Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Merging/Archive 3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Hurricane Florence (2000)
There is minimal content. If no one wants to do anything with the article, I'll be merging it in the next few days. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I know I'm sticking my hand into the lion's mouth here, having committed to doing Kesiny and Fausto, but I hate seeing good prospects go south. If the main editor won't expand it, I'll adopt it. Hurricane Angel Saki My own personal NHC 06:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- The main editor has a history of doing a paragraph for an article, then leaving it like that. Are you set on adopting it? If so, would you be working on it sooner or later? If later, than we can merge it, so to remove the stub article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I can do it now. Hurricane Angel Saki My own personal NHC 01:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Alright. Will you be working on it on the page, or a user page? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I made a slight disaster the last time I tried moving a main page to my user page (it was with Lidia), so I'd rather work on it per the main page. Besides, there are little to no links to the page (all of them are links from our "Things You Can Do" and the tables page, so I can work on it behind closed doors without making it look too conspicuous. Plus, I've already overhauled a new intro and a new infobox pic (same time as the old one, but a side image of it. I'm loathe to using images like the old one in the infoboxes, and leave them in the article body) and split the old paragraph into a prelim storm history and prelim impact, records, and naming (may change if enough preparations exist). Hurricane Angel Saki My own personal NHC 03:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Cool, that works then. We'll keep it for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Tropical Storm Lorenzo (2001)
Same as Jerry 07 above. I don't see the need to have an article for a weak tropical storm that only has storm history. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. I thought we unofficially decided that we would have articles on every storm back to 2000? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Now I disagree with that. I don't think we should ever have an article on Chris in 2000, for example. Consensus can change, if there was a real agreement on articles for every storm back to 2000, but I don't know how strong of an agreement that was. I don't see the need or purpose to have an article on a minimal tropical storm that didn't affect land. I hate to say it, but that information would be just as appropriate in the season section. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the article clearly has more information than the season article, and I remember you saying several times that an article can stay if it displays more information than the season article. Lorenzo is a decent article, and it's been around and stable for a while, so I don't see a strong reason for it to be merged. The WPTC goal is To create an encyclopediac overview...including individual storms. While it might not be the best article, it is an encyclopediac overview of the storm, and it includes good information for somebody who wants to read it. So far this month, the article was viewed 93 times. That means that 93 people read the article to learn about the storm. I don't see why it hurts to keep it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's not whether the season article currently has enough info in it. It's whether it can handle it, and according to a test I made, the season article can handle all of the content within the article. I wouldn't call Lorenzo a decent article. It's rather short, and the writing is not the best. In fact, one user voiced objection to the existence of the article. No information is lost in the event of a merge, as I indicated above, so there still is an overview on the storm. Furthermore, those 93 people would be automatically redirected to the season article section; surely if they were interested in one storm in 2001, maybe they would be interested in others, just by scrolling up or down. The harm in keeping it is the precedent it creates by forcing us to create an article on every storm, which is a habit I'd like for us to break. The focus on the smallest articles takes away from the bigger articles, after all (and please don't say "not necessarily", since we all know the project as a whole has a habit of putting more focus into the smaller articles, myself included). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- First, correct, the writing is not the best, and it is fairly short, but I would still call it "decent", compared to many of the articles that exist. However, when I look at that test you did, and how little prose there actually is, I wouldn't mind seeing the article merged. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose it is "decent", and if it affected land in the least, or had any other claim for notability, I might be OK with it staying. Would you be opposed if I reverted to my test and finish the merge? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have no strong objections. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose it is "decent", and if it affected land in the least, or had any other claim for notability, I might be OK with it staying. Would you be opposed if I reverted to my test and finish the merge? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- First, correct, the writing is not the best, and it is fairly short, but I would still call it "decent", compared to many of the articles that exist. However, when I look at that test you did, and how little prose there actually is, I wouldn't mind seeing the article merged. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- It's not whether the season article currently has enough info in it. It's whether it can handle it, and according to a test I made, the season article can handle all of the content within the article. I wouldn't call Lorenzo a decent article. It's rather short, and the writing is not the best. In fact, one user voiced objection to the existence of the article. No information is lost in the event of a merge, as I indicated above, so there still is an overview on the storm. Furthermore, those 93 people would be automatically redirected to the season article section; surely if they were interested in one storm in 2001, maybe they would be interested in others, just by scrolling up or down. The harm in keeping it is the precedent it creates by forcing us to create an article on every storm, which is a habit I'd like for us to break. The focus on the smallest articles takes away from the bigger articles, after all (and please don't say "not necessarily", since we all know the project as a whole has a habit of putting more focus into the smaller articles, myself included). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the article clearly has more information than the season article, and I remember you saying several times that an article can stay if it displays more information than the season article. Lorenzo is a decent article, and it's been around and stable for a while, so I don't see a strong reason for it to be merged. The WPTC goal is To create an encyclopediac overview...including individual storms. While it might not be the best article, it is an encyclopediac overview of the storm, and it includes good information for somebody who wants to read it. So far this month, the article was viewed 93 times. That means that 93 people read the article to learn about the storm. I don't see why it hurts to keep it. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Now I disagree with that. I don't think we should ever have an article on Chris in 2000, for example. Consensus can change, if there was a real agreement on articles for every storm back to 2000, but I don't know how strong of an agreement that was. I don't see the need or purpose to have an article on a minimal tropical storm that didn't affect land. I hate to say it, but that information would be just as appropriate in the season section. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
