia as having jumped the gun in this respect.  It really should be Hurricane Ophelia (2005) until and unless Ophelia is retired. --EMS | Talk 04:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

how about just link to the ones that have articles:

--Revolución (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good ideas. Both of them. --Mark J 20:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Er.... Read the proposal again, Revolucion. There wouldn't be any storms without articles. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  20:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is how it could go into this article (only basic information - sample storm is Katrina, all storms will go into the table, separated by breaks):


 * What do you all think? I could add more columns. CrazyC83 23:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the base for all the storms that I made: Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Sandbox CrazyC83 00:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * love it!!!


 * Oppose CrazyC83's tables in the revised Storms section. It is hard on the eyes, uses too much room, provides too much detail and gives too little information.  tomf688's textual summaries work much, much better.  (Look at it this way:  For minimal tropical storm fish-spinner, the salient facts are very different than they are for something like Hurricane Katrina.)   However, as a standard storm summary table this would be helpful in the individual storm articles.  In that context, this table will help to give each article the depth and length needed to be justified as an individual article. --EMS | Talk 03:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the text summaries work better for 2005AHS but those tables are good infoboxes on the individual storms' pages. The information in Crazy's table goes across rows (breaking across the whole width) instead of organized in columns, which kinda negates most of the purpose.  --AySz88 ^  -  ^  03:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is this a good idea? Subpages should be used sparingly. If we do this, it should stay 2005 thing, given the these storms are all part of a famous (infamous) season. Also, we CANNOT just reprase what's already said in the main article (a la Cindy). I like the Dennis article. It gives good detail without copying the main article. Katrina is good too when it's not being torn apart by vandals. The subpages should not outshine the main article. They should support it. If these requirements are not quickly met, I will merge the subpage(s) back into the main article. I don't want to be a subpage Nazi, but if I have to, I will. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's like saying that 1310s is the main article of 1315. It isn't, 1310s is an overview of each year, just like 2005AHS is an overview of the year's storms.  People have(had?) been trying to cram more details about each storm into the little space on this page, which just doesn't work, because this page gives overviews and we need some other place to put details.  --AySz88 ^  -  ^  18:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would give the subpages the benefit of the doubt if I were you. However, it does seem to me that there needs to be a good delineation or responsibility between what is covered in the main article and what is covered in the individual storm pages.  If everything that you would want to know about a storm can be summed up in a few sentences, then perhaps an individual article is not needed in that case (as is the case in the second example above).  However, most of the current storm write-ups will not fit well in a tight table.  --EMS | Talk 17:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm just tired of people copying and pasting from the main article. Then they say they'll change it but then they never do. Also having all those subpages would turn the main article into something completely alien from the rest of the hurricane articles. This should definately be just a 2005 thing if it's done at all. Simply because there is just so much information in one place. Other seasons, we should just keep doing what we've been doing. I will NOT accept a bunch of half-assed articles that just repeat or rephrase what the main article says. Also, the main article should be...just that, a main article. It should be the main focus of the subject. I like how Katrina's subpages were set up: a collection of articles under one supreme article. The main article should be the monarch. The subpages should be the subordinants. Let's not let the subpages take over now. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I really question the wisdom of saying that this should be the "main" article. To me, it's really like saying 460s is the "main" article of 463 - the use of a heirarchy to organize information doesn't imply that the super-page is more important than the sub-page.
 * We're also stuck in the middle of implementation - there isn't a place to move the details of storms without articles yet, and we can't shrink any of the sections on 2005AHS until the details are moved for all the storms (or there'd be an imbalance between descriptions of storms with seperate articles and without), and there's too much opposition (in my eyes, anyway) to create new articles - so the first thing to do is to get all this opposition settled and get something agreed upon (then move the details, then shrink this side so it's not just a "rephrase of the main article" anymore). I don't think you should call the articles "half-assed" yet when we're still figuring out what to do. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  04:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

All these arguments
All of the discussions on how to remodel the page seem to be a solution looking for a problem. Can any of you first cite the shortcomings you see in the current layout and methods? There are so many discussions over things that NEED to be done, but never any justification for WHY. --Golbez 08:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason, which we have repeatedly put forward, is that the article is way too long and full of irrelevant information. Jdorje 09:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Jdorje, you seem to have reverted my attempts to remove some of that "irrelevant information". -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ahh, but you have also reverted my attempts to move some of that irrelevant information. Wikipedia is not paper: when the amount of information gets too large the correct solution is not to delete it but to organize it better, using a hierarchy of pages. Jdorje 18:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Then trim the article of info that doesn't belong in a secondary reference. How does moving the info to individual storm articles make it any more relevant? The article needs a trim, not a redesign. First step: Remove the ACE table. There's little reason to deviate from the excellent examples supplied by the 1995 and 2004 season articles. I will say I kind of like how the storm and track images work in the tables, but the entire thing shouldn't be tabular. I am a little concerned of how it will look on a smaller monitor, but that's a minor concern. --Golbez 21:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Much of the information in the article is not relevant to an article about the "2005 Atlantic hurricane season" (in general) but would be relevant to an article about a single storm. I'm not sure how to explain the difference, but there is one.  I don't see why we should have to restrict ourselves to the formats of 1995 and 2004.  It doesn't have to be tabular either (the current format's pretty nice, actually). --AySz88 ^  -  ^  21:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The Storms section covers over half of the article! It seems to me that if you want to shorten it, you should focus on that which is taking up most of the room.  Once you have cut that section down to size, then you can worry about other things if article size is still an issue. --EMS | Talk 03:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I would disagree that this article is full of irrelevant information, but that it is far too long. The average reader takes away little from this article because it is information overload.  In the same fashion that some articles are split into subarticles because the page is 60, 90, or even more KB long, I feel this article should follow suit.  Further, people will be more likely to expand articles on certain storms that may have been relatively long-lived but didn't affect land, or even weak storms that might have caused coastal erosion in Singapore or something crazy like that.


 * At any rate, The example I provided above is just that: an example. Stronger storms could have a longer piece, or the storms could be color-coded like in the template at the bottom of the page.  As for the use of tables, I don't really see them as a problem.  This is a website, not a paper book, and it can be used as such.


 * And last but not least... you don't think the storms section is a mess? :) -- tomf688 {talk} 14:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I just addressed my main concern which is the sloppiness of the images, and grouped them in tables in the article. Looks much less crowded now. -- tomf688 {talk} 15:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That is an improvement, but I very much prefer the overall tabular form that you proposed above. That really gets the Storms section under control, placing twice as many storms on a screen as the current format does.  The reorganization of the images is mostly window dressing, while the tabular form creates a much more readable and managable article. --EMS | Talk 04:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Pretty much agreed, the level of detail on this page is far more than desired for a person looking for an overview of the season but likely less than desired for a person looking for information about specific storms. To shorten this article, I feel the details should be moved instead of removed from the article.  --AySz88 ^  -  ^  16:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, take a look at the NHC summary on Tropical Storm Gert; they present two pages of info before they start with the tables.  This is just one example of how much longer articles could be, even on short-lived storms. -- tomf688 {talk} 16:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You know, I'm starting to agree that we can get all this information - enough for separate articles on ALL storms, including fish-spinners. This could be an off-season project when we aren't dealing with major blizzards, spring tornado outbreaks or other weather phenomena...we would also have to change around past seasons. The report on the forgettable Gert proved it. CrazyC83 06:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. However, this is not the point being argued by the other side.  THEY think that some storms aren't notable, therefore they don't want that information in wikipedia. -PK9 01:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * They ARE in Wikipedia, in the main article. NSLE  ( 讨论 + extra ) 01:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about the additional information that forces the main article to be too long, making the individual article for a storm long enough to justify its existence based on the criteria of length. Those that want the criteria to be notability also want a shorter main article, so certain information would not be allowed to be anywhere on wikipedia. -PK9 01:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not just copy and paste it then? It is public domain, after all. What's wrong with offering an outline, then linking to the primary reference? Why do we have to have every single bit of information? --Golbez 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you arguing that we shouldn't make an article about X because people can look up information about it elsewhere? The Wikipedia article on a subject may turn out to present the same information in a much more accessible way.  --AySz88 ^  -  ^  21:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying have an article with the basic information, and link to the TCR for the hardcore numbers. You CAN have too much information in an article, making it difficult to see the forest for the trees. --Golbez 23:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Tom, great job with the images. It looks MUCH better. Hurricanehink 16:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm with Golbez here. AySz88, how is the fact that half the page is taken up by storm descriptions irrelevant? Note: 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. The storms themselves are the season, not just some sidethought while we focus on...wait, there is nothing else to focus on! It wouldn't be a hurricane seasons without the tropical cyclones. I think we should just stick with what we had originally for subpages. If there's too much information to fit smugly on the main page, then you create a sub-page. Personally, Vince and Beta shouldn't have subpages. Otherwise, how we have it now is fine. I wouldn't put anymore than 2 paragraphs on a storm on the main page. 2004 and 1995 are prime examples of how a hurricane season article should look. We don't need suppages. We don't need more specific information than we have now, therefore, we don't need separate subpages except for the ones we have already. bob rulz 08:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking you missed my explanation involving levels of detail. To summarize it: into this single article, you're trying to fit three levels of detail: the introductory overview of the season, the full overview, and then a description of each individual storm.  You can't satisfactorily include all the pertinent information about individual storms in an article about the season as a whole - the real point of this article is the season summary, not the storm summary.  Information in this particular article (2005 Atlantic hurricane season) has ended up being gauged on notability to the season, not the storm - even though the information is notable enough that it should be kept somewhere in Wikipedia.  So those details should not be removed, but moved (and where else but in a seperate article about the storm?).
 * Adding more levels into a single article increases article length exponentially. Most articles have two levels of detail (introduction, and then details about things talked about in the introduction).  Currently, there's a conflict between satisfactorily explaining each storm and keeping this article's size down (i.e. too many levels of detail), and splitting away a level of detail into seperate articles solves both problems.
 * My original suggestion was to let the current blurbs serve as introductions to individual articles and then flesh out those articles, leaving very brief overviews (a couple sentences) behind in 2005AHS. Since doing that right now would cause an imbalance in the length of descriptions of between storms with and storms without main pages, the beneficial effects on 2005AHS of giving each storm its own page probably can't be seen yet.
 * If you want to talk about whether the storms are really "notable", see the AfD for Tropical Storm Cindy, and Wikipedia is not paper. (That is, the storms are more notable than what else is on Wikipedia, and what's the harm in keeping information?)
 * I think you pointed out the problem yourself: You say you wouldn't have any more than 2 paragraphs per storm on the "main" page (I'd argue that the individual storm articles are the real "main" pages, and this article serves as a portal), but each storm has more notable information than what can fit in 2 paragraphs; just look at what the NHC managed to do with Gert and Arlene. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  16:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't think that very many people are going to care about what's in those tropical cyclone reports. Putting all of the information from those tropical cyclone reports into their own separate articles; that is simply too much information that very few people would ever care about. As I mentioned before, the information we currently have in storm articles, and then the overview of information we have on each individual storm (note: the storms make up the seasons; season summaries won't cut it) is almost perfectly balanced the way it is at the moment. People are fretting too much over the length of the article! There are quite a few very well-written pages on Wikipedia longer than this one! bob rulz 07:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you missed the point; you said it yourself that all we have right now are overviews of each storm - and that's all that can fit here. (Unless you suggest writing article-length descriptions in 2005AHS?)  --AySz88 ^  -  ^  16:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

All we need are overviews. This should not be a formal lecure in meteorology. We just want people to get the jist of it. How many people care about boring storms like Lee, Franklin and Harvey? Very few. Therefore, discussion about them should be kept to summery form. If you are trying to create an article on a storm and all you seem to be able to do is fill it with stale, tedious and menial info then the article should no be created. It would serve no point. I agree completely with Bob. Also I've noticed a severe lack of word economy in this article. For example: "A tropical wave developed a low pressure area in the northwestern part of the Caribbean Sea and strengthened into a tropical depression..." Jesus people, short and sweat. No stuttering. "A tropical wave organized into a tropical depression on [date] in the northwestern Caribbean Sea." That is much better. It uses half the words and accomplishes the same thing. I found stuff like that all over this article (and fixed them). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

season summary track
i've found this on the unisys weather site. Tell me if this should go up now for public interest. weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2005 &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.91.5 (talk &bull; contribs) 03:07, November 20, 2005 (UTC).


 * I don't think we can use those, those seem to be copyrighted. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  03:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The National Hurricane Center releases public domain track maps at the end of each season anyways. -- tomf688 {talk} 03:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Death toll
The article lists the death toll as either 2779 or 2854+. The problem is this value isn't verifiable. I added a to this value, but someone removed it claiming the citations were in the Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Stan articles. Well, they aren't: the values in those articles only add up to about 2400. The total here comes from so many sources that it is hard to verify; today somebody updaed it from 2779 to 2854 - based on what? Who knows. The solution is to make a "deaths from storms" table. Each entry can be easily verified and the total can be easily added. The table below is a start - once this is completed it can be added to the article and then I'll stop complaining. Jdorje 22:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As a starting point, This edit has an edit summary that says ".... Katrina (1,322+), Stan (1,153+), Rita (119), Dennis (71), Wilma (60), Alpha (26), Emily (14), +Others. Together the toll is 2779+". I haven't checked the article to verify, and that's still missing 14. Wikipedia is being very slow right now. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  22:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Added some other storms. Hurricanehink 22:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Should they be ordered by death toll or by name? If by name, then we can add other stuff to the table (like User:Jdorje/table), though eventually it will become large and bloated. Jdorje 23:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The NHC will release death toll summaries at the end of the season. Truthfully, though, we may never have an exact figure, so this may be a moot argument. -- tomf688 {talk} 01:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I added Gamma (8) to the list and removed the question marks from the other storms as each of those is cited in its article. -- Cuivienen 02:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Gamma really should have 16 deaths to it. Eleven in Hondorus, 3 in Belize, and 2 as a TD in the caribbean.   tdwuhs

Should Maria be added? It was extratropical at the time. Even though it is one death, should it be counted? Hurricanehink 17:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes it should. If they determine that Tammy (or TD22) was the culprit in the flooding in New England, those deaths should also be included. Also should the zero-fatality storms (Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Lee, Nate, Philippe, Tammy(?), Vince, Beta and the TD's) be included to show the statistics clearly? CrazyC83 06:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Gamma Article?
Tropical Storm Gamma has now surpassed Tropical Storm Alpha's death toll with 34 confirmed deaths. Does this make it notable enough for a separate article? Any article written about Gamma could be at least as long or longer than any article about Alpha. I suppose the real question is then whether Alpha really deserves an article or not as Gamma certainly does if Alpha does. -- Cuivienen 01:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I personally wouldn't create it, but wouldn't rush to delete if it a Gamma article is created. CrazyC83 02:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you want to create an article, feel free to do so. No harm is done by creating one, and it will only encourage more information to be added to it. -- tomf688 {talk} 03:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Tropical Storm Gamma. It needs a picture but otherwise looks good. -- Cuivienen
 * No objections from here, the article over there is quite long, and the storm is at least slightly more notable than Alpha. Tito xd (?!?) 04:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Against creating more and more storm articles! Whatever's in the article is enough, Alpha, Beta and Gamma should all be merged back in. NSLE  ( 讨论 + extra ) 05:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I know it's probably not in good faith, but I am very tempted to merge the Cindy artcile. Beta did not deserve an article. Alpha: by the skin of it's teeth, Ophelia: the same. Vince: Him too. The only storms that really deserve an article are Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan and Wilma. I know Gamma killed 34 people (that went up in a hurry!) but...it's Honduras. Don't take that the wrong way, but the facts stand: the place is dirt poor. I know that sounds cold, but that's the way it is. Gamma damage there is about as common as Ophelia damage is here. Same with Alpha and Haiti. Some of these article are gonna have to go. I don't get why people seem to have such a subpage fetish around here. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Because splitting articles is cheap and it is a good way to prevent information loss? Tito xd (?!?) 06:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

And is an effective means of shortening this excessively long article. -- tomf688 {talk} 21:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * For I personally think that separate articles for any landfalling storm is legitimate if someone wishes to write it, as this can leave the main season page with a summary and allow those who wish to add further information relating to the storms effects etc essentially a free hand to do so. This is also my view re the discussion re separate pages for tropical storms below. Nashikawa 22:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What about fish-spinners? 216.221.81.98 02:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Do individual storm articles
The more I look at the current 2005AHS page, the more convinced I become that individual storm articles will be a good thing for this year and going forward. The reason is that enough people are now involved with this subject that the information on each storm is plentiful. Just compare the 2005AHS article to the 2003AHS article. Not only are there more storms, but more is being said about each one!

Is seems to me that for the 2005AHS to be manageable, we need to say less about each storm in the article itself, but then why should all of the work of other be lost? I would therefore shorten up the 2005AHS write-ups but start in most cases individual storm articles. (I see no reason to do individual articles about tropical depressions and non-landfalling tropical storms, but certainly all hurricanes can and should have thier own articles.)

Let's look on this as a shift in what the Wikipedia community can produce, and support that change properly. I see no need to go back and update the prior storm years to conform to this new standard (not that I would discourage anyone willing from doing so), but going forward we need to realize that this community can and will provide ample documentation on each new storm, and that this documentation will often be voluminous enough to justify a seperate article. --EMS | Talk 06:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Against such a thing, many of them were NOT NOTABLE. It's lucky we don't classify storms humans, I'd tag such articles CSD/A7. NSLE  ( 讨论 + extra ) 06:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * They're two different things completely. I spend my days at WP:DRV, and I know that CSD A7 is designed to stop vanity articles from overrunning Wikipedia. The hurricane articles are nowhere even close to vanity. If they require Hurricane Maria (2005) year modifiers, well, give them so! The only time I think an individual storm article should not be written is when there is not enough information to write on the article; then, the main season page is fine. Tito xd (?!?) 06:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed... I do not see a reason why a few of us are so inclined to limit the amount of information we can put into wikipedia. Afterall, isn't the purpose of wikipedia to let everyone edit and present the information?  We pride ourselves on the number of [good] articles we have.  If you ask me, I think what makes an article good is one in which at least a few can contribute some information.  It would be impractical to fit everything into one gigantic page, so separating some notable TS should be encouraged.  SiriusAlphaCMa 06:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Maria wouldn't require a year modifier, although it wouldn't hurt to add it. Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Jose, Alpha and (if it forms) Delta are the only ones that definitely require year modifiers as they have (or will have) disambiguation pages and weren't notable enough for the main article on their own (like Dennis, Emily and Katrina were). Tropical depressions should always have a year modifier though as they happen frequently of that number (every year if they reach that number, although usually they will get named).
 * I strongly believe that we should always use a year modifier on storm names initially. If a storm's name is retired, then the corresponding article can be renamed to exclude the modifier.  If there has only been one storm with that name, the unqualified name can point to that storm instead of the disambiguation page.  The only other exception should be to have the unqualified name point to the page for the current year's storm if that storm was quite notable, as it is reasonable to suppose that a request for "Hurricane Emily" (for example) will be intended to retrieve "Hurricane Emily (2005)".  I really feel that this should be a policy for storm pages. --EMS | Talk 16:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Remember, once the NHC reports come out, we get a whole lot of new information on even the least notable storms. CrazyC83 06:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The only articles that have not been at least attempted are Bret, Franklin, Gert, Harvey, Irene, Jose, Lee, Maria, Nate, Philippe and Tammy. Of those 11 storms, six were fish-spinners, one did the damage as extratropical, one hit Florida as a weak tropical storm (not unusual, although its aftereffects have a separate article semi-related to the storm that could be redirected) and three were ordinary tropical storms in Mexico.

If articles for those were to be created, some would need (2005) year modifiers: Bret, Gert, Harvey, Irene and Jose. The others wouldn't as they wouldn't be breaking a disambiguation page and the main article is a redirect to the 2005 page (used for the first time in 2005). CrazyC83 06:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. And, I believe we should add year modifiers to all non-retired storms. Jdorje 17:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * At one point I was on the notability bandwagon, but I've since hopped off of it. This article presents too much information, and should only be presenting the major points of each storm in a paragraph or two, even for major storms like Katrina (damage, death toll, economic impacts, etc, etc).  This article is far too long. -- tomf688 {talk} 21:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There seems the be a consensus here for doing this reorganization. My preference is to use the format suggested by tomf688 above. I think that there is also broad agreement for naming the articles with " (2005)" included where they do not already exist. My suggestion is that we let Tom implement this as soon as he can. --EMS | Talk 22:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoa whoa whoa! I detest the table idea! We should keep it in summery form like we've always done. The reason we don't want articles on non-notable storms is because there is little interesting information about them. All we can do is fill them with stale, tedious and menial info that no one will want to read. For Franklin, Harvey, Irene, Lee, Nate, Philippe, and Delta; you would only have basic information: formation, formation date, time of existance and intensity. None of these caused any damage. The articles would only have information that is best in the main article. No meat like preparations, evacuations, damage, relief efforts, recovery, nothing. Just skin and bones. A skin-and-bones article cannot survive. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that there is a good question of how much data we want to keep where. I am not convinced that Irene and Delta are not deserving of their own articles, for instace.  I agree that if the individual storm article says not more about a system than the main article does that the former is redundant.  IHowever, I do not accept the presumption that this would normally be the case.  At the least, all of the current main article storm summaries need to be shortenned for the sake of the article as a whole.  That really begs the question of what to do with the excised details.  --EMS | Talk 17:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You have 100% Support from me, The more info we can provide, the better. Don't start talking about how people are bored by it. It's not like they are forced to view it. If it bores you, dont click the link.Weatherman90 02:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC) (User's third/fourth edit, and first to this page NSLE  ( 讨论 + extra ) 03:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC))


 * Can you given any reasons why Delta and Irene deserve articles? What sets them out from the rest. Arlene, Cindy, Alpha and Beta mostly just restate what the main article already says (dealt with Arlene already and Cindy's next if that article isn't beefed up in a hurry). Those remaining three articles are skin-and-bones articles. They need to be beefed up or merged. Emily, like it; Dennis, love it!; Katrina, too long but otherwise detailed and well written; Ophelia, not much meat/needs beefing; Rita, love it!; Stan, like it; Vince, needs some beefing but otherwise good; Wilma, love it!. All fish spinners, with the possible exception of Maria, absolutely do not deserve articles. If someone could write convincing, detailed, and interesting articles on Arlene, Bret, Jose, or Tammy, I could be persuaded to change my mind about them. Gert is the only landfalling system that absolutely does not deserve an article. It did next to nothing. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 05:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * 100% in agreement. There would be no point to an article for Lee, Gert, and other non-notable storms. Hurricanehink 12:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I absolutely disagree with this idea that articles have to be long or "beefy" (short article != bad article, as long as the article is fleshed out) or that any of these storms are not "notable" enough to have an article (I really truly doubt any of the storm articles would be defeated in an AfD, even Gert). We shouldn't lose sight of the overall context - i.e. this is Wikipedia.  You seem to be 'notability' between tropical storms only and ignoring notability rules in the rest of Wikipedia.  Saying that these storms aren't notable is like saying a third-party candidate in a presidential election isn't notable, or a Californian representative in the U.S. House isn't notable (sure, they have lots of them, but that doesn't mean they're not notable).  Besides, this 'notability' thing should take a backseat to making the articles more usable, such that those details are can be moved somewhere.  If you truly feel the information should be taken out entirely, that seems to be a minority view.
 * To me, Delta's far more than notable enough (perhaps even notable for you) for being a storm that has been the only storm to reach within 500 miles of the Canary Islands as tropical and hit it as extratropical (according to Jeff Masters). It's also destroyed some landmarks there, like "God's Finger".  All the details which are getting cramped here (and a lot of formation details) would fit well on another article.
 * As for Irene, all that really matters to me is that it's notable enough for an article, which at least gives us a place to move details and expand. --AySz88 ^  -  ^  22:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

How to handle Delta
There has been one storm named Delta previously: in 1972. Since it would lead to a forced disambiguation, here is how I think it should be handled:


 * 1) Once Delta forms, a disambiguation page, Tropical Storm Delta (disambiguation), should be written with the links to 1972 and 2005.
 * 2) If Delta warrants an article, it should go to Tropical Storm Delta (2005) (or Hurricane Delta (2005) if necessary); the date modifier would be required.
 * 3) Only if Delta is really a notable storm (would be retired if it is named normally) should it get the main article.

Basically, it should be treated like any other storm that has had its name used. It is unusual to talk about it at this point, but instantly giving it the main article when not required would isolate the 1972 storm. CrazyC83 07:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Jdorje 07:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Why Tropical Storm Delta (disambiguation)? Subtropical storms aren't the same thing as tropical storms, so the title presents the false impression that there are other storms named Tropical Storm Delta. Tropical Cyclone Delta (disambiguation) would be better. --Revolución (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not convinced re the need for a disambigution page when one was Subtropical Storm Delta and the other Tropical Storm Delta. A cross link between the pages is another way to handle this. Nashikawa 22:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think a disambiguation page is needed. I agree with the above --Revolución (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It is general precedent to use the highest level a name reached in its name disabiguation page if all basins have compatible prefixes. Since tropical storm is the highest the name Delta has currently reached, I vote for Tropical Storm Delta. The precedents are Hurricane Nicole and Tropical Storm Alpha (disambiguation). Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem with arguing disambiguation isn't needed between tropical storms and subtropical storms is that you have to find the line somewhere at which disambiguation is needed. Is disambiguation needed between a Hurricane and Typhoon with the same name?  What about a Hurricane, a Typhoon, and a Tropical Storm?  What about a Cyclone and a Tropical Cyclone?  Because each basin uses different criteria for naming (and this criteria changes over time), I think the only way to disambiguate named storms is by name, not by type. Jdorje 01:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It may become a moot point as it may have to change to Hurricane Delta (disambiguation) soon. CrazyC83 17:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Page Length
Why are people complaining about the length of the page? There are TWENTY EIGHT tropical cyclones this season. Of course the article is going to be long. Expecting an article about TWENTY EIGHT tropical cyclones not to be long is kind of like expecting water not to be wet. If the 1983 Atlantic hurricane season article was as long as this one, then we'd have a problem. This is not the 1983 season. This is the 2005 five season. There are TWENTY EIGHT tropical cyclones this season. It is a given that the article is going to be long.

Now that that's over with, there are several things that can be changed with zero loss to the article: Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 23:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The archive links in each storm section. People don't need their hands held that much. One link in the external links section should be enough. People who are able to navigate this page should be able to use an NHC/HPC/Preliminary Report link page. And Wikipedia is not a web directory.
 * The records section. It mentions that Wilma is the fastest-intensifying tropical cyclone on record. Hold on and think for a moment. Does that make the storm notable, or does that make the season notable? I think not. Does Super Typhoon Forrest being the formerly most rapidly intensifying tropical cyclone make its season more notable than any other typhoon season?
 * Some repetitive passages. It says at least twice in the article that this is the first season to use Greek letters for naming. Is that really necessary? And the main article link in the storm names section has to go. No other seasons have it.


 * Please see what I wrote above. The problem is more than the number of storms or presense of additional links. Instead it is the level of interest in this page, which has made each storm subsection much bigger than those for the previous years.  Compare this page to the 1995 Atlantic hurricane season page.  Note how much breifer the write-up on each storm is.  That is what we need to get back to, but without an excessive loss of content.  You have some good suggestions, the they are window-dressing compared to the more substantial issue of how to organize all the contect that the editors are providing on this storm season. --EMS | Talk 00:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason for the complaints is that the article is too long. It doesn't matter how much material it has to cover; articles that are too long need to be split up. Jdorje 08:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well that's the debate, isn't it? Do the articles need to be split up, or do they need to be condensed?   I'm in favor of splitting up, but others want information to be cut out and replaced with an external reference. PK9 21:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Splitting it up would be like breaking up a puzzle and calling it finnished, that won't fly. The article is not that long. 66 kb is not that long. This talk page was 150 kb long at one point and no one said a word about that. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Button Bar getting long
The button bar's getting to be a bit long... NSLE ( 讨论 + extra ) 00:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as a problem until it fills the entire bottom of the screen, which would only hyappen if we have 4 or 5 more storms (highly unlikely). -- Cuivienen 01:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm running Firefox with bookmarks constantly open (however squeezed as small as possible). The bar makes the page width grow. NSLE  ( 讨论 + extra ) 01:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course the button bar will stretch the screen with Favorites/Bookmarks open - that's almost a given. However, that shouldn't be a consideration when formatting the article as non-standard screen sizes will always cause problems with Wikipedia formatting. If the button bar stretches the screen when the page fills the entire window, then there's a problem. - Cuivienen 01:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I split the row into two; if anyone thinks that's a bad idea (I personally can't think of any reason), then feel free to revert and discuss. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  02:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For now it works. It might be a problem if another storm forms. - Cuivienen 03:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Can I make a recommendation on the Button Bar? (don't know why I'm asking, I'm going to do it anyway) For the greek letters Gamma and Delta, I would suggest putting those in uppercase, since they are unlike any of the Roman letters used during the course of the season, unlike Alpha, Beta, and Epsilon, which are pretty much the same as A, B, and E in the uppercase form. In my opinion, due to the conflict between Roman and Greek letters, the lowercase forms of Alpha, Beta, and Epsilon are more recognizable anyway, and the uppercase forms of Gamma and Delta are far more recognizable than their lowercase counterparts. - RPIRED 18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There's no reason not to use the uppercase forms of Gamma and Delta. Uppercase Delta is far more recognizable than the lowercase form. The lowercase Gamma could be confused with a V. -- Wol F ox  ( ★ Talk ★ ) Contribs 05:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there any way to center the second row under the top one? It looks bad for the top row to have a hanging edge. Also the colors of the buttons run together. There needs to be a space between the rows. -- Wol F ox  ( ★ Talk ★ ) Contribs 03:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Right now, there's a one-pixel gap. There might be a way to make the gap more than one pixel wide, but I can't seem to figure it out, though if anyone knows, it might be a good idea (the same gap should probably also be between the header and the first row, for balance).  --AySz88 ^  -  ^  03:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the space between rows the same gap as between buttons in a row. --Ajm81 18:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As for the second row being centered, it might be possible, but I'd wait until January incase a late storm pops up. --Ajm81 18:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Lower case gamma was more recognizable to me than upper case gamma. I look at upper case gamme and think, "WTF"? TimL 06:09, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

What in the world is Γ ? Is that gamma? Α α Β β Γ γ Δ δ  Ε ε Ζ ζ Η η Θ θ   Ι ι Κ κ Λ λ Μ μ   Ν ν Ξ ξ Ο ο Π π   Ρ ρ Σ σ ς Τ τ Υ υ   Φ φ Χ χ Ψ ψ Ω ω --Ctrl build&lt;sup&gt;&#91;&#91;User_talk:Ctrl_build&#124;talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; &#91;&#91;Image:Columbia_SEAS.GIF&#124;15px&#124;]] 19:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

December?
The article says the hurricane season offically ends on the 30 November. Is this likely to still be the case given the state of the season this year? Will any formed in December be named from the 2006 list or contiuning along the Greek alphabet? doktorb 07:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * They would continue to be named from the Greek alphabet. There have been December storms before, it isn't impossible, but let's hope not. NSLE  ( 讨论 + extra ) 07:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The cut-off point would be January 1 2006. Any storms after that would follow the names list of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Tito xd (?!?) 08:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)