Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Merging/Archive 2

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones | Merging

Tropical Storm Tammy

edit

Tropical Storm Alpha (2005)

edit

Tropical Storm Gamma (2005)

edit

Hurricane Gordon (2000)

edit
    • 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)

edit

Hurricane Earl (1998)

edit

Hurricane Charley (1986)

edit

Tropical Storm Amelia (1978)

edit

Hurricane Ginger

edit

Hurricane Gladys

edit
    • 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 Ethel

edit

Hurricane Helene (1958)

edit

Typhoon Nina (1987)

edit

Tropical Storm Debby (1994)

edit

1945-1949 Pacific typhoon seasons

edit

1945 Pacific typhoon season

edit

1946 Pacific typhoon season

edit

1947 Pacific typhoon season

edit

1948 Pacific typhoon season

edit

1949 Pacific typhoon season

edit

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]

Hot tower

edit

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]

Hurricane Tanya (1995)

edit

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]

Oppose deleting or merging this article. There appears to be a problem here with people believing that you can't have both a season article and storm articles. There is plenty of examples of main articles and sub articles existing on Wikipedia. Some of the reasons I've seen given for deleting these storm articles (such as "Until the season article is better this article is not justified"[1]) are not reasons for merging or deleting these storm articles. --Alabamaboy 00:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is obsolete. There is a newer version which we, IIRC, believe is good and should be kept. We don't have a problem having both a season article and storm articles in general. There are plenty of examples here in the Wikiproject for that. The problem is when the information in the storm article is merely a bloated version of the season article section, and thus serves no purpose. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Faith

edit
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]

1933 Outer Banks Hurricane

edit

Article on a not-very-notable storm in a very active season. The seasonal article is a stub and the storm article is not well written.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • B.S.!, IT DOESENT MATTER IF ~30 DEATHS IS COMMON IN THAT TIME PERIOD!, The storm killed 30 which is notable , AND IT IS NOT SHORT! AND I FIXED THE MISTAKES!Storm05 17:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, calm down! Notability is subjective, but generally means something that doesn't usually occur. 30 deaths, which was common at the time, is not notable. Also, it is relatively short, especially the impact which should be the meat of the article. Finally, there are still some mistakes. "untill", "statu s" , "trejectory", along with some grammar problems. Short sentences make the article look longer, but they just cause it to drag on too much. The first four sentences of the impact section could easily be put into two, well-written sentences. One more thing. The impact section is short enough that the entire thing could be merged into the seasonal article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, a merge decision is based on "can the season article take the content of the storm?" With this particular case, that is certainly true. Maybe, this storm can have an article of its own eventually. But please get 1933AHS sorted out first!--Nilfanion (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Depression Fourteen (1987)

edit

While not bad for a depression in that time period, there's still no need for it. The lack of information is the main reason why we don't need it; the entire impact section could easily be put into the season article. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. TDs that don't become TS's are never notable unless they do sufficient damage (WPac TDs, especially, with the Philippines). If and only if preparations AND impact can be found to warrant a good two to three paragraphs in each section, then perhaps I'll change my mind. Chacor 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As good as this looks, I agree, TD's usually aren't deserving of articles. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 02:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Chris (1982)

edit

Unimportant article, with little info and poor writing. The season article can easily handle it. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged by myself.Mitchazenia 00:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, that wasn't really merged. You simply removed the links and redirected it. The purpose of merging is getting the useful information from the article to another location. I'll fix it. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this merge b/c it means removing useful and referenced information and replacing it with a short paragraph in a larger article. There's no reason both articles can't exist. --Alabamaboy 00:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information is not being "removed"). It still exists in the page history if you really want it. The storm is simply not notable enough to warrant its own article, and this is how things are done here. --Coredesat 00:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done by whom? If the storm article isn't notable, bring it up for a AfD. The fact that people are objecting to these merges or recreating the article indicates that consensus isn't there for what you are doing.--Alabamaboy 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People, don't worry. I merged what little useful information there was from the article into the season article. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, AFD is not for merges, which are more appropriate if there is clearly another article that could benefit from the information. As an admin, you are expected to know that by now. --Coredesat 00:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be sarcastic. I know what AfDs are for. Since you were saying that the articles weren't notable, I was raising the issue of why not bring them to an AfD b/c that is the official way to deal with non-notable articles of this type. As it says at Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Merging, "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded can often be merged into a larger article or list." Please note that I'm quoting from official policy. The articles you are merging are neither short nor unlikely to be expanded. As such, I don't believe they are valid candidate for a merge, especially when they could exist as a subarticle of the main season article. So if you think the articles aren't notable, you should bring them up for an AfD. Still, I'm not going to waste my time arguing over this. Just be aware that at least one editor disagrees with what you are doing and believes this process is occuring without true consensus and, more importantly, is removing useful information. --Alabamaboy 01:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink just explained below that none of what little information there was in the article was lost. Not all storms automatically get articles. I should also note that the merge was performed by the article creator. --Coredesat 01:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know. Also, no hard feelings over this and I hope I didn't seem too irritating. Most of the tropical storm and hurricane articles here are really good and your team deserves a lot of credit for that. As I said, I just don't agree with this process. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Bonnie (1986)

edit

Unimportant article. Rather short, as well, and most of the content could probably fit in the season article. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry hink, i oppose to this merging Bonnie ('86), Chris ('82), Karen ('95) and Arlene ('87) since theres info on the storms out there online and in the newspaper archive (which you should've checked before nominating for merge).And our merge standards have changed. Now we can only merge articles based on the amount of infomation can befound online not wheatever or not the article is important. Storm05 11:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. If no-one's gonna keep it up, then merge it. There may be more info available out there, but it's not currently in the article, and if no one's gonna add it to the article, then it should still be merged. It's not the potential amount of information, it's the current amount of information. – Chacor 12:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but i still oppose to merge (as these will be recreated any way in the near future and this merge dicussion page is for articles that cannot be exapanded in anyway shape or form not for articles that can be expanded with more info. Merging should not be based on infomation that is avaliable online and not infomation currently in the article and if you think that the article is currently lacking info then look for more info on line and add it to the current article. If any info cannot be found online then list it for merge. Storm05 12:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, this page is for discussing what articles to get rid of, that's it. Given the current state of Bonnie, as well as the others I brought up, there's no reason to definitively keep them. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the only articles to get rid of are redundant articles, articles that cannot be expanded if info is unavaliable online and articles that are duplicates of each other. The current state of Bonnie and others you brought up should be listed for expansion as these can be easily expanded. And as i stated above, if you feel if the article has not been worked on recently then try to see if more info is avaliable, if so add it or ask the user or users to add it like you did to Dog (1950),Doria (1971) and others. Storm05 15:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are you to decide what stays and what goes? Merging is not deleting. Merging is taking the useful information from the article and putting it into the season article, and these that I mentioned could easily fit into the season article. We need a better core of articles, and keeping these stubby, poorly-written, and low-importance articles is pointless, in my opinion. If someone is looking for information on Hurricane Bonnie of 1986, they'll be redirected to the season page, where the useful information would remain. It's as simple as that. I don't see why you're so vehemently opposed to merging. If there's more information out there, someone can recreate it later, but there's no sense in keeping these low-importance ones solely because there is a potential for more information. FWIW, Dog and Doria were more notable then these merge candidates. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not deciding on anything, and we had already agreed that notablity and importance is no longer an issue or basis for an article and its the amount of info that determines it and its better to expand the article while its on the mainspace as the formal recration of an article has arsen some problems including GDFL and crossspace problems. Storm05 16:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and importance do still have some effect, but it's mainly the information, and if much of the existing information in a low-importance start-class article can fit into a seasonal article (which, by all likelihood is a start or stub class), I strongly believe it should be merged. More notable storms are more likely to be looked up, so I believe they should have more leeway. However, you still haven't provided a reason for why Bonnie, or the others mentioned here, should stay. If there's potential for more information, someone can recreate it later on. BTW, Dora wasn't up to par, so they didn't bother moving it as it would have been merged anyway. There were no real GDFL problems, as you were the only editor. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained the reason which more can be added and theres low importance articles that are B class or higher and and support the expansion of the article now on the mainspace rather than merging it and recrating it later as it would save time. BTW the reason Dora wasnt moved because i never had the chance to move it. Also this discussing this between me and you does not solve the problem, we need more users in on this discussion. Storm05 16:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More users involved would be useless, because you would still refuse to accept consensus and policy, as you have done elsewhere (like WP:NOR on Hermine 98). – Chacor 16:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Useless?, refuse to accept consensus with policy? what does your statement have to do with this discussion because its irrlevant and does not address the problem at hand.Storm05 16:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant because if we got all these "other users" to comment and there's a consensus to merge you'd still refuse to accept it and keep pushing the matter, like you are now. There's three merge opinions to your one no merge currently, and that's a consensus. – Chacor 16:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consensesus does not work that way and that pushing the matter stuff and refuse to accept stuff must stop.Storm05 16:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, by definition, that is what consensus is; the majority favoring one option over the minority. Also, will you please learn how to indent correctly? Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the defination of a consensus but thats not how it works on wikipedia. And one no merge to three merge is considered voting and not a favoring towards consensus.Storm05 17:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<-- (edit conflict with Chacor) It doesn't matter that more information can be added. It matters if it will be, and given how many articles are still starts and stubs, regardless of importance, I don't think any of these candidates would be expanded in the near future. That is, they probably wouldn't have been expanded, although if they are expanded in the very near future they would probably be kept. However, look at all of the articles in the project. I'm not sure if I would want anyone to expand Bonnie, as I'd rather see Tropical cyclone or any retired hurricane featured. Furthermore, there is still the option to expand it if they wanted to by unmerging it. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you forgotten the newspaper archive?, also i would rather see any hurricane article being featured or at least at a high rating as expanding it can be done by anyone, and i perferred them to expanded now rather than later. Storm05 16:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does the newspaper archive have to do with anything? Your second sentence is a big problem. We should be emphasizing our work on more important articles. What is the point in devoting a lot of effort into very unimportant articles that few will look at, while the more important articles that are regularly looked at are being ignored? This is not a directory for random tropical cyclone information, which at times it seems like it is. This is an encyclopedia, first and foremost. Another problem is that not everything can be expanded now. Our workforce is, in actuality, rather small. Thus, I don't think we should devote our efforts into non-notable articles, and, in the likely event that no one will edit those non-notable articles, I would rather see them in the season article then a stubby and poorly-written article on its own. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What i meant was that theres the newspaper archive contianis more info on the storms that makes the justifcations of having their own articles well, justified. Also what defineds important and unimportant is subjective anyway and the project does not look like a directory nor does it violates anything in WP:NOT and more and more people are joining the project (see project page) and cant assume that anyone can or cannot edit those articles since some are under multiple wikiprojects now, i would rather see a storm having its own article (notable or not). BTW, this whole discussion reminds me of article creating disputes of 2005 and early 2006 led by User:E.Brown. Storm05 17:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem isn't whether there is more information or not. Having more info out there doesn't justify currently having a stubby and poorly-written article. That just means the article could be recreated later on. True, importance is a bit subjective, but obviously Hurricane Ivan is more important than Bonnie 86. At times, the WPTC does look like a place for random tropical cyclone information, given the amount of detail for the non-notable storms. Furthermore, while the number of members in the project has been increasing, the number of people who actually do work is very small, and in the event other members work on articles I would rather see more work on the high-importance articles. Keeping these mostly pointless articles takes away from the effort for the more important articles. Finally, you never provided a sufficient reason for keeping these articles. To prove my point, I merged Arlene 87. Is there anything missing in the season article? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i was more concerned with Chris ('82), Karen ('95) and Bonnie ('86) since theres more infomation on those storms than Arlene ('87). Yes you rather see more work on high-importance articles but thats up to the users themselves whetever or not they want to work on them or not. do not merge articles just to illistrate a point and i have provided a suffient reason to keep the articles just nobody payed any attention to it. Storm05 18:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What was your suffient reason to keep the articles? That there is more information out there? That is not a good enough of a reason, in my opinion. Just because it is possible it will be expanded in the future doesn't mean it will. I don't see why you're being so stubborn about it. The season articles can easily handle them, and if someone want to write an article on them in the future they still easily can if they want, although that's a pretty big if. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna leave my 2 cents in two sentences. Its ok if you merge them, **slaps self in face**. WHY CAN'T I WRITE WELL?????????????Mitchazenia 16:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think this one should be merged. There isn't a lot of info here, and merging isn't a permanent bar to an article - if sufficient information and sources are found later, it is not any trouble to unmerge the article. Storm05, you are reminded to be civil - no one is trying to illustrate a point by merging this article. Mitchazenia, we are not bashing your article-writing skill. I really wish cooler heads would prevail in these discussions. --Coredesat 22:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I lost my head, i'm a little annoyed that i suck at writing. Merge Chris if you want. It doesn't matter to me.Mitchazenia 00:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy crap, I look away for a couple of days and we have a war going on in here. First, can we stop with the WP:POINT accusations, everyone? As for my two cents here - if anyone wants to expand the article beyond its current shape, be bold and do it. However, in its current shape, it is simply incomplete, and this discussion is indicating that the information can be saved in the season article. I happen to agree with that. Do not merge it iff someone says that they're going to significantly expand the article soon, and delivers on that. Otherwise, merge it. We can unmerge it anytime afterwards if need be. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Arlene (1987)

edit

Low-importance. The seasonal article isn't that long, so much of the information in the article would fit there. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's not a whole lot longer than a season article section would be. --Coredesat 12:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the lack of reasonable opposition, I merged it. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Karen (1995)

edit

Low-importance. Most of the writing in the article is fairly drawn out, and it's not particularly well-written. Additionally, the season article is not developed well, with the Karen section rather short, so it could be easily merged. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I merged it. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this merge b/c it means removing useful and referenced information and replacing it with a short paragraph in a larger article. There's no reason both articles can't exist. --Alabamaboy 00:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't anything here that can't be in the season article (in fact, the article is written like a technical paper and not an encyclopedia article). Removing the technical information would leave bare-bones info, and we generally merge those. --Coredesat 00:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a ton of info missing in the season article. The technical information may be useful to some people. --Alabamaboy 00:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not encyclopedic. We are not a mirror of the tropical cyclone report, which is a technical paper. --Coredesat 00:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the useful information was placed into the season article. There was little technical information to begin with. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane tracking

edit

There's some useful information in there, though I think the content could be better used elsewhere. Opinions? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that this hardly looks like an encyclopedia article (looks like an OR/POV essay, actually - it's written from the first person), I agree with merging anything useful into Tropical cyclone forecasting. --Coredesat 05:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, is there anything useful? Merging is probably a waste of time: PROD/AFD it.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're probably right. I'll PROD it, it can be restored if there actually is something useful that can be merged. But the article as it is doesn't work, as it's POV OR. --Coredesat 22:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like an overlap of tropical cyclone observation, tropical cyclone forecasting, and tropical cyclone prediction model. Some of this is unavoidable. There appear to be a few salvagable lines that could be moved into the other articles. Otherwise, preexisting articles cover this topic better at this time, in my opinion. If you truly want to keep this article separate, it needs to be renamed tropical cyclone track forecasting to avoid the POV snag of the use of the term hurricane, and change the article to follow suit with the new title. More references are needed. Then, this article can be a subarticle for tropical cyclone forecasting. Thegreatdr 22:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Typhoon Ruby

edit

Short pointless, article. Easily can be merged into the 1988 Pacific typhoon season. Merge.Mitchazenia 00:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged.Mi tch 23:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Agni

edit

Fairly short article, created only due to its unusual formation. Merge. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Beryl (1982)

edit

Though it is pretty notable, there is simply not much information on it. Merge Hurricanehink (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Hardly any new info, or info in general exists.Mitch 19:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Coastal Hurricane of 1806

edit

Very little info. If someone wanted to expand it they still could, but no one has since it's been created. Merge. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say there's no mergeable info. It should just be redirected. --Coredesat 23:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Mi tch 23:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Cane of 1667

edit

Not particularly notable, and the important info could probably fit in the season article. Merge Hurricanehink (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are copyright concerns here. The quotes aren't cited. Also, 1660-1679 Atlantic hurricane seasons is in table format for some reason, so merging would be difficult. It might be better just to redirect it. --Coredesat 23:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1-2-3 rule

edit

It's rather short. Would it be better to put template:Expand on it or merge to tropical cyclone forecasting? Hurricanehink (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2004 Pacific typhoon season

edit

Not completed, and probably (IMO) not worth completing. Anyone opposed to merging it with the season article? Hurricanehink (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1918 Mackay cyclone

edit

Little info, easily mergeable into Pre-1970 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons.Mi tch 00:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, sounds good. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done.Mi tch 00:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Ada

edit

Little info, easily mergeable into Pre-1970 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons.Mi tch 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, sounds good. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merged.Mi tch 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1737 Calcutta cyclone

edit

It's a fairly short article, and I doubt much more info exists. This could be merged with the Pre-1980 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons article. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-level eye feature

edit

Merge with eye (cyclone)? Hurricanehink (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. — jdorje (talk) 04:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The article does not include any sources, so I'm a little leery in merging an unsourced article to an FA. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've resolved the problem. Since there is no real meteorological term called mid-level eye, but there is one called bounded weak echo region, which describes a similar phenomenon, I've moved the article to bounded weak echo region which throws it into the severe weather project as well. I'll expand it some today, and try to find some references for what's already in there. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice - better than what was there before. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-1600 Atlantic hurricane seasons

edit

Seeing as they're all pretty short and of the same format, I propose merging 1492-1524, 1525-1549, 1550-1574, and 1575-1599 Atlantic hurricane seasons to Pre-1600 Atlantic hurricane seasons. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep them seperate articles. It would be alot of work to merge them all into one article, and plus that woud be a very long article. Juliancolton 01:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I just experimented merging them, and it would be a total of 46 storms; its total length would be about 4.6 kb, as well, which would definitely not be a very long article, and merging them all would not be a lot of work at all. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree. Go ahead and merge. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 02:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, done. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002)

edit

Short stubby. Could be expanded, but in its current conditon, no. Merge.Mitch32contribs 19:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge - no significant content outside of seasonal article. Numerous SPAG (spelling and grammar) errors, as well. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will expand it as soon as possible. Juliancolton (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't know what else I could add to it. I guess if I want to creat hurricane articles, I should write about storms that actually did something. Juliancolton (talk) 22:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Do you mind if we merge it? --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, go ahead and merge. I will keep it in my user sandbox until it is ready, and has enough information. Juliancolton (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Merging/Archive_2&oldid=1138355882"