Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Proposed Rewrite

I have done a possible rewrite at one of my user subpages, User:Michelle_T/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season_rewrite. I'd like replace the current article with what I have written. I changed the positioning of some of the picture so that the headings and main article links woulf all be on the left. I also tossed the Nate picture because there was no room for it. I assumed that the October part of the timeline can be sent to the main article, and that Arlene is not getting an article. It is around 55kb in size. There is no button list because that is redundant to the Table of Contents. I folded the season summary section into the lead because the lead is supposed to summarize the article. I tossed the scale infobox because there was no room for it and it will be gone when the season finally ends. There are no whitespace problems in Firefox. Any comments? Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 20:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with moving the heading all to the left, I feel they should be aligned over the text. It looks better and helps seperate the sections a little better. --Holderca1 21:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this goes in the wrong direction. You have removed the very readible "season summary" section, and replaced it with the not-very-readible "storm summaries". Also I don't agree with removal of any pictures. If there's not room for all the pictures we have that's a sign a sub-article needs to be created! Jdorje 21:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Err, maybe I'm wrong - it looks like the season summary is just merged into the article summary (which I still disagree with, but it's not any worse than what we have now). Jdorje 21:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think you have that backwards, if the pictures don't fit, then you don't have enough text. --Holderca1 21:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I merged the Season Summary section into the lead section and the economic effects section. I also added the Harvey picture. But whatever the consensus says. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 21:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I made my own little (more ambitious) rewrite at User:Jdorje/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season. Here I have removed the "Storms" section entirely (moved into individual articles). The "Season summary" is renamed as "storm summary" (which is what it is) and gets a table of storms to go along with it (which I have not yet filled out). All the specific info about individual storms is moved into sub-articles articles. I think the next step is to add more text about the season *as a whole*. Some restructuring is also still needed - the "storm summary" section has a lot of info about records and economic impact, for instance. Jdorje 01:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You use subpages for the storm articles; that is not allowed. --Golbez 02:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work that way, Golbez. Jdorje 04:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work what way, Jdorje? --Golbez 20:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, Jdorje? --Golbez 19:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Subpages are against Wiki policy for permanent content. See: Subpages#Allowed_uses. --Holderca1 19:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Golbez I don't see the subpages you speak of. I see the main article links and that's it. I like the positioning of the main article links in Michelle's version, by the way, over left-hand side pics. That's much better that the current format. However, I don't like how the text at the top of the page is cramped into the crawlspace under the infobox to the right of the table of contents. That distracts and throws off the reader in my opinion. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, nevermind about the subpages. I thought you were talking about Michelle's version. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've also done a rewrite at User:NSLE/Sandbox (ignore the warning). Season summary is merged into the introduction, and the table of contents has been moved to the right where the SSS used to be. All the storms have been condensed, month-by-month, with storm articles listed at the top of each month before the storm summaries. Storm summaries have been cut down ("later that day" and similarly redundant sentences and phrases have been replaced by commas and tense changes), with each storm getting just one paragraph. These are no changes to the pictures, and the links to NHC's and HPC's archives are at the bottom of the monthly summary for all the storms. The article, including the warning at the top, is 54 kb in size. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 06:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this is that condensing the storm summaries actually loses information. So if someone wants to make a new article about some useless storm and then you want to merge it back into the main article, you can't because it's too long. Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with the idea. And on a related note, I was just today reading through the NHC monthly summaries (halfway down the page at [1]). Jdorje 07:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

There are two ways to shorten an article, the first being the most obvious by removing content. The second way is to write more concisely. I believe the latter is what NSLE is referring to. I could write a two page article on Tropical Storm Lee, but what would be the point if you can say the same thing in a paragraph. --Holderca1 13:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

But what we're talking about IS removing content, because most of the "storm history" is content that most people don't care about. Jdorje 16:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay then I am completely lost here. What content in particular are you talking about? I just trimmed down Arlene by about a third without actually removing any content. --Holderca1 16:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Right but it is still too long (or at least the article is too long, and shortening the storm summaries is one way to shorten it). If you look at NSLE's rewrite you'll see he has cut out a lot of the not-very-interesting text to shorten the storm summaries even more (and of course I did the same thing in my rewrite by leaving only the storm summaries from the "season summary" section). Jdorje 19:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

(indent=reset)I guess I just don't see what the problem is, the storm sections are not any longer than the 2004 article and no one had any problems with it. What size would you like the article to be? NSLE said his version is 54kb, the current one we have now is 58, so the size between the two are not that much different. Just by removing all the individual links to the advisory archives and just have a single link to them all at the bottom trims it down to 55 kb.--Holderca1 19:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Section character count:

• Arlene - 1161 (Down from 1617 before I rewrote it)
• Bret - 1107
• Cindy - 1542
• Dennis - 1154
• Emily - 1012
• Franklin - 1040
• Gert - 882
• Harvey - 891
• Irene - 1501
• Ten - 603
• Jose - 901
• Katrina - 1159
• Lee - 651
• Maria - 1130
• Nate - 942
• Ophelia - 844
• Philippe - 777
• Rita - 1073
• Nineteen - 280
• Stan - 1042
• Tammy - 1514
• Twenty-two - 695
• Vince - 838
• Wilma - 869
• Alpha - 769
• Beta - 1225

Just fyi, gives a more accurate method of measuring the length of the sections. Another way to trim a section down without taking anything out is to remove the picture if the picture isn't all that great. The Arlene section still looks longer than Bret's section, but that is due to the picture since they both have similar character counts.--Holderca1 14:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I revised the rewrite, following some of your suggestions. I managed to squeeze more pictures in, and added an "Activity" section. The reason the lead is so long is so that there is as little whitespace as possible. I assumed that Arlene gets no article and that the records will be sent to a spinoff article. It is 48kb long. As before, the location is User:Michelle_T/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season_rewrite. What are your comments and suggestions? Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 00:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I still don't like that intro stuffed in that crawlspace to the right of the contents table and below the infobox. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Smushing the text like that is intended to get rid of a cloud-like sea of whitespace. I'll see if I can get rid of it. Miss Michelle | Talk to Michelle 01:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I tried my own rewrite. It is 38 kb long, which I think is a managable length. Parts I've changed is getting rid of the Arlene, Cindy, and Alpha articles. I got rid of the links to NHC archive, simply because they are on the bottom. Like Michelle, I agree that there should be a separate link to a records section. I know I got rid of a lot of text (looks at Jdorje getting ready to kill me) but some of it is unnecessary. Without further ado, my rewrite. User:Hurricanehink/2005 Atlantic hurricane season rewrite Hurricanehink 15:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if we don't make a seperate article for records set, we can at least trim it up. For example, the records section says that Wilma was one of the most rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones in recorded history. As I see it, that fact makes the storm notable, not the season. After all, Super Typhoon Forrest intensifying rapidly doesn't necessarily make the 1983 Pacific typhoon season more notable than any other.

And I agree that the individual links to each archive can be compressed into one at the bottom with no loss of usefulness.

I like Hurricanehink's version, but with one small tweak. I like the way Michelle formatted the main article links for left-hand pictures: above the picture right below the title and indented (default). If we combine those two, I think the article would look great. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and completely agreed. The article is long enough as it is, and we should replace it with a combined version. Hurricanehink 18:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Most of Hurricanehink's changes don't seem to have removed any actual information (though I just skimmed through a diff of it), so I don't have any major objections. However:

• A few citations seem to have been removed... Shouldn't those stay?
• Is it allowed to change, for example, October 20 to "the 20th"? I was under the impression that those dates were linked like that so the Date Format feature could work?
• What happened to Tropical (and Subtropical) Depressions 10, 12, and 22? Were those blurbs not short enough?
• One should probably be prepared to let the links to the main articles of Cindy and Alpha to stand - the VfD for Cindy is failing, and I doubt any VfDs for the others would succeed.
• Those emdashes should remain as emdashes and not hyphens, probably.

AySz88^-^ 19:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

NHC/HPC external links

I fully agree with HurricaneHink that the NHC/HPC external links are not needed for all storms. This just clutters the article. A single link at the bottom links to the entire archive which provides easy links to all storm archives. Jdorje 06:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

True, true. --Golbez 07:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yea, sorry if I offended anyone when I did that, but it does clutter the article. On the other hand, it helps the non-familiar user to find more info without going all the way to the bottom. Convience vs. Being Cluttered. It's a tough call that should be discussed. Hurricanehink 15:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's consider both sides here. We need to run down some pros and cons. Honestly do they really clutter the page up that much? They're only about two lines apiece. This is what we've always done regarding the storms. On the other hand, having just one link to the whole archive at the bottom of the page reduces redundancy considerably. Tough call, but I'm leaning toward keeping it the way it is. This page is supposed to be sort of like a 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season for Dummies. It shouldn't be just convenient for us hurricane freaks. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 17:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Storm tracks

Jdorje, is having a track for every storm useful? It will effectively double the number of images on an image-heavy page. Isn't the track map we get at the end of the season good enough (with the notable storms having their tracks in their own articles)? --Golbez 08:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well...possibly. However the end-of-season track map for this year will be rather useless because it will be so full (though they might split it up like they did with some of the Pacific charts). Additionally, this issue goes back to the separate-article argument: Arlene had the track map when it was a separate article, but this was removed when it was merged back in to the season article. Thirdly, the track map is more useful than the lengthy "storm history" for some storms, since this is information that is more easily presented in an image. Finally, for storms that do have separate articles, I see no reason why the storm path needs to be included (except for consistency, maybe). Note that although the tracks do mean an additional 23 images on the page, they are all small (thumb-sized). Jdorje 08:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a track map could be made for every storm, which would replace the satellite pictures (or no pictures) of the storms. Then, we could place the satellite pictures in a <gallery></gallery> format at the bottom of the article, or better-encourage the link to the wikimedia commons. --tomf688^{talk} 12:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Having the bulk of the article being only track images with nothing compelling to grab the eye would really boreify the article I think. --Golbez 15:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

A track map has been made for every storm...but it doesn't replace the satellite pictures; they're both included. My question is, what are the disadvantages of this? (1) It means the page loads slower, because of extra pictures (this should not be a consideration IMO). (2) Getting 2 pictures to fit in one short section is a problem for some storms (this is a problem, but I think it can be resolved by fiddling with the placement of pictures and the length of text). What else? Jdorje 17:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Jdorje, you have some good ideas, but I think you're overdoing the tracks just a bit. We don't need a track for every single storm. This isn't UNISYS. We should only add the tracks if it adds to the article. If they cause more problems than they solve, then they shouldn't be added. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 17:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

My question is still: what are the disadvantages? Just because unisys has every track map doesn't mean wikipedia can't also. Jdorje 22:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I like the track maps, but they kinda mess up the hurricane images. For example, look what the track for Nate does to Ophelia's main image, it pushes it to the right, leaving a huge blank space. --Revolución (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Placing the images to fit together is an issue. I don't see the Nate problem you have...it probably depends on your browser, window width, and font size. But I moved the Nate image up a bit and this should help...unless someone has a browser window too narrow in which case it would conflict with the other Nate image. Jdorje 07:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why put track maps when there will be one at the end of the season? And isn't a majority of people's opinion of alternating storms picture because all of then at the right would be to crowded? But now we have some storm tracks at the right? tdwuhs

I personally thought the problem was more balance between the left and right sides of the page than crowding? Currently, the balance is no problem. Though the images do seem to get too crowded in some places...Emily's track runs into Franklin's text, for example. AySz88^-^ 00:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Tdwuhs hit the nail on the head. These tracks to not originate from the best track data. They originate from the advisory positions given while the system was active. These are often inaccurate. The best track data differs from the advisory positions with almost every season. Case in point: look at the UNISYS track for Hurricane Claudette (2003) taken from the post-season best track data-[2]. Now look at the UNISYS track of it taken from the advisory positions during the season-[3]. See the difference? The given intensities are different too. Also, there will be a map of all the storms posted at the end of the season, which Tdwuhs pointed out. These tracks cause more problems than they solve. I say remove them. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 03:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

But you still haven't pointed out any actual problems, Eric. Sure the best-track data will be more accurate than the advisory track data, and when the 2005 storms are added to the best-track I will upload the new tracks. But that has nothing to do with whether or not having the tracks is a good thing. Jdorje 04:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the tracks... good information for statistic nuts like me. -- Rylan 08:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

They clutter the page, cause formatting problems and will be removed at the end of the season anyway (if not sooner), so what's the point of having them? The Cons seem to outweigh the pros here. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed tdwuhs

Why would they be removed at the end of the season? To be replaced with something that looks like this [4]? The storm track images convey most of the information of the lengthy "storm text" information and take up a fraction of the space. I really don't see how you can call them clutter. Jdorje 05:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to make that argument if you put all those little tracks together they would be much large then the post season track map that does up. Besides the map is then blown up to large scale. tduwhs

The point I was trying to make in the first sentence is that with 23+ storms shown on the season track it will be too cluttered to see each one. They might split it up into two tracks (as was done with 2003_Pacific_hurricane_season, among others). However even if you look at 2004 Atlantic hurricane season the track image is rather cluttered and it would be nice to have individual storm tracks shown. BTW, what do you mean by "blown up to large scale"? Next, the point I was trying to make in the second sentence is that the storm tracks provide a visual accompanyment to the text that provides more information in less space than the text itself. This doesn't mean the text should be removed but I do think it should be made less "technical"; the old text like "500 miles north-northeast of Puerto Rico" (which has been removed now) is much less useful than a simple picture. The season track map does not provide this benefit since it it does not accompany the text of each individual storm (and even if it did, it is quite difficult to pick out individual storms on the season track). Jdorje 07:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Clutter the page? What browser and resolution are you using? They look fine to me. -- Rylan 06:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the clutter argument either. At [5] is a screenshot of one portion of the article as rendered in my browser. The pictures augment the text nicely. Jdorje 07:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

There are too many images on the page. That's cluttering. The spaces between storms and some sentences are too big. The track map will negate the purpose of the induvidual storm tracks at the end of the season. We have a link to UNISYS at the bottom of the page don't we? This is not UNISYS. We don't need a track map for every picture. Plus, like I said before, these do not derive from the best track, a point you failed to address. The storm tracks will more than likely change at the end of the season when the best track comes out. These are the main reasons why I oppose them being added to the article. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 17:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

(1) Did you look at the screenshot? There aren't too many images; the images complement the text nicely. Does it look different in your browser? (2) The images will be replaced with the best-track tracks once the best-track is released (although I'm not entirely sure that's better since the season track is not based on the best-track data). How can you make this complaint when the best-track data isn't even available yet? Jdorje 19:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm just looking at numbers. There are about 8500 words in the article. There are 37 pictures. 37! That is ridiculous. There are to pics for almost every storm. There are 23 (now 24) storms. I see so sense in having 37 freaking pictures in the same article. It's just absurd. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

One picture per 250 words is not too much. However, if you're trying to say the article is too long I agree with you. Jdorje 22:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Greek Letter name retirement

A couple of times I've added something about what might happen if a greek letter storm causes enough damage to be retired. Someone seems to object to any exploration of this point and keeps taking it out. My last edit was "There is no precedent for a storm named with a Greek Letter causing enough damage to justify retirement; how this situation would be handled is unknown.". What's the problem with a neutral statement like that? It is not speculative (although I also don't see why we can't make an educated guess about what would happen as long as it's clear it's a guess and not factual) 203.214.7.183 14:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not me reverting your edits, but I think you should provide a source for that. I definitely recall seeing an article that says they would skip over that letter in subsequent seasons, but I was never able to find that article again. --AySz88^-^ 19:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The tropical cyclone page says: If a Greek letter is retired, it is not replaced. For example, if "Alpha" is retired after any season, the 22nd storm in a future year would be "Beta". See List of notable tropical cyclones for lists of retired names.200.74.189.61 20:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does. However, it does not cite a source for it. Ajm81 20:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

The pictures in the Storms section is a bit way too much. The Hurricane Phillipe and Hurricane Beta part is really messed up. I suggest we have either

• Only the actual hurricane picture

or

• Only the path of the hurricane.

But for storms that don't have actual pictures, then the path should be shown.

I'd prefer only the actual picture. The section is way too crowded. I'm sure that someone who would like to read the whole "Storms" section would think the section is too crowded.

Just a suggestion... -Tcwd (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I see this as a formatting issue. However it seems to vary from browser to browser. In my browser for instance the beta part looks fine (see screenshot). For storms with separate articles, the pictures are generally (or should be) inlcluded in the article already so only one picture is needed. And BTW, nobody will ever read the whole "Storms" section (for this reason the article will never be a featured article). Jdorje 01:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It should work on all browsers. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 15:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Surely. And if only I knew why it didn't work on your browser, I'm sure it could be fixed... Jdorje 18:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

My browser is fine. Everything is more or less well aligned. The problem I have with them is that there are just too many pictures. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 22:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm also using Firefox. But hmm, I just realized, that if i resize my screen resolution to 1024x768 (web developer extension), it works fine. I guess it's because my resolution is too high. Still, I believe this formatting problem should be fixed. I don't know how though, I'm don't really know how to use these Wikipedia codes correclty. Anyways, My resolution is 1280x1024. Still, regardless of whether or not the alignment is correct, I still believe there are far too many pictures. -Tcwd [[User_talk:Tcwd|(talk)]] 21:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Saffir-Simpson scale template?

There is a lot of whitespace near the beginning of the article due to the ToC shifting downwards because of {{Saffir-Simpson-US}} (using IE). Shall we replace {{Saffir-Simpson-US}} with {{Saffir-Simpson small}} ? (and where, exactly?) --AySz88^-^ 04:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

(Saffir-Simpson small:)

Saffir–Simpson scale
TD	TS	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5

We COULD just shrink the SS template back to where it was before someone added 5 types of storms that aren't on the SS scale. I don't like requiring people to mouseover to obtain information, that brings up a lot of accessibility problems. --Golbez 20:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think "Extratropical Storm" should be in that template, and the subtropicals can be merged with the others. It'd still be big, though, so I'm not sure that'd solve the problem.... The template in general just feels clumsy, though I guess that's offtopic for this page.

As to the mouseover, one can always just click the link. Maybe "mouse over or click link for...." (or even "mouse over or click") would be better?

We could put it in the Hurricane season infobox template, which would put it on every season's page so we wouldn't have to worry about it. :/ --AySz88^-^ 23:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I added the extra entries (extratropical, subtropical) to the full SSS template because it was needed for it to be a useful key for the storm tracks. These tracks, at [6], use the full set of colors provided by this template. If you believe these extra classifications should be removed because of size constraints, that I can understand. But if you think they should be removed because they aren't part of the Saffir-Simpson scale, that's wrong: TD and TS aren't part of the SSS either. Also, I agree that mouse-over is clumsy, but I don't think it should therefore be removed. Instead we should remove the "mouse over for more text" text and just make the mouseover a hidden,unnecessary feature. It is unnecessary because clicking on the link in the template takes you to the full explanation, after which the color key is just a quick reminder. However this is still problematic because the link takes you to Saffir-Simpson scale which does not (nor should it) mention TS, TD, etc. Jdorje 01:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, perhaps those colors can be added to Saffir-Simpson small if it can be made clear they're not part of the scale? I could make a second row and shift the "Saffir Simpson" text to only be above the 1 2 3 4 5. Maybe the extra blocks would be better as a separate template (i.e. {{hurricane track key}} or something). --AySz88^-^ 02:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, shrinking that template wouldn't solve the problem I was talking about - it'd only introduce more whitespace. --AySz88^-^ 02:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

TOC Vote

O.K. We've heard your views on the TOC, now to vote for a idea. I've selected 4 ideas in the section "Modified TOC". Vote for the one that you think looks appealing to you. The 4 ideas are:

1. Cuivienen's Version
2. Rattleman's Version
3. AySz88's Version
4. Four Column Idea (proposed by EMS)

The closing time is 0900 UTC, tommorow, 23th of September 2005. By the way, i'm now going to create myself an account. Reason being is that i've put in a suitable amount of ideas (including the button bar) and it is worth it. So you'll be seeing me more often around Wikipedia! ---- 1043 UTC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.26.100.43 (talk • contribs) 10:43, November 22, 2005 (UTC).

I assume this is only to concentrate your efforts to replace the ToC, rather than picking the replacement. Otherwise this vote is worthless. --Golbez 15:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy; we try for consensus rather than a majority or a plurality vote. We're still bargaining things out, so it's probably too early to vote for any single idea right now. --AySz88^-^ 19:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have reverted out this section yesterday if not for th pedia going down. Agreed, WP:NOT a democracy. No vote should be taken, get consensus instead. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

o.k then. poll ended. by the way, i propose starting a new talk page. this page takes forever to load on my computer.

Please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~, and no, we'll archive sectionsof this talk page soon. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, I'm really fine with the current ToC, I just created that ToC to see how it looked and try using my HTML skills. -- RattleMan 00:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)