How about we scrap the button bars and replace them with something comparable to the 'five seasons' section of the season infobox?- Nilfanion 10:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Reply The button bar is fine for 2005, but other seasons like 1997, which only have one article, don't really need it. With the 2005 season having 27 storm articles they make sense now. Hurricanehink 02:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Reply 1985 (6 storms), 1995 (6 storms), 1996 (4 storms), 1998 (6 storms, though Earl and Charley will probably be merged), 1999 (5 storms), 2003 (5 storms), 2004 (6 storms), and 2005 (16 storms) could be useful, but for seasons with only a few storms (or none at all), there's really no point. jdorje ( talk) 00:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Reply For some seasons, I guess I can see their point. Much more useful would be (if it is possible) to add to the navigation quicklinks or toolbox entries on the left of the page. You can't use the button bar to jump from storm to storm because they will quickly take you to somewhere the button bar is not shown. But in their current form they are not useful because (as I said elsewhere) most links just go to the same (season) article. Tito xd ( ?!? - help us) 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Reply They are potentially useful, I'll agree. However, in cases where the button bar points to a non-existent article or section, they just shouldn't be used. Hurricanehink 21:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Reply They are useful in certain occasions it is useful to go from the first storm in a season to the next in order, especially when doing research for a complete season. For anyone that supports them, what is the use of them? I propose all of them be deleted, mainly due to how little effort it takes to go to the season page and find the storm you want. If you are on an article's page (say for example Hurricane Elena) and you want a link to Hurricane Kate because the article mentions it, there should simply be a link in the article for Kate. Now, they are in use back to 1959, but for what? Numerous people in the past and present have questioned their usefulness, and I for one agree. When they were first started, they were met with some fierce resistance. Hurricanehink ( talk) 00:35, (UTC) Reply Button Bars I added categories like Category:Category 3 hurricane images and Category:2005 Atlantic hurricane season images. Hurricanehink 02:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Reply In case anyone cares, I categorized all pics from 2003-2005. Hurricanehink 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Reply Should the non-commons images be categorized? There are a lot of images that are on this Wikipedia, and are pretty disorganized. If this is going to happen, it should go Basin, then decade, then season, then by storm if necessary (like the Okeechobee Hurricane or Dennis).

All of 2005's would be all be apart in one huge glob of a category. Maybe it would be better to go by decade, or even by season. jdorje ( talk) 22:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Reply Before this would go any further, should it be subdivided? Like Jdorje said there are thousands of them. I have made a few categories for media for individual storms, like commons:Category:1928 Okeechobee Hurricane or commons:Category:Hurricane Dennis - probably all FA should get categories like this which can be referenced in the external links. Just make sure to categorize new pictures somewhere under commons:Category:Tropical cyclones so we'll be able to find them. Hurricanehink 21:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Reply As far as I'm concerned that's a project for the far future. jdorje ( talk) 20:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Reply Wow, this will be worse than going through every last tropical cyclone article. There are so many hurricane pictures (maybe 10,000 of them?), categorizing them will be a task beyond monumental. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Reply Interesting. I created a new Category at the Commons, (it is plural because tropical cyclones impact in more than one way) for damage photos, rainfall charts, etc.

Democracy 3 cyclones