Talk:2006 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about 2006 Atlantic hurricane season. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Betting pools

Due to the fact that it appears that the betting pools will not survive the AfD, I have saved them at User:Bob rulz/betting pools. However, I have trimmed them down to what I think they should be, removing nonsense and trimming it down to the most basic of predictions. If this is nominated for deletion as well, then so be it. But it's an attempt to save a bit of harmless fun. For anybody interested in seeing the results of the betting pools, I have given them a chance to do so. bob rulz 03:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think userfying that is an ideal solution, particularly as you have good judgement and are keeping the sensible ones.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Phew...a considerably less hostile response than I was expecting so far. bob rulz 08:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Chacor Hasn't seen this this yet :P Cryomaniac 17:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm the thing is the predictions you are keeping are the sane ones. The BPs are out of control on here. Plus the fact its userfied disassociates it from this page...--Nilfanion (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, good. And I will not tolerate the inclusion of any other betting pools on there, either...I have full control of it now, muahaha. But seriously, the only reason I didn't vote for the deletion of the betting pools was because I knew it could be trimmed down to make it much more sane. Since they're definitely going to be deleted now, I figured this was the next best way. bob rulz 08:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Add: I just added the East Pacific predictions into the same betting pool page, as well. The predictions there are much less out of control and much ~~less~~ more sane; I didn't have to do nearly as much trimming. bob rulz 08:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm much more sane surely? :P It has some community value so as it is hosted on userspace I don't really have that big a problem (if it stays controlled that is).--Nilfanion (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh...heh...yeah, more sane. bob rulz 12:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Predictions page

For those who want to have a little fun on wikipedia (outside of vandalism), I saved the predictions page, which will likely be involved in the mass deletion and put it on User:Fableheroesguild/2006 Atlantic hurricane predictions. Well, the deletion will mean i've run out of options on how to kepp predictions on the main talk page to a minimum. Ah, well. guitarhero777777 03:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Then here's the reality for you. Wikipedia is not here for fun. Go to Jeff Masters' blog if you want to make wild predictions. Chacor 04:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here for fun?? Isn't this a hobby to everyone? I thought hobbies were supposed to be fun. Who wants to do things that aren't fun in their free time? --Holderca1 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia is a hobby. bob rulz 22:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is Jeff Masters? Also, say i wanted to have some fun, would you rather me vandalize all your userpages (not a threat, but hypothetical) or add a couple of predictions? Of course, I would choose the latter.

P.S. I'm sorry about every post I've made on this talk page (within the last 24 hrs.)and the deletion page. I'm just a little high strung because my opportunity to clean up the invest page will be gone.guitarhero777777 04:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Masters is (apparently) a meteorologist, who has a blog detailing tropical waves. The fact that the Invests are staying (for now, and personally I would actually be against their removal), says something. Chacor 04:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

After taking a chill pill, I've decided that I will keep the predictions page, but if people message me to delete it (and I figure out how), I'll do it. It's not that important. guitarhero777777 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason for you to delete it. It is now a user subpage, after all. User subpage criteria are quite a bit more lax than article criteria. bob rulz 04:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That page was not "for fun". It was people making their serious predictions and getting feedback on them. I guess SOME PEOPLE cant understand that. -Winter123 22:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I din't mean have fun with the predictions. I meant that making predictions is actually fun to do. Check my userpage. I have MLB predictions and intend to add more. guitarhero777777 22:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and everybody made their serious predictions for fun. You wouldn't have honestly made those predictions if you wouldn't have wanted to. bob rulz 22:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about the AoI page. Thats where my comment was aimed.

Yeah, THIS page is for rediculous random predictions, but the AoI page(which is now completely GONE for some reason... argh...) was serious predicitons. Why cant people understand? -Winter123 22:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

~~When did we start talking about AoIs?~~ Nevermind, I see that you made both of those comments. But yeah, I was against the AoIs removal as well. bob rulz 22:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

10⁴kt² units

What are these units? Most other units in Wikipedia have a link to a description. --ML5 12:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't a speed squared an acceleration? Cryomaniac 17:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, acceleration is rate of change in velocity, units of acceleration are distance per time squared. --Holderca1 18:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You'd think that I would know that, having an A-Level in maths :P Cryomaniac 21:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Does the ACE Wikipedia article help? -- RattleMan 17:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The 10⁴ is actually part of the number, scientific notation, i.e. 2.74 x 10⁴. kt² is knots squared or velocity squared. --Holderca1 17:23, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly the kind of scientific notation most people (at least in the U.S.) talk about (i.e. the normalized kind) - else everything would have a single non-zero digit before the decimal point, and some numbers wouldn't be 10⁴ but 10 to some other power. —AySz88 \^-^ 18:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

SQUARE knots? Knots measured over a 2 dimensional PLANE? How is it possible? I think someone screwed up. -Winter123 22:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody screwed up. As this says, energy is proportional to the square of the velocity. So square knots is a measure of the accumulated energy of the storm, not some 2-dimensional plane. It's not converted to a typical energy value, like Joules, since calculating the mass of a tropical storm would introduce a large error margin. --Spiffy sperry 18:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You think square velocity is hard to visualize, try something like Hubble's Constant,

H_{0}

, which is measured in (km/s)/Mpc.

Not all things with the same units represent the same concept - see torque and energy which are both a force times a distance (though torque is cross product and energy is dot product). I think it's better to think of units grouped together (like I did just now) instead of trying to break (for example) energy's units down into kg*m^2/s^2 (which is nonsensical). Then Hubble's Constant is no problem - it's just velocity per distance. With ACE, it's energy per mass. —AySz88 \^-^ 22:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons

Comparisons of this season so far to other statistics as of August 20' (based on [1]):

Named Storms
AVERAGE SEASON - 3 (July 10, Aug 6, Aug 20)
2004 - 5 (Alex, Bonnie, Charley, Danielle, Earl)
2005 - 8 (Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Dennis, Emily, Franklin, Gert, Harvey)
2006 - 3 (Alberto, Beryl, Chris)
(right on par)

Hurricanes
AVERAGE SEASON - 1 (Aug 14)
2004 - 3 (Alex, Charley, Danielle)
2005 - 3 (Cindy, Dennis, Emily)
2006 - 0
(a tiny bit below average)

Cat. 3+
AVERAGE SEASON - 0 (first one comes Sep 3)
2004 - 2 (Alex, Charley)
2005 - 2 (Dennis, Emily)
2006 - 0
(right on par again)

Overall, it looks like 2006's been a very very average season so far. You never know though.. things could change. -Tc w d 21:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Average is a vague term. A season could have just 2 storms but one of those could be one of the most catastrophic in history. 1930 is a wonderful example. That season had just 2 storms, but one killed an estimated 8,000 people and left a sea of destruction in its wake. Bottom line: Climatology tells you very little. -- §Hurricane E RIC § archive 22:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris merged

I have merged Tropical Storm Chris (2006) into this article. As seen, the info that was there fits perfectly fine into the seasonal article, meaning that was nothing short of a stub. Now, instead of crying or reverting me, I would strongly recommend, and even ADVOCATE, a new article for Chris. HOWEVER, PLEASE work on it in USERSPACE, and when it's deemed to be at least a high-Start class article, ask an admin to do a move for you. Thank you. – Ch acor 12:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the consensus was not to merge it. Good kitty 16:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:IAR. Common sense prevails occasionally, and it's better, as stated above, for the quality of Wikipedia, to have a good section on the storm rather than a poor stub. The fact that the article can fit straight into the section without any modifications is a big hint about its existance. – Ch acor 16:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Since when does consensus mean anything on Wikipedia? 206.47.141.21 16:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. --Holderca1 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that Common sense is not a guideline, while Consensus is. Hello32020 17:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus through discussion, not through voting. --Holderca1 19:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it appears you failed to read the guideline: "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It has general acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." --Holderca1 19:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the reversion of the merge. I hardly saw a consensus to merge. Furthermore, it wasn't a stub. --Elliskev 19:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It has enough content to stand on its own. It isn't even a stub. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the comments that suggest consensus doesn't mean anything, remember: if there are more editors that disagree with your changes, there will be just as many people willing to revert. Consensus means a great deal on Wikipedia, and going against consensus almost always causes problems. --tomf688 (talk - email) 20:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Will revert the revert. Discuss, and don't revert - that just encourages revert warring. DRV is NOT the right place to take this either as it wasn't deleted. It fits perfectly into this article, and alone is nothing much MORE than a stub, even if technically it doesn't fit the criteria. – Ch acor 00:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, it was discussed. We thought that the Chris article was good enough as it was, and there was no need for a merge. The season article can be trimmed a bit and the info can go in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

We already discussed it. There is no need for further discusion, and we should add it back ASAP. Hello32020 01:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"There is no need for further discussion"? Good grief. – Ch acor 01:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is in the seasonal article now WAS in the main article, that's my point. It will stay merged - consensus is by discussion, not voting, and there were many pile-on opinions to keep without stating a reason. I've disqualified those opinions without stating a good reason - it's not a vote. You'll find that the consensus turns out to week keep or merge. – Ch acor 01:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You can't just unilaterally make a decision based on your own tastes and preferences, unilaterally judge the merit of others' opinions, and hold everyone else hostage by warning that you'll just start a reversion war from your own sense of higher moral ground. Why can't you accept that others disagree with you and may actually be just as right? --Elliskev 01:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As a former admin I know which "!votes" to discount and which not to. There is no clear consensus for a keep once you discard the pile-ons. Also, WP:CIV. – Ch acor 01:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In all discussions, AFD and RFA especially, the closing admin and bureaucrat has the option to discount opinions as it is a DISCUSSION not a VOTE. – Ch acor 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chacor, you can't just disqualify others' opnions. Some may disqualify your opnions too, so I don't think that should be considered a reason to not do something. (I hope I'm wording this right) Hello32020 01:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna make a RFC. Hello32020 01:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

While I don't see the need for a Chris article, you can't just override other people's opinions, Chacor. And stop waving WP:CIV around as a shield. bob rulz 01:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You will note that an RFC is not yet called for, while discussion is still on-going. An RFC is ridiculous and it is obviously an attempt to discredit me. – Ch acor 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

For transparency, the "!votes" I discounted: Icelandic, WmE, Good kitty, Ajm81, Halibut Thyme, Robomayhem (as as we've seen, the merge lost no info). Ends up being a week keep/merge. – Ch acor 01:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason I left Wikipedia and no longer have a username here. 206.47.141.21 17:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

EDITS TOO FAST CONFLICT:

Eh. Admin's "no big deal" and not really relevant when the admin (or former - whatever) is the person making the proposal. Just as strong a case could be made that there wasn't a consensus to merge. It's an interpretive thing and the fact that this discussion is even taking place lends proof to there being no consensus to merge. And WP:CIV? Where's that come from?--Elliskev 01:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

IRC

[2]. Please come to #wiki-hurricanes on irc.freenode.net to discuss an agreement. – Ch acor 01:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm there Hello32020 01:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too. bob rulz 01:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Side note, this is to avoid edit conflicts, so it's best if all involved can join. – Ch acor 01:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So far, only Elliskev and myself? – Ch acor 01:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll be on in a minute. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 01:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

??? I'm on it...only me and Hello32020 are there. bob rulz 01:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

are you on the right channel? #wiki-hurricanes --Elliskev 01:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Yeah...it says #wiki-hurricanes. bob rulz 01:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm on. íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 01:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a netsplit, I suspect. Please use asimov.freenode.net. – Ch acor 01:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to get there from that site...bob rulz 01:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I didn't know what I was talking about. I got it now. bob rulz 02:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

IRC discussion on Chris - result

After long discussions, the participants in the IRC discussion - myself, Elliskev, Crazy, Hurricanehink, Hello, Bob rulz (to a far lesser extent Ajm81, RattleMan, AySz88) - have agreed that Chris will remain merged into the seasonal article.

However, we have agreed to collaborate, together, on a new article, to be worked on at User:Hurricanehink/Sandbox.

I'm glad we've come to an amicable solution.

– Ch acor 02:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation:

Confirmed --Elliskev 02:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Confirmed --Hello32020 02:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Confirmed --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Confirmed -- CrazyC83 02:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Confirmed --bob rulz 02:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Finished

Good news, I finished the Chris article, and I think now it stands on its own. I found some good islands sources, and good preparations for this minimal storm. If an admin is reading this, can you move User:Hurricanehink/Sandbox to Tropical Storm Chris (2006)? Hurricanehink (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Storm articles

Yea, yea, we brought up this topic a while ago, but it can't hurt to do it one more time. Obviously, having an article right when a system becomes a storm isn't going to work. If they only threaten land and don't have much impact, articles will be fairly short and not flow well at all (per Chris). Should we wait to make articles for all storms until they have their final advisory? I know that sounds crazy, but it might be the best way, with the exception for storms that have preparations and impact while the storm is still active. Alberto worked as a current event article; it was upgraded accordingly, and the article handled the evacuations and impact as the info came in. Beryl and Chris, on the other hand, were written sentence by sentence as the storm changed, and info was very minimal while the storm was still active. Comments or ideas? Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that is a great idea. However, I think that since we are giving all articles of 2005-2006 their own articles, maybe we should create articles for every storm over the past decade. I know my idea seems crazy, but the correllation of notable storms to forgetful storms is about equal. guitarhero777777 03:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, let's not open that Pandora's Box ;) Articles for all storms have been proposed for storms back to around 2000, though we haven't set a date. We should talk about that on the Wikiproject talk page. However, we should first talk about storm articles operationally. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think that fishspinners should have articles. However, I do think that any storm that affects land and for which a decent preparations/impact/aftermath section can be written should be written. I just don't see much point in fishspinner pages (unless they're really powerful or there's something notable about them, or if they came close enough to land for people to take serious notice of it). bob rulz 03:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my main point. Either open the Pandora's Box or limit the articles. I can understand a powerful fishspinner like Dog (1950) or Cleo (1958), but not any storm, i.e. Phillippe (2005), I wouldn't have an article. guitarhero777777 04:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Pandora's Box has been opened, its just it takes time to write a lot of GOOD articles. The crucial thing is that the articles actually add something, which means a lot of effort would be needed to write Tropical Storm Chris (2000). There is no harm to a well written article on minor storms, provided the seasonal article doesn't suffer. Its best to come back to storms, both in the Atlantic and elsewhere, after they are gone. Writing their articles while they are current gets us creations like this, which is actually worse in quality than the season's section on it.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

How about setting some conditions for starting independent articles? The following is one possible set of conditions.

Any Category 3 or higher hurricane gets an article, regardless of whether or not it makes or threatens landfall as a hurricane.
Any Category 2 hurricane for which a hurricane warning is posted, regardless of whether or not it makes landfall as a hurricane.
Any Category 1 hurricane which makes landfall as a hurricane.
Any tropical storm which causes 10 or more deaths.
Any storm which causes $1,000,000,000 or more in damage.

Comments? Caerwine Caerwhine 14:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I like that criteria. I think I'll be sticking to storms that are not ongoing, just to avoid misinformation. We all know how the media operates nowadays. Thegreatdr 15:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I like it too.guitarhero777777 15:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is that criterion for future articles or are we going to excise past aricles about ones that don't fit those criteria? 69.17.67.11 16:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not. Chacor 16:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, Irene is notable because of her duration, so I can see adding that as another criterium, but I don't see anything notable about Philippe. Indeed, the only reason for having an article on him is if the criteria is every named storm gets an article. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Future articles. guitarhero777777 16:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In the gap between the storm forming and the TCR, that is a reasonable guideline (the $1 billion is superfluous though). After the TCR anything goes.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think his point is is that Irene was able to make it to featured article status, and Philippe was able to become a good article. But still, I agree very loosely with the criteria above, but I think $1 billion is far too high of a lower limit (I think it should be about $100 million, if we have criteria at all). However, I still believe that if there's enough information on a tropical cyclone then you should write an article on it, regardless of how much damage it did or how much it threatened land, as long as there's more info on it than there is on the season page. bob rulz 19:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Umm, Bob you slightly misunderstand what happened with Irene's FA. It was pretty strongly opposed on the "not long enough argument". The reason Philippe or Lee or any of the others is not an FA is we don't want to lose any goodwill for the project at FAC, not that they couldn't pass. I agree to these criteria for active storms. After the TCR - "it was named" is enough of a criterion for me.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Um...huh? I never said anything about why Philippe didn't become an FA. Chacor's point was that we shouldn't do that to past articles because Irene became a featured article and Philippe became a good article...bob rulz 19:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Crossed wires.. I think Chacor was responding to the anon's "excise past articles" - get rid of the ones which didn't meet the criteria. Chacor's comment had nothing to do with the FA/GA status of Philippe/Irene but to do with their existence.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'll bet he chose those two for precisely that reason. He didn't mention it directly...but he implied it. Either that or it was just a coincedence. bob rulz 19:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Those criteria work, sorta. I don't necessarily agree with the Category 3's. If it's approaching land, then it's fine, but if it's a fish Category 3+, like Karl (2004), it might be better to wait until it's done so we can get a good storm history. Also, if a Category 2 causes hurricane warnings but does not make landfall, it still might be better to wait. What about a storm like Hurricane Alex in 2004? The info wasn't really there operationally, and you never know what it's going to do. However, any landfalling hurricane is a decent criterion. Landfalling hurricanes would likely have preparations info (evacs and warnings), as well as damage fairly quickly due to local sources. The question is, when would we make the article? Would we make it once hurricane warnings are posted, once the center crosses a land mass, or once the final advisory is written? US storms should have more weight, due to NWS offices and newspapers. However, should other areas be different? What if a category 1 hurricane moved through the Lesser Antilles? It made landfall as a hurricane, but there might not be too much damage or information. The storm history would also be unknown as well. What if it dissipated and the storm did nothing? Sorry for all of the questions, but there are a lot of scenarios. I suppose it is a storm-by-storm basis, but we shouldn't have repeats of Beryl and Chris, which barely have enough information to justify keeping them. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If it dissapates and does nothing, (such as Lee and Chris) CHUNK IT, unless it's like Epsilon or Zeta. No need for another Lee. Lee, in my opinion, was the worst idea (but by no means the worst article, mind you) for a tropical cyclone article. It was a tropical storm for 12 hours, and was the very definition of fishspinner. Let's keep the ones we have now and try to control ourselves from having a seperate article on a depression that just formed and has exsisted for 6 hours, 1,000 miles from anywhere. →Cyclone1→ 22:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

When we start getting preparations, or significant media attention, whichever comes first. Tito xd^(?!?) 06:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that works well. There could be the problem if a storm doesn't have much preparations or media attention but should certainly have an article (Stan last year), but for the most part I agree. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I say keep them all - they make for a useful resource when researching storms of the past. Tropical Storm Lee (2005) is a very impressive article given the circumstances. Though I would say people have a point when they say we should wait until post-analysis before creating articles for lacklustre storms. Pobbie Rarr 16:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is only for future storms. Any existing storms will probably be kept. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we should wait until post-analysis with future Lees & Chrises. Pobbie Rarr 20:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I think on when to create, redirect and keep articles before the TCR (at which point articles are always created). An article should be created initially if:

At least a Tropical Storm Watch is issued.
The intensity reaches Category 3 or higher with the storm pointing towards land (to get the buildup factor).
The storm duration is at least 14 days (the Irene factor).
The length in the season section is too long.

The article should be redirected back (with the text saved for the TCR) if the storm does not make landfall or have significant land effects, unless it would be too long in the season section.

Remaining articles should be created when the TCR comes out. CrazyC83 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That could work, but there are too many cases when a tropical storm watch is issued without much, if any impact. The same goes for a tropical storm warning. Beryl and Chris barely have enough info justifying articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In those cases, redirect it back when the storm dies unless it meets another criteria. That criteria is for an initial (active storm) article before the TCR. CrazyC83 15:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I like it when EVERY storm has an artcle that I can click to. Even if it's short. -Winter123 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Me too, but when a good storyline can be made - and that often requires the TCR. If Debby is named from TD4 and is a threat to Cape Verde, it is still land and should be made into an article. CrazyC83 19:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Think about it. What would the article say? We have no info on preparations on Cape Verde (except the TS warn), and no info on impact. It'd leave us with a very technical storm history, and that's all. Would hardly be a stub. – Ch acor 11:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CrazyC83 and others. If it threatens the Cape Verde Islands it is land and article should be made for it. Tropical Storm Warning is enough criteria (as long as this becomes Tropical Storm Debby). Hello32020 11:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC) (I also think Watch is criteria Hello32020 12:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is better to have a well-written section in the seasonal article than a badly-written, quickly-put-together stub article. – Ch acor 12:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For once I actually agree with Chacor (shocking!). bob rulz 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. From WP:STUB: The community values stubs as useful first steps toward complete articles. I see no reason why we can't have a stub and a well-written section in the seasonal article. --Elliskev 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Stubs are bad when that is all they will ever be. --Holderca1 14:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, it was not a stub. It was a pretty well-written start. --Elliskev 14:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with all of these articles on these fishspinners is that there's hardly any information that can't be included in the summary on the main season page that can be included on the main page for the storm. I'm not necessarily opposed to them, I just don't really see a need for them. All we're doing is essentially rewriting the TCRs. bob rulz 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I think the triggering point on whether an active storm gets its own article is if there are sources available other than the NHC. If the AP, Reuters, ect.. publish an article, then we should have enough information to create an article. Otherwise, the storm would wait until it dies to get an article if it warrants it. --Holderca1 13:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Makes sense. If there's only one source, we're basically copying it but putting it into different words. I think a storm deserves an article when it has more than say.. 3 sources? However, there will obviously be some notable exceptions. Personally, I think it's a matter of common sense. Articles like Tropical Storm Lee (2005) can fit into the seasonal storms article perfectly. Sections such as "Naming and records" will not really be needed if the article was merged back into the 2005AHSS since there are numerous sections talking about records. Although this is a very debatable topic, I don't think non-notable storms with only the TCR as a source deserve articles. If they stay articles, it would be pretty much impossible to expand them further than a storm history which could fit into the seasonal article, an "impact" section that simply states "_____ did not make landfall.. no fatalities reported.. etc" and maybe a short naming section that only says "____ is the __th named storm." Honestly, it's like we're desperately trying to add more information to the article. -tcwd 01:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with part of that. An article that is only a rewrite of the TCR is not needed. However, if it uses the NHC advisories, in detail, I am fine with keeping no- to low-impact storm articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)