Talk:Timeline of the 2000 Atlantic hurricane season

Merge?

Given the recent activity, figured we should have an actual discussion here. Frankly, I'm in the merge camp. For starters, this article is largely a content fork. Is there any information here that isn't in the main article? And you could argue that it's presented differently, but that would be the same as making an article on Effects of the 2000 Atlantic hurricane season and listing each storm by their impact. We tried something like that a few years back, but it didn't work as the articles were redundant. I don't see how this timeline is any different. Now, for bigger seasons (like 2005 AHS), I agree that the timeline is useful as the main season article might be missing some info. That doesn't seem to be the case here. Most storms were fairly standard in 2000 AHS. User:Yellow Evan presented a compromise where this article was literally merged into the 2000 AHS article, with the timeline appearing before the storms section. As much as I don't see a need in that, I view it as an acceptable compromise. Any thoughts anyone? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Merge per Hurricanehink.--12george1 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
• Keep - in the past, general project consensus has been to merge timelines that documented little seasonal activity and minimal impact; 2000 was quite active and featured substantial and widespread impact. As far as your content fork comment is concerned, we've been through this -- refer to your AfD on timelines from last year. This project has developed quite a bad habit of just trying to merge things to get them out of the way. I understand that 2000 is nearly a GTC and this timeline is the only thing holding it back, but merging it for absolutely no reason is not the way to get it out of the way. I'd be more than willing to work on the timeline and get it to FL status if needed... TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The AFD was about deletion. This is about merging, which would create a section of the timeline. The article can handle it fine. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it can, but in the format GC devised, even the 2005 one could since it's by month. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC) (mobile)

No, if 2005 was merged in, page load times could become an issue. I'm with GC and Hink here. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 01:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is defective. Using Google's PageSpeed Insights, the brief sandbox I made...which is a duplicate of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season page in addition to the merged timeline...scores a 69/100, meaning that...while it could run quicker...it is still not a big deal. Also note that I did not go through and condense the references when I merged the timeline into my sandbox, meaning all of the TCRs are up there twice (slows loading speed). Compare this to the load time for Hurricane Katrina's article, which scores a 63/100. Both run fine on my computer regardless, but results my vary by internet speed. I might agree to merging this timeline when a valid excuse is provided. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

But whether or not it can fit based on the summary style of the article should be on a season by season basis. This is essentially a spinoff of the season article. As with any merger, it comes down to whether it is necessary. As this season doesn't seem terribly notable, nor are there an absurd number of category changes, then a merger shouldn't be that controversial. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Every category change of every storm in every month is not listed on the season page; doing so would be redundant, hence one of the main reasons for the existence of these timelines (see WP:SUMMARY for more). I don't understand why such a merge discussion on this timeline is necessary given that it neither falls short of our reliability standards nor our notability standards. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point. We're not questioning the notability (no doubt that these events should in one form or another be in a timeline), and lack of notability is not a real reason for merging (even in storm articles, we really don't merge due to lack of notability, we do due to lack of content). We're question why it has be separate from the main article. Why not have the timeline in the main article? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Also ask why changing WPTC standard for absolutely no reason whatsoever is necessary. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

What standard? The vast majority of seasons worldwide don't have timelines, and many that used to were deleted or merged. As YE points out, it can easily be merged with no content lost, and it wouldn't affect the summary style. However, at this point, I think there is no convincing you, so I'm not sure what the point of continued discussion is. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Over the past few days, I've thought about this discussion some more and decided that perhaps I shouldn't be so close-minded to compromise. After all, this timeline (this timeline) wasn't excessively notable overall and all the information here would still be presented in the season page. For this reason, I have decided that since many people seem to be in favor of merging...you at least have my consent. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - per TAWX13. It is fine as a separate page. United States Man (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)