Talk:Tropical Depression Two-E (2006)

Tropical Depression Two-E (2006) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 21, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
June 29, 2010	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
February 2, 2023	Good article reassessment	Kept
February 27, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Low‑importance

	Weather portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This redirect is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Depression Two-E (2006)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

The article is great. It satisfies the GA criteria. However, I am placing its promotion on hold until one thing is cleared up. The article currently states "at 1500 UTC on June 3 the NHC classified the system as Tropical Depression Two-E". This statement is not directly cited but the time of classification is noted in two of the references: [1] says "1800 UTC" and [2] says "1500 GMT". Is this one of these sources in error? or am I missing something? If there are two values floating around perhaps the statement in the article should be cited directly to one of those. Also, the article states "partially flooded 42 houses" and is referenced to [3] which states "about 40 homes" - 42 seems oddly specific.

Also, this won't disqualify the article from GA status, but I thought I'd bring it up here. "developed good outflow" - perhaps something more descriptive than good would be better. Illustrative adjectives can also help avoid losing readers to other articles if they can catch the meaning without reading another article. --maclean 21:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really checked the thing out closely, nice! :) The sentence is cited by the next reference, which says 1500z (z meaning Zulu, which is UTC). The flooding thing was me getting a tad confused in translation, but you're right, it should be "about 40 homes". For the "good outflow", that was the wording in the source. Sometimes the source is more specific, saying something like well-defined outflow. It's not really the case here, and I can't think of a better wording than that. Thanks for the review, and I hope I cleared that up. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I have no other concerns regarding the article. --maclean 18:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing much about the tropical depression here (it did some damage, but it is minimal), and most other storms in 2006 PHS FT are now merged. SMB9 9thx my edits 09:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support TD's are not notable, with Noah's 19E 2018, being the notable exception (no pun intended). 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:44, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No damage and death. a weak depression MergeJanm 7 (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose enough information on damage. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChessEric, Cyclonetracker, and Dam222: What about you? SMB9 9thx my edits 01:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is enough information about the impacts and there is a chance it can be expanded. Doesn't need to be merged.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It did not affect much, so it would be appropriate to merge it Dam222 (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dam222: I think you mean support then.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 07:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not much impact, and nothing notable otherwise. Gex4pls (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point? This applies to almost every merger proposal in the last few weeks (months?) and I've not gotten a response other than "GA's can be merged" and something something no impact on land. We are suppose to build an encyclopedia; not take down established articles just to feel like we accomplished something. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – passes WP:GNG, sufficient coverage. This merging crusade is getting rather tiresome. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is enough. @Hurricanehink: consider closing this as No consensus. SMB9 9thx my edits 06:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

GA Reassessment

Tropical Depression Two-E (2006)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Procedural delist. Noah, AA^Talk 14:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for a merge at Talk:2006 Pacific hurricane season. Noah, AA^Talk 14:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.