Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Season map...

The NHC map has 28 storms.

We count 31, including the unnamed STS.

Where's the discrepancy? --Golbez 00:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Depressions. Hurricanehink 00:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It is very confusing, both to editors and eventually to readers. There are different numbering systems that the NHC uses. For instance Wilma was the 21st named storm, the 22nd nameable storm, the 25th depression, but was named "Tropical Depression 24". Giving just some of this information to the reader will only confuse them, and giving all of the information is simply unnecessary. But if you give them no information, they are likely to wonder about it. (This reminds me of the season where there were two "Tropical Depression 2" storms.) — jdorje (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I Just finished changeing ALL the many things that needed to be changed on my list, which I will put in the list here tomorrow

Guys - Don't Forget to change the ACE FreeSledder 00:45, 11 April 2006 (EST)

FreeSledder-Subtrops dont have an ACE Rating.HurricaneCraze32 14:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think they have an ACE Rating. For example Nicole of 2004 has a rating of 1.16 and it never became tropical. -- WmE 18:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the track map on the page displaying oddly for anyone else when they try to view it at maximum resolution? --tomf688^{talk} 19:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So what's the Final word?? Is there an ACE on these SubTropical Storms or not?? FreeSledder 18:28, 11 April 2006 (EST)

It probably does have an ACE, but until its TCR comes out we cannot guess at its value. Nilfanion 22:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This page, note the NOAA URL, credits Nicole with ACE. So it appears that subtropical storms are taken into account when computing ACE. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with HurricaneCraze32. I put my thoughts on this topic at Talk:Accumulated cyclone energy a while back. Basically, the reference to Nicole's ACE is the only one I've seen that gives an ACE value to a subtropical (ST), given that some 2005 tables are not fully updated. While it's elementary to calculate an ACE value for ST (or even an extratropical for that matter), all of the ACE definitions I've seen hinge on the phrase "periods in which the tropical cyclone is a tropical storm or greater intensity." Does this mean that a ST gets an ACE for periods when it's greater than or equal to 35 knots? Or that by it's very nature, a ST doesn't meet the criteria for tropical storm, and should not be included? I believe we should follow the latter, because by my calculations, the former would result in no less than 23 seasons since 1950 (and numerous individual storms) with incorrect totals in ALL of the references I've seen. --Spiffy sperry 22:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a few different references for either way.... I'd say e-mail the NHC to get a real answer. Whoever does should comment about the conflicting webpages on the NOAA site. --Ajm⁸¹ 04:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

See discussion below --Spiffy sperry 19:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have any suggestions as to why the season map does not include the depressions? It seems inconsistent that the 28 cyclones that managed to strengthen into storms get to clutter the map with the paths they traced as depressions and even as mere lows when the 3 cyclones that never strengthened and thus achieved some of the shortest and least obtrusive tracks receive no mention. Ev-Man 04:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

--awkward 16-day pause--

Since everyone is soooooo interested, I am going to take it upon myself to e-mail the NHC. Ev-Man 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Unnamed Storm Pic

I think we should try to find better pictures of the Unnamed Storm. What do you guys think?? tduwhs

TCR Refs

Several TCRs files were renamed to so that the Unnamed report would be in the proper order. This broke all the TCR refs for storms past Stan. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL212005_Tammy.pdf changed to http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL222005_Tammy.pdf, for example. Someone will need to go through all of them and update where needed, in this and the other articles. --Ajm⁸¹ 23:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- RattleMan 23:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

All named storms now have articles

(NOTE: Please see this for archived discussion on this subject.)

I have restored the articles on Harvey, Jose, Irene, Nate and Philippe. I intend to go through the other minor storms (those with pre-existing articles) adding the 'forecast' section. I have only really drawn from the TCR so far, it seems sensible to go through the advisories in more detail for extra facts. Also I think there needs to be a bit of work to reorganise them. Perhaps the comments on ACE should be moved into the Trivia section, and the "Watches and Warnings" become "Preparations"? This makes this layout more similar to the major storm articles and gives a framework for adding more information to the major storms. Nilfanion 18:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

There should not be a trivia section. If something is trivia it needn't be included in wikipedia, and if it's not trivia it should be in one of the other sections. In general I don't think ACE needs to be mentioned at all in the article; it is trivia and has little relevance to...anything - but others may disagree on this. — jdorje (talk) 19:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The ACE stuff comes about as a desire to say something about post-season changes (with Cindy and Emily in mind really I suppose) - perhaps remove the numbers and say "no real changes post-season, as shown by minor tweaking of ACE". Trivia is a bad section name I agree, the problem is people want a "earliest/first nth storm", and "trivia" covers that. At least "trivia" is better than "notability" as on Zeta's article. A sensible name for such a section should be found IMO. In addition it would solve that problem which occured on Katrina between WP:WPTC editors and 'general' editors on "retirement doesn't deserve a section", retirement is just another fact to put in this section ultimately. Nilfanion 20:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Trivia" is too vague to universally exclude; to some (most?), the fact that conventional current is opposite the way that electrons flow would be trivia, but it's an important distinction that definately should be in Wikipedia. The availability of "trivia" doesn't seem bad to me (different people look for different things), only the danger of such details clogging up places where they don't belong. "Miscellaneous" might be a better word for what was originally described, perhaps, but then I haven't seen the harm in such a section, if it's short....

ACE is actually relevant to our some of the "target audience" (for lack of better term), no? When we first moved the ACE table to the statistics page, a surprisingly large number of anonymous users complained. --AySz88^-^ 21:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't suggest that trivia should be banned. What I suggest is that it needs to be used to highlight or augment already-existing sections, pictures, or passages. There should never be a "Trivia" section in an article. I'm sure nobody has ever suggested putting current flow direction into a "trivia" section on the electricity article. — jdorje (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And yes I agree "Notability" is even worse as a section heading since it is just a disguised term for trivia. A section heading should say what the section is actually about. — jdorje (talk) 23:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think there is a need to specifically enumerate the changes in post-season analysis; that is just trivia too. Hurricane Epsilon and Hurricane Vince do a good job (last time I checked) of integrating this information into other sections: "At one point on December 4 it was thought that Epsilon had weakened to a tropical storm, but it restrengthened to its peak intensity of 85 mph (135 km/h) just hours later; later analysis showed that Epsilon had never weakened at all.". — jdorje (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What was the final answer to "does the New Subtropical Storm have an ACE"?? FreeSledder 19:28, 21 April 2006 (EST)

Yes it does, and please sign your posts with ~~~~. NSLE _(T+C) at 14:10 UTC (2006-04-22)

Wait, I thought the final answer was "we don't know"? The definition of ACE implies that it should not, but some NHC ACE tables do include it. — jdorje (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

ACE tables for 2004 included ACE for STS Nicole, iirc. NSLE _(T+C) at 14:56 UTC (2006-04-22)

See discussion below --Spiffy sperry 19:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Cue scary music, the idea is done! Question, though. The French Wikipedia has a storm for every article, right? If they do, what more, if anything, do they have in theirs as opposed to ours? Hurricanehink 15:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Judging from a quick look at a selection of them, there may be some additional content in the storm history but it looks like it is just a more wordy phrasing. Apart from that the English articles are contain more (and are more up-to-date). Two extra things they have is a brief description of the precursor tropical waves and a link to an out-of-date Google map version of the track map, this is Katrinas. --Nilfanion 15:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That's good news, then. Hurricanehink 17:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Irene

Now all the storms have a 'minimum' standard they need further improvement. Hurricane Irene is forming into the model article for the minor storms, I have put a fair bit of work into Irene's article so far and would appreciate assistance with editing/comments from more of the editors here. There are two specific issues on which I would like to know how people feel, should forecasting info be separated from the storms history (compare with Lee) and is there a better name for "trivia"? --Nilfanion 23:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried changing "Trivia" to "Statistics and records". --AySz88^-^ 23:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed coming up with a consistent name for a section to put information not related to storm history/preparations/impact/aftermath. However it isn't easy. "Statistics and records" is decent, but does not cover things like naming of Hurricane Alice (though that could be a subsection of storm history, perhaps) or the censorship of the 1943 Surprise Hurricane (though that could be under preparations, maybe). — jdorje (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How about "Records and Naming"? 'Statistics' seems incorrect with the ACE removed from the section. This could work out ideally, as it covers all the stuff in Trivia-type sections which cannot be moved to the history (or other bits). In addition it provides a clear place for a discussion of retirement issues. It still doesn't cover the Suprise Hurricane, but Preparations would work (If a lack of warnings due to being redundant is worthy of Preparations, then deliberately withholding them is also). --Nilfanion 09:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Spoken article

I put this up for discussion a few weeks ago, and you guys said that we should wait until all TCR's are out. Now that all reports are done, and all the editing has been made, we should consider making this a spoken article. What do you think? M cappeluti 11:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, but I'd wait until after the every storm article is completely finished (it's almost there). Hurricanehink 21:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Subtropicals and ACE

This topic was raised twice above, so I'll continue here. I contacted someone at the NCDC (National Climatic Data Center) and received a detailed explanation. In short, the official ACE index definition (which itself arose from something slightly different) does not include "subtropical" or "extratropical" observations, but NCDC includes it in some of their calculations anyway in order to compare data globally, due to questionable reliability of data in the Atlantic and other basins. Future updates from NCDC may indicate something to this effect. The question for us is what purpose do we have in tabulating ACE values? Whatever we decide, we need to update the 2005 articles to meet the official definition (and to be consistent with our pre-2005 data), or update 1950-2004 to facilitate global comparisons (assuming we will eventually have detailed data for more than just the Atlantic). --Spiffy sperry 19:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Good explanation. Just a reminder: linked from Talk:Accumulated cyclone energy (particularly Talk:Accumulated_cyclone_energy/Atlantic_by_year) are a set of computed ACE values for all historical Atlantic storms (other basins are included, but because of the "questionable reliability" you refer to I wouldn't trust them). These numbers do not include the subtropical or extratropical portions of the storms, so I believe these are the numbers we should be using. — jdorje (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

This probably should be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, but it is relavant to 2005AHS. I think season articles open very poorly, here you have to get to sentence 3 before you learn anything about the nature of the season. How does this sound as an improvement. Remove the first 2 sentences of the lead and put them in a section describing how seasons are handled. This would mention the official dates of the season, the fact that this article covers the North Atlantic, that the NHC is the responsible body for naming storms and so on. Perhaps an expansion of the role of the names section (and a rename) would be the best place?--Nilfanion 09:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be much easier to move those two sentences to the end of the paragraph. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I have a tendency for going for the radical solutions (even if long term they are right). What you suggest is a good idea.--Nilfanion 22:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tried a reorganisation, putting the impact paragraph before the "28 storms, 15 'canes, 7 majors..." I think this is an improvement, the impact is more important than the trivia about number of storms. What do people think?--Nilfanion 17:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. —Cuiviénen, Thursday, 27 April 2006 @ 22:31 UTC