Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Merging

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coredesat (talk | contribs) at 18:20, 4 June 2006 (→[[Hurricane Faith]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Normal Discussion Archives Sub-pages
(1, 2, 3, 4)
(Assessment & Talk); (Article requests); (Merging & Talk)

This page contains lists and discussions about merging of particular articles. Generally, the question is whether a particular storm deserves its own article, or whether it should be merged into the season article.

Current merge candidates

Note: If and when you merge one of these, please add it to the "Merged" list and strike it through using <s> and </s>.

Merged Candidates Failed candidates

Merge discussion

East Pacific

John should probably be renamed to include the year in the title.

Elsewhere

Added Khanun and Nabi. They aren't near notable enough. Storms with identical stats are common in the west Pacific. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bye bye, Nabi. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Madeline merged Khanun. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1776 'cane has been merged. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added The Mameyes disaster to the list. I propose that be merged with Tropical Storm Isabel (1985), due to the fact that Isabel contributed to the disaster. OK, voting time.
  • Nina- If it were a typical storm, I would say get rid of it like spoiled food, though based on deaths, it can stay, provided someone ::coughStorm05 cough:: adds some more to it.
  • Chebi- Unlike Nina's 1000 death toll, this is only moderately notable, and should be merged as it is.
  • Yuri- Merge it. Damage was too minor, and the storm surge section does not mean notability.
  • Earl- Not notable enough. There's a lot of information... that's good, but the information is mostly trivial and doesn't show its notability.
  • Yunya- Merge it... again. Sure, it hit the same day of a volcano eruption, but this is a tropical cyclone article, not the Mount Pinatubo, which covers the typhoon well.
  • Danny- I say no, mainly due to the tornado outbreak.
Hurricanehink 01:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nina: Notable enough but the article sucks. Chebi: Merge. Yuri: Merge without hesitation. Earl: Merge. Yunya: Weak merge. Danny: Undescided, leaning merge (damage a little low and the article isn't that impressive). -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charley merged by Hink. Yuri now merged. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability criteria

A.K.A. what article deserves to stay, we have two opposing view points on this. Should an article be entirely based on impact, or can fish storms have articles, provided they have enough records or reason for their existence? Two storms, Ginger and Faith, have recently been brought up as possible mergers, despite their content and notability. We should decide once and for all (and I don't mean a discussion between E. Brown and Jdorje ;) ) what defines notability. Let's all gather round and discuss this. I'll give my view later to not influence opinions. Hurricanehink 03:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is not about notability but about content and organization. If there is enough content to justify splitting the storm article off from the parent article, then it should be done. BUT: storm history and trivia should not be considered in this content: they are filler, inasmuch as if you keep looking you can potentially make them infintely detailed. Records and impact can be considered (and I suppose we can argue about which records are just trivia). But if an article has no chance of making it to B-class, there is no reason to keep that article around. Jdorje 04:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess the storm history and trivia can be considered to some extent (otherwise there's no justification for splitting off of some 2005 storms). It's not that storm history is unimportant: it is crucial to any storm. It's just that it will only go so far before you hit the maximum level of detail at which point you should simply be referring back to the best-track file. Jdorje 04:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that these storms are plenty notable enough for an article. Just expand them to desireable lengths. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 19:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Articles that did little

There are a lot of articles... a lot. Though an article might be well-written, some storms weren't very damaging. Here is a list of storm articles that hit the U.S. and caused less than $100 million (2005 USD) in damage. Here, we should justify their existence, and decide if something should be done about it. Hurricanehink 00:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to any merging, provided that all important information is merged and the season article remains balanced. — jdorje (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought we'd discuss it a bit, especially those that remain here due to status quo. Hurricanehink 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is a must IMO. Here's my thoughts:
-- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, I hope you don't mind, but I moved your comments above so all of the comments would be together. Hurricanehink 03:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So we got Alex, Earl, and Ethel. Anyone opposed to them? Hurricanehink 03:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion: I think Earl and Charley-98 should be merged, but the others all kept. They were either an important part of local history (i.e. Amelia, Bret, Ophelia) or a rare and unusual storm (i.e. Charley-86, Ethel, Alex). Earl is the only one that I think is not well written and cannot be made up to standards. CrazyC83 06:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I am fine with keeping Charley (at least for now) is due to the 20 deaths, but it isn't an important Texas storm, nor was it unusual. Good point on that. The unusual storm part is very debatable though, for many storms could be added for the term "unusual". Hurricanehink 12:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is Alex unusual? Sure it became a major hurricane unusually far north but that's not that big a deal, surely not enough to warrent an article. And Ethel was just on drugs: not really notable, just freakin' weird. I see what you mean with Charley though, which was famous as a destructive extratropical storm in Europe. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason why Alex lasted as long as it did is due to the length of the 2004 Atlantic season article. Where it reached major hurricane strength is a big deal, but its overall effects don't warrant an article. I have never and will never believe that Ethel strengthened that quickly. The storm did nothing (ok, $1 million in damage), and in re-analysis the storm will likely be downgraded a lot. Hurricanehink 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Bret and Emily, per concensus. Hurricanehink 00:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

Speedy merge on Max, Gretel, Hudah and Karen. All are tiny stubs and neither has a single reference. — jdorje (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged all but Karen. I contacted Karen's author to see if they could finish it, because Karen is actually notable enough to have an article. Hurricanehink 00:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article discussion

In this section individual storms are discussed. Please do not remove old discussions; they should eventually be archived.

Tropical Storm Tammy

Hurricane Maria (2005)

Hurricane Ophelia (2005)

The article is not bad at all..... it has good information and it should be kept, It switched from tropical storm to hurricane a million times and it caused quite a scare.--70.149.34.36 01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Vince (2005)

Tropical Storm Alpha (2005)

Tropical Storm Gamma (2005)

Tropical Storm Delta (2005)

Hurricane Epsilon (2005)

Tropical Storm Zeta (2005)

  • This one should go, but not before vince does. It is less notable than Alice because it was weaker, didn't affect land, formed earlier, and doesn't have the bizarre double-naming feature. — jdorje (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You are wrong again, this storm is a year crosser and as i said above more info will come when the NHC is done with their assessment on all of the 2005 storms (what im trying to say is that at least ten of the 2005 storms will be notable). Storm05 20:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Any storm going from year-to-year is certainly notable (in the Atlantic at least). Hurricanehink 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Enh, barely. This storm is notable enough, but there's only so much content you can put in an article like this and I'm not convinced this one has enough to be a seperate article. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 04:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we're going to keep articles on half of the non-notable storms of 2005, why not at least be consistent and have articles on the other half? I have no problem with making articles on every 2005 storm; it would solve a lot of the ugliness of the storms list article. But I do disagree with having easier criteria for 2005 storms than for older storms. — jdorje (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree strongly with having different criteria for 2005 (and onwards) storms and older storms. Maybe the policy of the wikiproject to storms should be changed to one where ALL storms from every season and every basin are deemed deserving of an article and make it the article quality that decides its fate. That at least is clear and consistent. The reason its the 2005 season and its subpages causing this conflict is that on wikipedia it is bigger than Jesus. -- Nilfanion 14:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • While not every storm needs an article, I support every storm having an article for 2005 rather than the list of ... page. In the future, this should not be the case, unless there's another 20+ season. Hurricanehink 15:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Alex (2004)

Hurricane Gordon (2000)

    • Not sure of this article's existence. The storm killed 23 in Guatemala, but that was prior to forming, and that is only briefly mentioned. Hurricanehink
    • Uncertain, per Ophelia. — jdorje (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep, I don't really see much wrong with the article. §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only reason (I think at least) the storm wasn't merged was due to its 23 death total. If you exclude that, it holds a lot of pointless information for a storm that caused minor flooding, $12 million in damage, and one death. That little hardly qualifies for an article. Hurricanehink 00:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. While it was a storm, it didn't do very much. The 23 deaths came before the storm even formed and shouldn't be taken into consideration when determining whether the storm is notable enough to deserve an article. --Coredesat 06:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge. $12M in damage and 1 death doesn't justify an article. — jdorje (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's just US damage. It killed 23 people in Central America. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 13:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As a tropical wave. There was an article on Tropical Storm Leslie for its $700 million in damage as a precursor disturbance, but that was merged because the effects were caused before the storm actually formed. However, I'm not so sure it should be merged. The notability line for an article's existence seems to have dropped quite a bit, if not altogether. Perhaps we should discuss the rationale for an article's existence, especially given the 2005 season. Hurricanehink 15:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forget that. It's not horrible now, there's info, and it struck the United States, meaning there's more info out there. Keep. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think what has happened on 2005 means all named storms are notable enough for an article, but they also must have information. I strongly suspect only older storms deemed 'notable' will have sufficient online info, so the rules be may undergo a major shift, but the consequences (before 2002 at any rate) are minor. This means offline research could give many more storms articles, which I would support if someone actually did it. Notability isn't redundant, but it's role should be comparision within seasons; for example, if 2005's Cindy had no article, no matter how good Lee's is it should be merged. --Nilfanion 15:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Charley (1998)

Hurricane Earl (1998)

Hurricane Charley (1986)

Hurricane Lili (1984)

Jdorje proposed this one at the top. I made this due to its off-season notability, though I am fine to see it go. Hurricanehink 21:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Amelia (1978)

Tropical Storm Gilda (1973)

Hurricane Ginger

Hurricane Gladys

    • This storm should not have an article. The reason I made it was to have one article for every year, but after that idea failed I forgot about this. However, there is a lot of information there. Does a lot of information justify an article if the storm didn't do terribly much? Hurricanehink
    • Notability and content must be weighed against each other. I lump this one in with Ophelia, Earl, and Charley: Uncertain. — jdorje (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, there's a point where the article quality negates the notability of the storm. There is a lot of info in this one. §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Esther (1961)

Hurricane Ethel

Hurricane Helene (1958)

Typhoon Nina (1987)

Typhoon Chebi

Typhoon Yunya

List of Most Named Tropical Cyclones

Tropical Storm Debby (1994)

Hurricane Barbara (1953)

Tropical Storm Lee (2005)

  • The whole point of this merge proposal is to see if the consensus is to keep Lee, and by extension all 2005 storms (they are all more interesting than this one) -- Nilfanion 19:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I vote keep. Good job with working with so little, and this shows that every storm in 2005 could have an article, provided it followed that format. Hurricanehink 20:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is getting split into too many places. We should keep it at Talk:2005 Atlantic hurricane season, or simply move that discussion into the wikiproject talk page. Anyway I vote keep, but only if we can come up with consistent criteria that justify keeping 2005 storm articles while older ones or those from other basins get merged. — jdorje (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Vote KEEP-Very good one.HurricaneCraze32 22:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge, as there is simply not enough information to keep it separate. There's a couple of one-sentence sections, which is bad style section guidelines, and the trivia can be moved to the Statistics article, with the rest being a copy of the List of Storms article. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it. TS Lee's article has enough information to stand alone. Isn't information the reason for Wikipedia's existence? Jake52
    • The forecast section contains information found nowhere else, and the bad section style is a temporary thing, it's more to show a way of laying out the other storms which have more to things to say about them (in Lee they will inevitably be trimmed if it stays). The list and statistics articles have problems of their own adding more isnt necessarily wise -- Nilfanion 23:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article is quite informative for a storm that did virtually nothing. --Coredesat 21:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong merge. For storms this pitiful, I don't care if the article is better written than a Clive Cussler novel, it still shouldn't exist. There is nothing resembling notable about this storm. All that needs to be said about it can be said in the main article. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking back at my past votes on articles like this one, I have changed my mind. I vote merge. It's informative, yes, but still, the storm did nothing and is in no way notable. --Coredesat 23:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This vote is inextricably bound up with the one on 2005 AHS. If that was a 'no' clearly Lee is the worst of the storms. But that looks like a yes, so this and all the other 2005 articles default out of this. Nilfanion 23:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
B.S. Just because it was in 2005 doesn't mean that we should keep a crappy article on a crappy storm. I can't believe how ridiculous this has gotten. All right! Let's go create articles on weak, pitiful disturbances that did absolutly nothing! -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 21:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1945-1949 Pacific typhoon seasons

1945 Pacific typhoon season

1946 Pacific typhoon season

1947 Pacific typhoon season

1948 Pacific typhoon season

1949 Pacific typhoon season

Neither of these articles has enough to justify a separate article; in fact neither has any information at all except a list of storm names. This probably extends forward but I don't know for sure. 1945 is my cutoff for seasonal entries since that's the year JTWC (and the corresponding UNISYS archives and advisory data) started. — jdorje (talk) 03:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutercane

This certainly does not deserve an article. Neutercane is just a term for subtropical cyclone that was used for about 2 years. — jdorje (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objection there, merge it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. --Coredesat 08:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot tower

This should be covered in tropical cyclone. — jdorje (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the level of detail at Tropical cyclone, I'd be wary of merging anything there. This one can be expanded a bit too, so I'd say keep it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we created Structure of tropical cyclones (or something similar)? Things like this seem too much detail for Tropical cyclone an intermediate article could work.--Nilfanion 12:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good scope for an article. — jdorje (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium effect

This should surely be merged into eye (cyclone) now that we have that article. — jdorje (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no objections here either. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with merge. --Coredesat 08:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warm seclusion

Apparently this is just another name for extratropical cyclone, with which it should be merged. — jdorje (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eyewall mesovortices

Potentially an interesting article, but unless it can go into significantly more detail it should just be covered in tropical cyclone and merged in there. — jdorje (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be part of Structure of tropical cyclones, mentioned above. Hurricanehink 15:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Tanya (1995)

While I'm completely for article creating, I am against article creation without information. There isn't too much there, and the only possible reason for justifying it is damage information/damage totals. In addition, there are no sources. If the article is given some love, I might change my mind, but as it is, the article isn't terribly good. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Eleven (1999)

Hurricane Faith

IMO, "article having existed for ages" is not a justification for keeping it, standards change. I mean how long has it been like that, unsourced? Good job chasing them up... I won't withdraw my merge support until I see how people feel in general.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, things can change. I just would like to keep an article that's been here for a long time. Sure, it might not get much attention, but I'll try and keep it if necessary. Here is an archive on the keepage of Faith. E. Brown and I were for it, Jdorje was against the article, and no one else cared about it. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This has already survived a merge discussion, and I don't see any reason to merge it now. The storm was notable, the article is decent, and now it has sources. --Coredesat 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Merging&oldid=56859146"