![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Since it is imminent that there will be land issues and there will be quite some to say, I think we should move the Dennis information to a new article, Hurricane Dennis (2005). (Not the main article yet, since that would be wait-and-see what it does in the Gulf - a Category 1 hurricane making landfall rarely gets retired unless it does strange things). Anyone agree? CrazyC83 6 July 2005 15:45 (UTC) (was 24.226.10.99)
Just to put it out there, how menacing is Dennis right now? It's still a tropical storm and we only have a vague idea of what he's going to do (nothing good, probably).
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 6 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)
Jeanne was actually an 80 mph hurricane at landfall in the Dominican Republic. It also was very lethargic at that time, thanks to a weakening Ivan. Ivan blew apart the trough that was fueling Jeanne's stearing currents. This left Jeanne stranded on Hispaniola without a ride, much to the chagrin of a couple thousand Haitians. At this point, Dennis could do just about anything. But it's not like we can do much about it. We can pack up and leave town and that's about it.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 7 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)
OK, the Keys are being evacuated. The rule has typically (well, I've only been doing this for one season, but it was one dilly of a season) that storms only get articles if they are likely to be retired (Ivan, Jeanne, Frances, Charley), or if they are otherwise notable (Alex's northerly strengthening, Adrian's hit on Central America). I can't say right now Dennis is going to be a retired name - a lot of storms have hit the USA without being retired - but since we went four-for-four last year on hurricanes being retired, you can forgive me if I'm a bit punchy. Sure, it's a little self-centered to think about giving it its own article once America is in danger, but then again, it was going to cause lots of damage to Haiti and Jamaica, then this is about the time we'd give it its own article anyway. (Ivan deservedly got one earlier for beating the crap out of Grenada) Anyway, what I'm saying is - I think it's time we gave it its own article. All we're missing is a nice satellite image. -- Golbez July 7, 2005 20:06 (UTC)
I was bold. -- Golbez July 7, 2005 21:26 (UTC)
From the article:
What I don't understand is how the 1959 season is relevant? I mean, Cindy was not the fourth named storm, so how does it apply to "the earliest date on record for four named storms to have formed in the Atlantic basin"? -- timc | Talk 8 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
I think Timc is confused here. The Cindy we are refering to in that paragraph is Hurricane Cindy of 1959, not Tropical Storm Cindy of last week.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 8 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
I'd say TDs should be given a place in the storms section, even if they don't become named storms (just for future reference). -- tomf688( talk) 21:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Records do exist, they just aren't very good. The NHC site has some and some are listed in the Monthly Weather Review.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Check here: [1] I clicked on 1994 and got all the tropical depressions right off the bat. Looks like that prior to 1990, they only did the tropical depressions that affected land. You should be able to find all of them from 1990-1994 though.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 17:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The list for hurricane names on the National Hurricane Center website is as follows: Arlene Bret Cindy Dennis Emily Franklin Gert Harvey Irene Jose Katrina Lee Maria Nate Ophelia Philippe Rita Stan Tammy Vince Wilma
What will happen if the unlikely yet possible situation exists where the season surpasses Wilma? What names will they use for X, Y, and Z? why does it stop at Wilma while many of the other lists listed at here: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml stop at Z? Revolución 03:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
They did exhaust it, but there were no more storms after the 'Z' name was issued, so they never had to come up with more names.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, this is definitely not NPOV (what constitutes "unusually quick": subjective observation!)? But I know I've heard this before, and it's probably right, so does anyone have a source we can cite for that observation? 141.222.46.43 14:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Anyone smell troll? -- Golbez 17:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
How is "unusually quick" subjective observation? If 10 seasons in a row start with one storm in August, and one starts with five storms in July (not exact situation, just forming an example), how would it be remotely POV to call that "unusually quick"? It's an objective assessment - the season started quicker than usual, and it was very unusual how quickly it started. -- Golbez 18:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Quite, it's a simple statistical observation based on 150 years of hurricane records. This season has not followed the usual pattern of storm formation. It is not usual. It is unusual. The way in which it has not followed the pattern is by having storms form earlier. It is quick. It is "unusually quick". -- Cyrius| ✎ 19:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I wondered if people think it would be a good idea to have a template for the foot of the seasons and storms articles? I imagine something like this (with the list of named storm articles completed of course!)-- Keith Edkins 8 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)
Atlantic Hurricanes |
---|
Hurricane seasons |
1909 | 1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1913 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1917 | 1918 | 1919 | 1920 | 1921 | 1922 | 1923 | 1924 | 1925 | 1926 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1931 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1937 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 | 1941 | 1942 | 1943 | 1944 | 1945 | 1946 | 1947 | 1948 | 1949 | 1950 | 1951 | 1952 | 1953 | 1954 | 1955 | 1956 | 1957 | 1958 | 1959 | 1960 | 1961 | 1962 | 1963 | 1964 | 1965 | 1966 | 1967 | 1968 | 1969 | 1970 | 1971 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1975 | 1976 | 1977 | 1978 | 1979 | 1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | 1985 | 1986 | 1987 | 1988 | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |
Notable named storms |
Agnes (1972) | Alberto (1994) | Alberto (2000) | Alex (2004) | Alicia (1983) | Allen (1980) | Allison (2001) | Andrew (1992) | Anita (1977) | Audrey (1957) | ... | Dennis (2005) | ... | Roxanne (1995) |
The year box is terribly large for little added value, and the "notable named storms" will get just as overcrowded as the standalone article. The succession box uses more space for less information than the current setup, and the "notable storms" bit seems absolutely redundant in the article. I say leave it the way it is. -- Cyrius| ✎ 8 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)
No. Please no. That's far too big, and it implies the years have anything to do with each other. It also has an arbitrary cutoff. The 5 year range box we have at the top of each season is sufficient, as is the List page. Please don't do this. We don't need a "succession box" at the bottom, either. Again, the 5 year range box performs both duties beautifully. -- Golbez July 8, 2005 23:05 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Since it is imminent that there will be land issues and there will be quite some to say, I think we should move the Dennis information to a new article, Hurricane Dennis (2005). (Not the main article yet, since that would be wait-and-see what it does in the Gulf - a Category 1 hurricane making landfall rarely gets retired unless it does strange things). Anyone agree? CrazyC83 6 July 2005 15:45 (UTC) (was 24.226.10.99)
Just to put it out there, how menacing is Dennis right now? It's still a tropical storm and we only have a vague idea of what he's going to do (nothing good, probably).
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 6 July 2005 17:33 (UTC)
Jeanne was actually an 80 mph hurricane at landfall in the Dominican Republic. It also was very lethargic at that time, thanks to a weakening Ivan. Ivan blew apart the trough that was fueling Jeanne's stearing currents. This left Jeanne stranded on Hispaniola without a ride, much to the chagrin of a couple thousand Haitians. At this point, Dennis could do just about anything. But it's not like we can do much about it. We can pack up and leave town and that's about it.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 7 July 2005 01:14 (UTC)
OK, the Keys are being evacuated. The rule has typically (well, I've only been doing this for one season, but it was one dilly of a season) that storms only get articles if they are likely to be retired (Ivan, Jeanne, Frances, Charley), or if they are otherwise notable (Alex's northerly strengthening, Adrian's hit on Central America). I can't say right now Dennis is going to be a retired name - a lot of storms have hit the USA without being retired - but since we went four-for-four last year on hurricanes being retired, you can forgive me if I'm a bit punchy. Sure, it's a little self-centered to think about giving it its own article once America is in danger, but then again, it was going to cause lots of damage to Haiti and Jamaica, then this is about the time we'd give it its own article anyway. (Ivan deservedly got one earlier for beating the crap out of Grenada) Anyway, what I'm saying is - I think it's time we gave it its own article. All we're missing is a nice satellite image. -- Golbez July 7, 2005 20:06 (UTC)
I was bold. -- Golbez July 7, 2005 21:26 (UTC)
From the article:
What I don't understand is how the 1959 season is relevant? I mean, Cindy was not the fourth named storm, so how does it apply to "the earliest date on record for four named storms to have formed in the Atlantic basin"? -- timc | Talk 8 July 2005 20:00 (UTC)
I think Timc is confused here. The Cindy we are refering to in that paragraph is Hurricane Cindy of 1959, not Tropical Storm Cindy of last week.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 8 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)
I'd say TDs should be given a place in the storms section, even if they don't become named storms (just for future reference). -- tomf688( talk) 21:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Records do exist, they just aren't very good. The NHC site has some and some are listed in the Monthly Weather Review.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Check here: [1] I clicked on 1994 and got all the tropical depressions right off the bat. Looks like that prior to 1990, they only did the tropical depressions that affected land. You should be able to find all of them from 1990-1994 though.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 17:23, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The list for hurricane names on the National Hurricane Center website is as follows: Arlene Bret Cindy Dennis Emily Franklin Gert Harvey Irene Jose Katrina Lee Maria Nate Ophelia Philippe Rita Stan Tammy Vince Wilma
What will happen if the unlikely yet possible situation exists where the season surpasses Wilma? What names will they use for X, Y, and Z? why does it stop at Wilma while many of the other lists listed at here: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutnames.shtml stop at Z? Revolución 03:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
They did exhaust it, but there were no more storms after the 'Z' name was issued, so they never had to come up with more names.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Okay, this is definitely not NPOV (what constitutes "unusually quick": subjective observation!)? But I know I've heard this before, and it's probably right, so does anyone have a source we can cite for that observation? 141.222.46.43 14:52, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Anyone smell troll? -- Golbez 17:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
How is "unusually quick" subjective observation? If 10 seasons in a row start with one storm in August, and one starts with five storms in July (not exact situation, just forming an example), how would it be remotely POV to call that "unusually quick"? It's an objective assessment - the season started quicker than usual, and it was very unusual how quickly it started. -- Golbez 18:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Quite, it's a simple statistical observation based on 150 years of hurricane records. This season has not followed the usual pattern of storm formation. It is not usual. It is unusual. The way in which it has not followed the pattern is by having storms form earlier. It is quick. It is "unusually quick". -- Cyrius| ✎ 19:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I wondered if people think it would be a good idea to have a template for the foot of the seasons and storms articles? I imagine something like this (with the list of named storm articles completed of course!)-- Keith Edkins 8 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)
Atlantic Hurricanes |
---|
Hurricane seasons |
1909 | 1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1913 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1917 | 1918 | 1919 | 1920 | 1921 | 1922 | 1923 | 1924 | 1925 | 1926 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1931 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1937 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 | 1941 | 1942 | 1943 | 1944 | 1945 | 1946 | 1947 | 1948 | 1949 | 1950 | 1951 | 1952 | 1953 | 1954 | 1955 | 1956 | 1957 | 1958 | 1959 | 1960 | 1961 | 1962 | 1963 | 1964 | 1965 | 1966 | 1967 | 1968 | 1969 | 1970 | 1971 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1975 | 1976 | 1977 | 1978 | 1979 | 1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | 1985 | 1986 | 1987 | 1988 | 1989 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 |
Notable named storms |
Agnes (1972) | Alberto (1994) | Alberto (2000) | Alex (2004) | Alicia (1983) | Allen (1980) | Allison (2001) | Andrew (1992) | Anita (1977) | Audrey (1957) | ... | Dennis (2005) | ... | Roxanne (1995) |
The year box is terribly large for little added value, and the "notable named storms" will get just as overcrowded as the standalone article. The succession box uses more space for less information than the current setup, and the "notable storms" bit seems absolutely redundant in the article. I say leave it the way it is. -- Cyrius| ✎ 8 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)
No. Please no. That's far too big, and it implies the years have anything to do with each other. It also has an arbitrary cutoff. The 5 year range box we have at the top of each season is sufficient, as is the List page. Please don't do this. We don't need a "succession box" at the bottom, either. Again, the 5 year range box performs both duties beautifully. -- Golbez July 8, 2005 23:05 (UTC)