Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Merging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject
Tropical Cyclones
WikiProject home (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
Newsletter (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
WikiProject statistics (talk)
Article requests (talk)
Merging discussions (talk)
Vital articles (talk)
Article tables by quality (talk)

Assessment
Main assessment page (talk)
→ Assessment tables (talk)
→ Assessment log (talk)
→ Assessment statistics (talk)

Tropical cyclones portal

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.

Archives: 1, 2 3

Contents

[edit] Article discussion

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

[edit] Western Pacific Start class articles

Though the following storms are somewhat notable, none of these have been expanded since the original author wrote it, and it seems highly unlikely that someone will take the time to find the needed information (outside the JTWC report). Examples of what I am referring to are;

Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge all (except Joan). All the articles except Dot are pretty much storm history and a very small amount of impact, which can easily be condensed and merged into the season articles. Dot was DYKed a while ago, but that's probably not a strong enough case to save it since there isn't really much more information. --Coredesat (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Hold up on Joan. The "storm history" has been infused with some impact, so I'll see if I can split that up. – Chacor 02:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • This is what I've done. Might not be enough, but it certainly seems more evened-out now. – Chacor 02:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Nice work. I'm fine with Joan staying now. --Coredesat (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem with Dot is that it probably needs more info on impact, especially in Vietnam. – Chacor 02:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yea, and info can be hard to find in this time period. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Added ReliefWeb impact and aftermath and updated the totals. Still trying to find China or Vietnam info. – Chacor 16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Dot's getting there. Try and find some more impact in the Philippines, as well. Important dates, such as when it reached peak intensity and when it made landfalls, are needed. Trying using newspaper reports from the newspaper archive. A quick search of newspapers containing Dot and published on October 19, 1985 showed this newspaper with some info, so there could be others out there. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, Typhoon Bess (1982) (which should really be at the main Typhoon Bess - but that's already at WP:RM) is a start-class article with not much info either. Does this deserve to stay either? 59 fatalities with low damage isn't all that notable except that it got retired, but back then many WPac storms got retired for nothing. – Chacor 15:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Disagreed. There was another Typhoon Bess (1974) that was also retired. I think we should wait if we should merge a retired article. There's a couple retired Atlantic ones that might not have that much more info, so maybe we should wait until it's obvious whether it should be merged or whether it could possibly be expanded (you never know, maybe we'll find a good link for Japan typhoon impacts). Hurricanehink (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added Kammuri to the list. There's only two paragraphs for impact, which can easily be copied and pasted into the season article. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Russian response to Hurricane Katrina

This was PRODded by an anon for some reason when a merge discussion was getting underway. If this article doesn't need to be here, the information should probably be merged to International response to Hurricane Katrina. --Coredesat 21:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Support merge and summarize, as a complete merge would make its section unnecessarily long. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge. — jdorje (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I merged it, and while looking through the Katrina articles I saw another one that could be merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina in historical context

[edit] Orphaned or dual disambiguations

Today I was reading over the wikiproject standards and added an exception to the dab rule that seems common: when there are just two storms of the same name, a dab page is not necessarily needed. See Hurricane Andrew. Coincidentally later today I stumbled across the Wilma DAB which is orphaned - nothing links to it or redirects to it. It is therefore useless as a DAB since nobody's gonna search for "Tropical Storm Wilma (disambiguation)". But I'm not sure what to do about it. This fits into the 2-name category as covered by Andrew, but since the 2 names are from different basins there's no possibility for confusion. For the moment I de-orphaned it by linking the Wilma article to it. It's likely that no disambiguation page is needed at all. Also possible is that the Hurricane Wilma article should have a {{dablink}} at the top, but it will sound kind of silly to DAB a hurricane and a typhoon in this way. Perhaps the whole thing should just be merged into Wilma? But then what's to prevent that from being done with all other tc dab's? And how come Andrew doesn't link to Hurricane Andrew - and if it did, shouldn't it then also link to Hurricane Andrew (1986)? — jdorje (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. For starters, I support merging Tropical Storm Wilma (disambiguation) to Wilma. I think it'd be a good idea for, say, every dab with 3 or less storms to be moved to their name's dab (like TS Wilma to Wilma). A good example of what should be done is with Tropical Storm Waldo, which was used once in EPAC and WPAC. The article should be redirected to Waldo, with the link to Hurricane Waldo being redirected to the seasonal page (1986 was its only use); Typhoon Waldo could be redirected to the seasonal page (1998 was its only use), even though it didn't reach typhoon status. Of course, it can't be that easy. Some problematic dabs that come to mind are the Phonetic alphabet storms (only ones affected are Hurricane Easy (disambiguation), Hurricane Dog, and Hurricane Able), the Greek storms (only ones affected are Tropical Storm Alpha (disambiguation) and Tropical Storm Delta), recent Western Pacific storms, and PAGASA storm names, though these exceptions can be dealt with later (or maybe just left as is). For now, though, should this discussion be kept here (since it involves some merging) or put it on the Wikiproject talk page (where there have been some discussions about dabs). Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Move this to the project page, there is a far broader issue underneath. As a practical matter, the Wilma dab should be at Tropical Storm Wilma (where it makes some sense). Remember, ideally the only link to a disambiguation page should be from the primary topic and hardly anything else. I'd be leery about saying "merge to the name" as a rule. Its much better to have Tropical Storm Alice linked from Alice than have all 19 storms listed on that page. Same principle probably should hold with other storms.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, as mentioned above, I'm only for "merging to the name" rule for dabs with three or less articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Tropical Storms Jerry and Melissa (2007)

I know this might be controversial (with Melissa as a GA), but I can't stand seeing Melissa as a GA with only two paragraphs of info. This doesn't mean merge all of the non-notable articles at all. However, these two are really scraping at the bottom of the barrel. We don't need to have an article for every storm. IDK, those stick out to me a little bit. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a GA review/reassessment to make sure someone else thinks it is of GA quality, before any merge occurs. I agree that we don't need an article for every tropical cyclone, but why get rid of one if more than one reviewer thinks is a GA? Thegreatdr (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
My problem with that is that such a short article could be considered good in some people's opinions. Indeed, in the past, I know of an article that was an FA, before it was decided there wasn't enough info, and thus it was merged. I believe that it is up to us as a project to decide whether we should have a separate article. Is there a significantly greater amount of information, worthy of keeping the article separate? IMO, no. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ormoc tragedy

The article concerns the same events as Tropical Storm Thelma. There is precedence to merge the disaster article to the storm article - The Mameyes disaster to Tropical Storm Isabel (1985). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] West Pacific typhoon seasons

Category:Stub-Class Tropical cyclone articles consists mostly of Pacific typhoon seasons from 1945 to 1998, with the exception of 1939 Pacific typhoon season. To cut down on dozens of stubs, what does everybody think about merging them into lists of seasons, like 1950-1959 Pacific typhoon seasons? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I love the idea. There are a few developed season articles that do actually list each storm, which would stay, but the rest often have summaries for only three or four storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I took the initiative and merged the 1940 seasons together. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)