Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Cumulative death toll

Should a chart be made, like the death toll charts for individual storms, containing the cumulative death toll for all 2005 storms, by country, region and political unit? CrazyC83 18:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea for the deaths&damages section. — jdorje (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

There was the chart of just regular storm deaths.HurricaneCraze32 22:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If we broke it down by more than country the table would be massive. It should be there, but only by country, even for the US. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 23:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It could be done in the statistics section though... CrazyC83 16:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The full breakdown could appear in the statistics article, but it would take up too much space in the main article. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The ever-expanding article

Leave an article with lots of available information alone, and it will do nothing but grow. This one has grown from 44k to 50k in the last couple of weeks, and is bordering on what I would call "too long". — jdorje (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions of something to split off, or do you prefer a pruning? --Golbez 07:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I did some minor pruning of places that had too many numbers or too much detail, but most sections are about as concise as they can be. The one section I still think is too long is the "Seasonal forecasts" section. Also, I'm still not sure what role the "Economic impact" and "Forecasting uncertainty" sections should play in the overall structure and flow of the article - I think they are out of place as top-level sections but I'm not sure how to integrate them. The "Economic impact" section might be better off if it were split into a sub article (maybe Impact of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, which could have all sorts of pretty tables showing deaths and damages in each location as was discussed not long ago). — jdorje (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

50k is not excessively long. At least, that's my opinion. It's down to 48k now, and, by taking a look at it, there's 43 notes! Now that is too long. Too many notes. We don't need to cite where we got every single piece of information from. bob rulz 02:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

See WP:CITE. A comprehensive list of citations is one of the strengths of this article. --EMS | Talk 02:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It takes up, like, 30% of the article. It's good to cite sources, yes, but 43 notes is excessive. That may not be what it says in WP:CITE, but it's my opinion. Not every policy on Wikipedia is a great policy. bob rulz 02:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

50 KB is not a problem. Race, a featured article, is 127 KB long. I'd say that it is quite about right. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

50 KB is not yet a problem. But the tendancy of the article to keep on growing is a problem, and continued vigilance is needed to keep it focused. — jdorje (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it not possible to make a sub-article to all the notes? I agree the list is to long, but it citing makes an article better. Jonatanj 08:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Unnamed Storm?

Check out this video. At about 36:55 Max mentions that there may have been another storm to meet the qualifications for a name. --Ajm⁸¹ 21:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

He might be referring to the first stage of Gamma. TD 27 attained TS status after the season, and the next stage could have been a different storm. Hurricanehink 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Either that or TD19 or TD22 was really a tropical storm...Also he said that Emily was a Category 5 at about the 38:00 mark...and admitted that they were way behind on TCR's just because of sheer volume. It takes time to write 30 reports!!! CrazyC83 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding a 28th named storm: at first I thought maybe it was TD22 as well...but it is not. They are looking at a system in early Oct in the eastern ATL that may have had tropical characteristics. 2005...the season that won't quit! Another surprise.Mkieper 14:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I was studying 22's report.On the track map,near the 10th update its like there was a point where it was TD status.HurricaneCraze32 14:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it was an October storm was confirmed by a now-removed footnote in the Zeta TCR. It was also confirmed by e-mail with James Franklin, and he also explained the removal of the storm from the footnote by saying that they are still debating as to whether or not to make it officially a storm.WindRunner 02:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

I've just found this on the German Wikipedia. It would be great if someone could modify it for English (translate the months and the links and add links for others with English articles). It really demonstrates how continuous and constant the season was. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 18:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Here you go (edit to see code):

--Ajm⁸¹ 19:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This timeline looks really large. Is it possible to downsize it? Icelandic Hurricane 21:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with the downsizing, especially on the vertical axis (not so much horizontally so that it shows all the storms). Also TD's 10, 19 and 22 should be added. CrazyC83 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Added 10, 19, and 22, made it smaller (to mess with the sizes, edit the "ImageSize = width:800 height:400" values near the beginning), and changed the starting month from May to June. A question, why is STD22's duration on List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms including the times it was a part of the Northeast flooding of October 2005? Really, STD22 only lasted from 15Z on the 8th to 03Z on the 9th. -- RattleMan 23:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition to downsizing, would it be possible to show category on it? WotGoPlunk 02:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. See here. -- RattleMan 02:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... Can we replace "TD 10", "TD 19" and "STD 22" with just "10", "19" and "22". Otherwise it looks inconsistent (the other storms don't have "TS" or "H" in front of them). Other than that, it looks good. Also, Rattleman, I think he meant different colors for when the storms were at various intensities. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 13:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How about compressing the timeline vertically, by putting all the storms onto a small number of rows, maybe 5? Then the concurrent storms will still be obvious and the total space required goes from 30 data rows to a much lower number. -- 86.139.249.40 10:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs a border of some kind. It would make it look much more organized. --Weatherman90 15:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Also - whats with the "2005.41" on the side? Can we get rid of it? Weatherman90 15:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a way to change that to just "2005" without starting in January. The .41 comes from June 1 being 41% into the year. --Ajm⁸¹ 18:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you people think of the table reorganised like this? The 'standard' Category 1 color doesn't work in this form, perhaps changing the background color is the solution, seems preferable to giving ANOTHER palette for hurricane categories. --86.142.250.56 12:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. The 5 rows makes it easier to read now. Hurricanehink 12:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I added this here to demonstrate what else could be done with this timeline. The colors on Emily show the maximum intensity on each day using the established colors but while it certainly gives more information I think it looks ugly. The mark on Katrina shows when maximum intensity occured, this might be useful. I got rid of the '2005.41' by using 'ScaleMinor' instead of 'ScaleMajor'. -- 86.142.250.56 20:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if I like it that way (In reference to the condensed table)...It seems harder to read and doesn't demonstrate how constant the season was as well as the other one as Cuiviénen put it. Weatherman90 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the colour of the background on the timelines to a light grey; seems to make more sense than to have another battle over the category colours when there is a simpler solution. Having said that I think the colours of cats 4 and 5 are too similar. I think it works if the colours are left alone; apart from Cat4 which could be changed to:

#ff8c40

-- 86.141.83.56 01:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone has uploaded the condensed timeline to the timeline article. As the discussion is here this is the logical place to discuss it, though maybe this whole thread should be moved (I'll figure that how to do that when I get a account I guess). There seem to be a few issues with the timeline as it is. While it is obvious what the timeline conveys, theres a few points which seem to be an issue.

Which stages of a storm's development should this actually be showing? Is it from the initial report in the TCR to the final (sub)tropical depression (or stronger) point in OR to the subsequent report after that one OR should the final report time be used - even if theres a significant extratropical/remnant phase?
- What about Gamma? Is the tropical wave phase included for clarity or excluded (this could be done if deemed appropriate)
The TCRs give the reporting times in UTC. Does that mean therefore that the timeline dates are UTC?
- If so what happens if the first or final data point on a storm is 0000UTC - does the storm count as starting/ending on the day which is commencing or ending?
Due to technical limitations of the timeline, its designed for much longer periods than days, does excessive accuracy have any point to it (the dates are in the source for the timeline after all)?

Or is it just a waste of time being fussy over a matter of one day? It doesn't really matter to the timelines overall structure after all. -- 86.139.226.87 21:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Overall track map for 2005?

Any idea when NOAA will be publishing the overall track map for 2005? I know that they have been used as part of the recent season pages other than 2005 and expect that it will be added when NOAA publishes them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naraht (talk • contribs) . (sorry for forgetting to sign)

Probably when all the TCRs are done. --Golbez 15:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I was wondering the same thing to myself a bit ago. It actually says on the bottom of the page that lists the reports. - At the rate that these reports are coming in, it could be a very long time. Weatherman90 04:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that all reports would be done before the meeting at the end of this month, but you never know. --Ajm⁸¹ 09:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a report coming today. I can feel it! Weatherman90 15:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

They usually come out in the morning, so I'm afraid that you're probably wrong. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 17:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong indeed --Weatherman90 01:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The TCR page says that the map will come out after all reports are complete. That was changed from saying it will come out at the end of the season. —BazookaJoe 04:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Another week without a report...doesn't the NHC know that I can't sleep at night without knowing if Emily was a Cat 5?! Haha --Weatherman90 15:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Emily's Report

It is finally out; the NHC has decided it was briefly a category 5. TCR

No surprise there. That takes care of one big question mark. I'll let someone else do the updating as I do intense work on the current storm outbreak page. CrazyC83 15:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

YES!! I don't have to change any of my records!! Except now I have to fix a lot of them on here because people erased many of the Cat. 5 stats..... Here goes Heavy working on the records list again - Cory Pesaturo "The Snowman" FreeSledder 10:57, 13 March 2006 (EST)

HAH! The best one isnt the last. Lets just hope we get more intresting things. What if Beta becomes Cat4-we'll have a new record there.HurricaneCraze32 20:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. Beta may have been 120-125 mph, but I can't see a jump of that degree. The most interesting things left could be if Rita was underestimated like Wilma (180 mph?) or if Franklin or Harvey was a hurricane, although I personally doubt it in both cases. CrazyC83 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well look at that! Figured it almost had to be, but I'm surprised the NHC did it. And without lowering the pressure. A bit of a perk on an otherwise depressing weather news day. -PolitiCalypso 21:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What an amazing season this was... —Cuivi é nen, 21:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow! This sure woke me up. So we had four Category 5's in one season. Good God! That is insane! 2005 will go down in history as the Year the Atlantic Went Mad. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 22:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Only if things quiet down and 2006 isn't just as insane. I recently read an article about 2004 describing it as a "one-in-a-lifetime" season. 2005 has been described as a "once-in-200-years" season. So we will see what 2006 brings... — jdorje (talk) 03:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

...I can sleep tonight! Weatherman90 02:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Glitch!

Uh, WTF? What the hell happened to the article? The Wikipedia server is acting like it doesn't exist. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. It's probably just your computer. I've had that happen before. Icelandic Hurricane #12 23:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Wikimedia's server base is giving a bit of trouble. It appears ok to me now, but if it isn't resolved in your computer try purging the page's cache and hard-reloading your browser (e.g. pressing CTRL+F5 in Internet Explorer) Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I ran into this problem at school around 1530Z (8:30 AM my time, when I learned Emily was a Cat 5). There I went into the History and found that the user WmE somehow blanked nearly the entire article. At that time I thought that might have had something to do with it, but now I think it was just a Wiki error. -- RattleMan 00:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

He section-edited, and may have had a conflict with the server problems. NSL E _(T+C) at 00:45 UTC (2006-03-14)

The whole article disappeared this morning while modifications to all the pages were locked. I thought it had something to do with the maintenance this morning. Good kitty 02:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Cat. 5-Cat. 4 color similarity

I noticed that the Cat.5 and Cat. 4 colors look very similar. People that are colorblind might get confused. Maybe someone could change one or both of the colors to differentiate them more. Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd make the Category 4 color a slightly bit lighter, but not a whole lot. Category 5 should remain as is; it needs to be in a red shade. CrazyC83 00:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We arrived at those colors through a horribly long discussion at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics, so I would be a bit iffy to change them. That said, tweaking Cat 4 to be just a bit lighter might make work, as long as it does not become too similar to Cat 3. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I dropped it down a shade; feel free to change it back if you don't like it. I think it strikes a balance. CrazyC83 18:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The storm path images still use the original color system. Once the new color system is agreed on and stable, I will switch them over. But the ongoing complaints and small tweaks make me think it is not stable. Even a small color change would necessitate a full re-upload of the storm tracks eventually...and with hundreds or thousands of track maps this is a non-trivial task. — jdorje (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason for the lack of contrast between cat 4 and 5 was that someone had changed cats 3-5 to a darker shade and only cats 3 and 5 were reverted, cat 4 got missed. With the original colours restored this problems gone. -- 86.141.83.56 16:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

27/Gamma

TD 27 was briefly a TS before dropping back to a TD, then regenerating into TS Gamma.

Now, if it had never become gamma, we would simply designate it TS 27, as would likely the NHC.

However, since it DID become Gamma, shouldn't we note in the timelane that it briefly became TS Gamma, designation retroactive? And then dissipated or dropped to TD, then back up to Gamma? --Golbez 22:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Large parts of the timeline probably need updating, since they were all originally take from the advisory data. — jdorje (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If it had never become gamma, I think NHC would likely call it an unnamed tropical storm instead of TS 27. A similar case occured in 1996.[1] I think it is to prevent confusion as the public are not familiarized with TS with a number. Momoko

Cat. 1s on the timeline

Category 1s are practically the same as the background, and its really hard to see. Maybe the background colour should be changed. Jamie|C 19:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree-hurts my eyes.HurricaneCraze32 20:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not this again. We had a huge discussion and mostly everybody agreed on this colour scheme. The old Cat 1 was the colour of the background aka white. Pikachu9000 23:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Color #ffdd88-looks good to me.Its one of the colors for my chart.

My chart is (Ignore the Subtropical Storm)

Extratropical Edit - (779bEE) Edit

Subtropical depression Edit - (violet) Edit

Tropical depression Edit - (#E1CCFF) Edit

Tropical storm Edit - (lightgreen) Edit

Subtropical Storm Edit - (#ffe775) Edit

Category 1 hurricane Edit - (#ffdd88) Edit

Category 2 hurricane Edit - (#ffffaa)Edit

Category 3 hurricane Edit - (pink) Edit

Category 4 hurricane Edit - (#ff8f20) Edit

Category 5 hurricane Edit - (#ff4343) Edit

HurricaneCraze32 23:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Too pastel. — jdorje (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What about this? The link colour may have to be changed for Tropical Storm though.

Extratropical Edit - (cccccc) Edit

Tropical depression Edit - (5ebaff) Edit

Tropical storm Edit - (00faf4) Edit

Category 1 hurricane Edit - (ffffcc) Edit

Category 2 hurricane Edit - (ffe775)Edit

Category 3 hurricane Edit - (ffc140) Edit

Category 4 hurricane Edit - (ff8e0d) Edit

Category 5 hurricane Edit - (ff6060) Edit

WotGoPlunk 02:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeating all the old arguments said at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics: no green, no pink, the edit links in the Tropical Storm color is invisible due to the background, there must be continuity of hues and luminosity values... Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The color transition is too bizarre. Blue won't show up on the track maps I suspect, and green for category 3 is not good. — jdorje (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Tropical depression Edit - (#66CCFF) Edit

Tropical storm Edit - (3399FF) Edit

Category 1 hurricane Edit - (#FFFF99) Edit

Category 2 hurricane Edit - (#FFCC00)Edit

Category 3 hurricane Edit - (ff8e0d) Edit

Category 4 hurricane Edit - (FF6666) Edit

Category 5 hurricane Edit - (FF0099) Edit

How about this. I know Cat 5 is a little bit dark but you can still see the links . Pikachu9000 05:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Category 5 is too dark. You can't see the links. — jdorje (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Now it is too strong, and hurts the eyes due to excessive contrast with the black (one of the original reasons the original scheme was replaced). Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I can't make it too weak, that's the problem with Cat 1. Pikachu9000 06:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What colors are used on the French wikipedia? Their infoboxen were more mature than ours for a very long time, and they have colorcoding. Try theirs out. --Golbez 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the French Wikipedia colour scheme, it is one which showed up in the discussion on the statistics page:

Tropical depression Edit - (5ebaff) Edit

Tropical storm Edit - (00faf4) Edit

Category 1 hurricane Edit - (ffffcc) Edit

Category 2 hurricane Edit - (ffe775)Edit

Category 3 hurricane Edit - (ffc140) Edit

Category 4 hurricane Edit - (ff8f20) Edit

Category 5 hurricane Edit - (ff6060) Edit

It looks very similar to the current scheme, except the cat 4 colour is lighter resolving the clash with the cat 5 colour. By changing the background colour to a light grey on the timeline the cat 1 colour is clearly visible now; some more work may be needed there, the TS colour clashes with the background now I think, further tweaking of the background colour seems to make sense. The track map I grabbed from the discussion on this colour scheme on the statistics page; all the colours seem to show up well against the map background. -- 86.141.83.56 09:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, reading the discussion - this scheme, colour scheme #23, was the colour scheme agreed upon and was uploaded, but someone altered the cat 4 colour since; I've reverted it back and altered the timeline colours to match it (the code for the timeline doesn't use the template colours). -- 86.141.83.56 10:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant the colours were ok, but the timeline background colour needs to be changed. Jamie|C

15:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and changed the background to a light grey instead of the white it was. I thought grey is the best choice as it is a 'neutral' colour, though the exact shade could be altered. All storms are visible on the timeline now. -- 86.141.83.56 16:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reports: Zeta, Rita, Harvey, Franklin

Rita is out. Still cat 3 at landfall, pressure lowered a bit and max winds upped. --Ajm⁸¹ 17:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The others are out as well, just not linked to the page yet: Zeta Harvey Franklin. --Ajm⁸¹ 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

All right! They're all in. Some East Pacific ones are still pending. I hope the HTML versions will come out soon. A new peak intensity for Rita, revised upward: 155 knots, 895 millibars. Good God, what a monster! $10 billion in damage, too. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 18:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what about Beta? Is it out yet? -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 18:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Beta is the only one missing now. --Ajm⁸¹ 18:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I wonder if anyone guessed Beta in the betting pool... -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 19:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll need to check them out...whoever guessed Beta (if anybody) gets the orange ribbon...they must be still debating her intensity (115? 120? 125?) and her strength at landfall (Category 3?). Also that was the least reported of all the landfalling hurricanes. CrazyC83 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I picked Beta - though I guess this new unnamed subtropical storm (see below) can still win. :p Picked it because they screwed up the forecast so badly right before landfall that they might have to spend more time reanalyzing.

Why an orange ribbon? --AySz88 ^-^ 00:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Color not yet used. The most common ones are already used. The new subtropical storm shouldn't count as we didn't know about it when the pool opened up. CrazyC83 04:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey man, I bet on Epsilon when it didn't exist yet, and that was a valid entry. What if they decide to call the new subtropical storm "Bessie the Cow"? -- PK9 01:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yay, my wild, unfounded guess about upgrading Rita's winds was right! -PolitiCalypso 04:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

No changes with Franklin. Notice his peak winds (70 mph) were set with a 1001 mbar pressure - I kinda question the winds there. I think they may have overestimated Franklin. We learn nothing new with Harvey's report. No changes, and no surprises. They did drop Rita's intensity at landfall to 115 mph from 120 and the pressure is a record low for a storm at that intensity. It seems Rita and Katrina were indeed sister hurricanes, it just happened that Rita (fortunately) hit a much less populated area. Emergency organizations should think about redrawing storm surge maps. CrazyC83 19:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Alice was NOT broken! Zeta came 6 hours short. She had actually formed late on December 29th as a tropical depression. CrazyC83 19:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Now Crazy C, why'd you have to go and put in sub headings? They're unnessisary and they break up the discussion. I'm sorry but I have to merge them, they're obnoxious. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 19:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought talking about four reports would make everything too cluttered... CrazyC83 20:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa steady, four reports at once! I'll need some time to read them through properly... Pobbie Rarr 19:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Beta's Information

Beta's info still says that it was the 13th hurricane to form.Shouldnt it be changed to 14th? I know that Cindy was upgraded in her report, but i think it should be renoted. The 13th hurricane thing should be added to Wilma.HurricaneCraze32 14:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should change those around. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 22:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)