Jump to content

Talk:List of storms named Stan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 22 October 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved in favour of a RfC or consensus-building process. This is a mess right now. Tavix, in light of your proposal, I have to say that moving this page to the location which 3 editors support is not going to act as a precedent. In fact, this should have been closed long ago - and now, it's intertwined with other hurricane articles with ongoing discussions, even if their rationale is different. Hence, by this procedural close, I suppose, an RfC will emerge after this which will involve a wider spectrum of audience to gauge what is the correct way to address these articles. QEDK (愛) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Stan (disambiguation) → Tropical Storm Stan – "Stan" not only use in Atlantic basin, but also in Australian region N-C16 (talk) 07:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 23:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Striking in favor of my alternative proposal, see below. -- Tavix (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bkonrad: It seems your only point of contention is the fact that it uses the "(disambiguation)" qualifier. Would you support a rename to Cyclone Stan then? -- Tavix (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine by me. older ≠ wiser 15:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Roman Spinner and Gorthian: Would you both support a move to Cyclone Stan? -- Tavix (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tavix: I must admit, I didn't look closely enough at this when I first chimed in. I'm hesitant to move it to Cyclone Stan because I'm not sure of the equivalency of hurricanes and cyclones. If they're just regional differences in the names (i.e., they mean the same thing), then naming the page Cyclone Stan would make sense. I do know that they all start out as tropical storms, which is why I went along with the nomination earlier. Also, I was thinking of future storms that may be named Stan. I wish someone from WP:TROP would help this out; there are probably standards for SIAs in this area.
One thing I am sure of is that when this gets moved to whatever title, it should be done without leaving a redirect. Bkonrad is right, this isn't a disambiguation page, and the new name won't change that either. — Gorthian (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect should not be in any DAB category, but it should remain by this name. It does no harm, and when redirect creation was suppressed when the Ada page was recently moved, it left ten broken wikilinks which nobody is ever likely to fix unless we now create the redir that should have been created. See Wikipedia:Page mover#Redirect suppression criteria. Andrewa (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I moved this before realizing we had a discussion here. The project had attempted discussing this here, but it wasn't settled, and there still isn't a great answer. One title that was thrown around was "List of tropical cyclones named Stan". I think that's too long. I think "Tropical Storm Stan" works fine. It's concise, and "Tropical Storm X" is a good generic term for storms around the world. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per the WikiProject discussion, I think disambiguation pages should remain at "Tropical Storm X", with "Hurricane X" and others redirecting there. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 08:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the conclusion that this is a set index article. It is formatted like a disambiguation page, not a list, and it has no additional information about each storm. It is not the same as what List of tropical cyclones named Stan might be. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 16:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it as a SIA "stub", with room to grow. :-) There are many differences between SIAs and dab pages, but one of them is the template at the bottom of the page. — Gorthian (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nota bene* Four more requested moves have been posted that are effectively the same discussion as is happening here. I left a message on the WikiProject talk page, as I think this discussion needs to happen there before any of these pages are moved (and I really don't think they should be proposed individually). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 06:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I have relisted the other four to await an outcome here. Andrewa (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: Might I suggest a procedural close for all of these recent tropical-storm RMs? Several of them were opened by IPs that are suspected socks; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N-C16 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Numerous requested page moves. I'm not really familiar with protocol here, but it seems to me that these have already caused enough disruption. Even trying to follow these pages is a mess. — Gorthian (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to harmonize all of these indexes by moving them all to the same format. By having the format be "List of storms named Stan", we know exactly where all of the indexes are, instead of having some be at "Tropical Storm Name", others at "Tropical Storm Name (qualifier)", and others still at "Hurricane Name", "Cyclone Name", etc. It'd cut down on these discussions we're having now. Any ambiguous name not being used as a primary topic would redirect to that index, so "Tropical Storm Stan" and "Cyclone Stan" would redirect to this index, but "Hurricane Stan" would not. -- Tavix (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. It has all the advantages of my X (named storm) proposal (below), and some others as well.
There is at least one page with a name already of almost this form, List of tropical storms named Ada, following a recent move with the edit summary set index naming, not dab page. I asked about this one below but no response, and it needs work too as it's currently also tagged with three different templates that put it into three DAB categories. I'd also remove the word tropical from the Ada list title as arguably redundant, and/or unhelpful anyway. It's better for all such lists to be scoped to explicitly cover all such named storms, so just List of storms named X is the go IMO.
I think a subsection dedicated to this alternate proposal would be helpful... but I've been criticised below for creating subsections... would someone else like to do it? Immediately above the Discussion section I suggest as it's logically part of the Survey section. A level-three Survey subheading would help too for a discussion of this length, that's normally the top section and where all !votes belong. The aim of these subheadings is mainly to make it easier for the closing admin (and others) to pick up the threads, but they also make editing easier. Andrewa (talk) 21:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to Tito 6 December 2016 (UTC): True, but IMO the List of storms named X format is worth the extra work. Many page moves and edits are required whichever way we go. The end result of the List of storms named X proposal is more editor-friendly as it needs no exceptions. But more important, it is the most reader-friendly solution too. We are a general encyclopedia. Our bottom line is readers, who can't all be expected to know that a storm that wreaks its damage in temperate latitudes is still technically a tropical cyclone, or that the naming conventions vary depending on the basin concerned. Andrewa (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alternate proposal

[edit]
We don't need a new category. They are already correctly in Category:Set indices on storms as we've decided they're SIAs. That's not going to change. -- Tavix (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Struck out that part, but see Talk:List of storms named Ada#Category names Andrewa (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
[edit]

From above:

Might I suggest a procedural close for all of these recent tropical-storm RMs? Several of them were opened by IPs that are suspected socks; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/N-C16 andTalk:Hurricane Winifred (1992) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Numerous requested page moves. I'm not really familiar with protocol here, but it seems to me that these have already caused enough disruption. Even trying to follow these pages is a mess. — Gorthian (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those links. The related RMs are

and agree they could be closed, but I see no advantage in that at this stage. And there's at least one problem with closing them: The decision here should be noted on those other RMs, which can't be neatly done if they are closed. And if instead a new section is opened on those four other talk pages, it might be separated from the RMs when they're eventually archived.

I'll post heads-ups on those discussions. But the problem is not that they are a mess, the problem is that this RM has become rather involved. Not sure the best way to untangle it right now. There are important issues being clarified above. Andrewa (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa, thanks for your considerate response. — Gorthian (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to interrupt what is clearly a very involved discussion that I haven't been in, so I may be missing something here, but I'm not sure the above four moves have too much to do wiht the issue on this one? This discussion appears to concern what to do aobut the dab page / list article / set article / concept dab, or whatever may end up here; yet those four discussions are about individual specific storms, and whether they should have a disambiguator or not. I think those questions can be answered in isolation, independent of whatever is decided here, and I have voted "support" for the first three, since they are the only hurricanes with those names, and oppose to the last, since "tropical storm" is a much more general term which could cover the typhoons and hurricanes as well. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The relationship between these RMs was always questionable, in glorious hindsight. If someone else closes the others I certainly won't object. But my focus is on resolving this one. Andrewa (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On further reflection you are quite right. The one you oppose has already (rightly IMO) closed as consensus not to move, but nothing has developed here that affects any of the four, so I've now cast my own support !votes on the other three. Andrewa (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DAB or set index

[edit]

As noted above, a page in the article space cannot be both. That is a key issue here.

The page is currently [1] tagged with template:storm index but is also in Category:Atlantic hurricane disambiguation pages and Category:Australian region cyclone disambiguation pages. This is part of the problem.

Comments? Which should it be? How do we decide? Andrewa (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • A set-index article is far and away the best solution. These storm-name pages are almost tailor-made for SIAs, which are about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name. These are all items of a specific type (named storms) that share the same name ("Stan", in this case). On a set index, there's far more leeway to add descriptions, links, references, templates, and images. They are truly articles, which disambiguation pages are emphatically not. A dab page is very narrowly defined as a navigation aid: it's only there as a steppingstone in a search for a particular article. — Gorthian (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related question: if we go for a SIA for Stan, will there eventually be any pages at all in Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation pages and its several subcategories?

This seems to me to be a major change of direction. Perhaps not the first such change, see Template:Hurricane disambiguation... but that looks minor by comparison.

I've posted a heads-up [2] at the WikiProject. Andrewa (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that {{Hurricane disambiguation}} is deprecated and is retained only for historical purposes (whatever that might mean). The current template is {{storm index}}. However the storm disambiguation categories have not been updated to reflect status as set indices. older ≠ wiser 11:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nor has the guidance documentation. I get the impression that this (using SIAs) is the change they have been moving towards, but it will take time to implement. — Gorthian (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's possible, but there's another possible interpretation... that the documentation is current and people are just ignoring it. Has the change been discussed within the WikiProject? Andrewa (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that, but it's only the template that is deprecated. It placed pages into Category:Tropical cyclone disambiguation pages, which has now become a container category. Its subcategories (such as Category:Atlantic hurricane disambiguation pages) remain active it seems, as do their corresponding templates... see Category talk:Tropical cyclone disambiguation pages#Note for authors, to which Category:Atlantic hurricane disambiguation pages links for instructions...
The more I look the messier it gets... see Category talk:Tropical cyclone disambiguation pages#((hurricane disambig)) for example, no evidence of consensus.
Which leads me to believe that resolving this RM might be very helpful. Preferably of course with input from the WikiProject... I'll post another heads-up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Wider issues, but there has been no response to date that I have noticed. Should we perhaps ping individual members of the WikiProject who are currently active in other areas? Andrewa (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate to raise it, but there's relevant discussion at Template talk:Dmbox, and I'm beginning to think that WikiProject Disambiguation might need to be consulted too. Andrewa (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Most general term

[edit]

It appears to me that the most general term is tropical cyclone, and that this is a key issue here.

Related terms are cyclone and tropical storm. These terms are less general... but there's a complication in that cyclone is also used to describe a tornado. OK so far? Are there other related terms I've missed?

In particular, is there a term such as named storm which would be more general still and could be used as an alternative to the possibly ambiguous other terms? Andrewa (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of terms used by meteorologists to describe TC's and you have just done the most common ones. Anyway if we are to go down the road of SIA's then i think they should be named List of storms named X and include any relevant non tropical systems that are named like Barbara, which in all likelihood will be named by the UKMO or Met Eirrean soon.Jason Rees (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your contribution. Yes, agree there are other terms, and if I have just doneed the most common ones (my emphasis) then I'm delighted. I hope you are right (any other comments on this?).
Note that User:Jason Rees has corrected their typo above, but it doesn't affect the sense IMO. Andrewa (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because I think that's exactly what we need to do here. These less common terms are probably irrrelevant. I'd still like suggestions of any, but that's just to consider and eliminate them.
Less common terms should be used for articles on individual storms if they are part of the common name for that particular storm, but the question here is, what to call this DAB? (That's assuming that it remains a DAB, but the issues if it's a set index are pretty much the same.)
The rules for a DAB will need to be a bit more elaborate, and I'm thinking we may even want to prefer the more common and/or general terms for such storms in naming a DAB. Andrewa (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The way forward

[edit]

There seems to be a decrease in discussion above... perhaps I'm responsible. There is much to consider.

There's an (excellent) informal naming convention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Naming. Perhaps this should be expanded and used as the basis for a formal naming convention.

And we need to decide whether this page is to be a DAB, set index or even a BCA, and rename it accordingly if necessary. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrewa, It's always been my experience that discussion decreases rather drastically on weekends. — Gorthian (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) While in this particular instance, it might be possible to have a disambiguation page titled as Cyclone Stan, with a hatnote at Hurricane Stan and mentioning Hurricane Stan in a see also on the disambiguation page, that would not give much useful precedent for cases where there are multiple hurricanes named Stan (or perhaps throw in a Tropical Storm Stan as well) and either the "disambiguation" page devolves into a list of things of a similar type (storms) that happen to have the same short name, which is almost the definition of a set index. I suggest using the lowest common denominator (such a Tropical storm) as the "type" name for the set indices and use only set indices (rather than a mix of SIA and dab pages). I'd leave it to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones to agree on a naming convention for the set indices, but all the other similarly named storm pages should either be redirects to the set index or have a hatnote linking to it. older ≠ wiser 21:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Andrewa (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I would do

[edit]

I would:

  • Have a DAB or SIA at Stan (named storm). Move this page there.
  • Regard all named storms as ipso facto notable.
    • I could live with notable enough for a dab page or watever we want to call them, but not for a full blown article since in some regions there are storms that do nothing but disturb the fish and can just be covered in the season articles.Jason Rees (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name articles on named storms according to their common name if there is one eg Cyclone Tracy and according to the local met naming convention if in any doubt (it will most often be the same).
    • The only problem i can forsee with this is, when the RSMC changes the intensity post season eg it becomes a hurricane rather than a tropical storm its rare but it does happen from time to time.Jason Rees (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem... set up a redir, and if the new name takes off as a common name (even less likely as all the news coverage will have been under the old name, but theoretically possible) then move the article. Andrewa (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Set up a formal naming convention to be discussed and approved at WT:AT, and eventually move ALL named storm DABs and SIAs and lists to the X (named storm) format, with a suitable category and template.
    • Do we really need yet another discussion, it seems like this one has dragged on and on too much and I can not keep up with it personally.
  • Similarly set up a notability guideline... I'd go for all named storms, but at least all retired names should have an article on the storm that retired the name, and if the name has been used previously, probably a list/DAB/SIA of some sort as well.

The named storm disambiguator has two big things going for it. One is, it won't ever clash with the name of a particular storm... neither with the official name nor with the common name even if they are different. The other is, it's general enough to fit all (but only) the topics we want covered, anywhere in the world. I don't think any other disambiguator meets either of these two desirable criteria. This meets both.

But the List of storms named X is an even better proposal IMO. Andrewa (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So that's my thinking. The competing authorities and conflicting definitions of cyclone etc. justify a Wikipedia naming convention IMO. So set some clear rules, tidy things up (quite a lot to do there but well worth the effort) and all get back to improving articles. Other thoughts? Andrewa (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The project already has extensive standards for articles of all kinds. As someone who knows little about the field, I would defer to project members on this subject. It seems to me that this whole discussion should more appropriately be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, so as to catch the regulars. — Gorthian (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree... but are there any regulars at present? Two heads-ups have failed to get any response here or there. This RM should also have attracted the attention of anyone using the automated tools to watch pages under the scope of the WikiProject.
There are some regulars around but this discussion has spiraled out of control and been broken into so many subheaders that its a bit too monomoutus to deal with.Jason Rees (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you find the subheaders unhelpful. The discussion was already involved and they are an attempt to disentangle it a bit. There is much to consider. Andrewa (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These extensive standards are excellent but seem neglected, and there is much cleaning up to do. This RM addresses a little of that cleaning up. Someone needs to do it.
And this RM result will either be part of that cleaning up, or will add to the mess to be cleaned up.
Moving the discussion to the WikiProject pages is counterproductive unless there is someone at home there to respond. If there is not, as seems the case, we just need to sadly flag this once active and vital WikiProject as now inactive, and the necessary cleaning up needs to be done by the wider community. It happens.
If this discussion had not off become so long and complex then yeah there probably would have been more contributors, but personally it seems like every time i look at this discussion @Andrewa: has added another section to it. I was also not amused to have emphasis put on some comments that I made over the weekend when I felt that they made sense bar the couple of typos I made.Jason Rees (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I irritated you, and frankly you irritated me when you modified a comment to which I had already replied (a trivial breach of guidelines, but quite unnecessary).
And as I said above, I'm just trying to untangle a very involved discussion. It was involved before I arrived, and the more I look the more complex it gets. This is not my fault.
Perhaps I have gone overboard, but before I arrived there was no discussion section at all, it was all a ramble cluttering up the survey. Have some pity on the closing admin!
If this discussion closes with a consensus that is contrary to the wishes of WikiProject members who have not participated and offered their expertise, then they have only themselves to blame. Andrewa (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest above pinging individual members. I haven't done it as yet. Feel free. Just go to the list of members, see whether any have contributed in the last week or so, and ping them all in one message here is my suggestion... but it could be done in many other ways. I recommend linking from here to the pings (or whatever you use) to avoid any suggestion of canvassing.
And/or we could see whether WikiProject Disambiguation and/or the WikiProject Council are interested in helping. Andrewa (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly made a start on the List of storms named X proposal, see Talk:List of storms named Ada. Andrewa (talk) 00:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Lists of storms. Andrewa (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there is a consensus for List off storms named XX. The next step from there is merging the storm names together by letter: List of storm names (A), List of storm names (U-Z), etc. This way, we wouldn't have to move hundreds of pages to the new title, just combine them. Here is my idea for how it would look. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree we have consensus on this, but that is not for us to judge... it's for the closing admin of this RM.
Disagree that we should take that next step here. The next step here, if you are right, is to move this article to List of storms named Stan and close this rather involved RM.
You can help the closing admin by casting an explicit !vote at #Alternate proposal. (See, the subheadings can be useful!)
The step after that is to seek consensus on the way forward. Best to discuss your proposal for a week or so, and that discussion can start immediately. I suggest at Talk:List of storms named Ada#Merge proposal rather than further cluttering this RM. As you say, there is much to do. Andrewa (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will take your advice after the current move is finished. :) This whole discussion has been quite productive, and the perspective from people other than the main project writers has been quite refreshing! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_storms_named_Stan&oldid=1203692052"