Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Merging/Archive 1

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones‎ | Merging

Current merge candidates

edit

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

edit

East Pacific

edit

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

Elsewhere

edit

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

edit

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

edit

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

edit

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]

Merged articles

edit

Tropical Storm Gilda (1973)

edit

Typhoon Yunya

edit

Merged. – Chacor 07:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Chebi

edit

List of Most Named Tropical Cyclones

edit

Hurricane Barbara (1953)

edit

Neutercane

edit

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]
Merged.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium effect

edit

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]
Merged. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warm seclusion

edit

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

edit

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]
If there are no objections, I'd like to merge it into eye (cyclone). For now, I will link to the main article but will merge it in a week or so unless someone thinks this is a bad idea. Runningonbrains 07:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No objections here, that works. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, seeing as Structure of tropical cyclones doesn't seem to be happening. --Coredesat 23:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. Titoxd(?!?) 20:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Eleven (1999)

edit

List of storms in the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season

edit

There's no need for this article, nor for any of the controversy behind such a change. I cannot find where its creation was discussed at all. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Merge, this is unnecessary. The 2004 article isn't large enough to warrant a separate storms article. --Coredesat 07:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I believe it came about as a result of messages between the two editors of the article. While I think all 2004 Atlantic storms can get articles at some point, that does not mean I think the 2005 format is worthy of emulation. In particular I do not think there is much point to the list article for 2005; so it has absolutely no point for 2004 where the season article gives little beyond the storm summaries.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Completely agreed with Nilfanion. The list of ... article is only needed if the season was very long, and there are articles for most storms. Otherwise, the season article is perfectly capable of handling the 15 storms. As an aside, I do favor having articles for the rest of the storms, but simply put any extra detail that would go on the list of page to the new articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected it (merge seems the wrong word when it was just a copy/paste of 2004AHS for the most part). Perhaps it should be deleted now?--Nilfanion (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion might not be necessary. You never know, we might change our minds in the future and decide it was a good idea. But until then, a merge will suffice. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclones in Bangladesh

edit

This one seems unneeded, List of Bangladesh tropical cyclones covers the same topic in a different way. IMO the List is more useful than this one as it complements the storm articles on the major storms better.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Merge anything useful. --Coredesat 03:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree, Merge' anything worth saving. Hello32020 21:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Michael

edit

There's too little outside of the storm history. No need for it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of tropical cyclone names used in more than one basin

edit

Redundant now that List of named tropical cyclones has superseded it. Its unused anyway; maybe a merge isn't appropriate here, but a straight delete? If so is an AfD necessary?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, yes. Just hope that it doesn't become this. Titoxd(?!?) 00:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Merge or deletion is fine. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It got PRODded to death.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Lane (2000)

edit

While the formatting of the article is good, and it is well-referenced, there is too little information there to justify a new article. If more is added, I might change my mind, but as it is it looks like a forever-doomed start class article. Good try, though, Storm05. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Chacor 07:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Heta

edit

There isn't much info there, no sources, and no infobox. Either it should be greatly expanded, or merged. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've summarily merged it in its entirety to 2003-04 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season....--Nilfanion (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Ida

edit

It's just a copy and paste of the main article. Merge it. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected, since there's no new information. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 20:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoon Sudal (2004)

edit

The article is pretty much a copy and paste of the seasonal article. The structure is pretty bad, as well. I propose it be merged. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1926 Havana-Bermuda Hurricane

edit

Extremely stubby, next to no content. Merge Hurricanehink (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand- the storm killed 650 people which puts it at mid importantance. and much of that infomation was taken from the longshore book and that the fact is that no one had updated the article since its publication. I adpot it and add more info. Storm05 13:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Storm05, are you going to adopt this in user space, the season article, or where the current article is? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Carrie (1957)

edit

Discussion is on its article. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Val

edit

Little to no content. Merge. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it. But really, you could have just merged it right away since there's only two sentences in it. RaNdOm26 11:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Always best to discuss it first. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussions

edit

Hurricane Esther (1961)

edit

Hurricane Maria (2005)

edit

Hurricane Ophelia (2005)

edit

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)

edit

Tropical Storm Delta (2005)

edit

Hurricane Epsilon (2005)

edit

Tropical Storm Zeta (2005)

edit
  • 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)

edit

Hurricane Lili (1984)

edit

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]

Alright, I redid it, and given that it's a GA I'm archiving this. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Lee (2005)

edit
  • 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]

Lee needs to go, treat it like Tropical Storm Cristina.--72.193.254.254 (talk) 14:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Erika (1997)

edit

The article is poorly written, includes large copied portions of a weather forum (unofficial), and the storm did very little. Merge. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I redid the article, no on merge now. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Now FA. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Kate (2003)

edit

Very stubby, little else than what is directly copied from seasonal article. Merge. – Chacor 07:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Expand. The article is poorly written, though if someone rewrites it, it might be worth keeping. Reason being is that all storms from 2006 back to an unidentified date are going to have articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just finished redoing the article. It shouldn't be merged now. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Merging/Archive_1&oldid=1138355896"