Talk:Tropical Storm Haishen (2008)

Tropical Storm Haishen (2008) 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
February 13, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
June 19, 2017	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

I have an idea

And that is we get our axe out. Why? So we can get rid of this article. Why? Cause it's on nothing interesting. It was some dud TS in the middle of nowhere. as I said, the storm is not even interesting! If the storm was interesting/long, we can debate, but here we can't. Sure it's a GA, but nothing special in my mind as IMO it is a pretty average GA. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 01:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge proposal for this storm, no longer meets any of the relevant WP:WPTC notability guidelines, outdated GA. Short lived storm that caused minimal impact on sea and did nothing noteworthy. Secret ^account 02:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's notable to be included IMO on wiki. It's simply there's not enough useful content to exist. It's a 1 paragraph season section kind of storm (and will be one 1 para once I cut it down). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support a merge of Tropical Storm Haishen. Even if it is a good article, as Secret said it no longer meets the notability standards that the tropical cyclone WikiProject is trying to set. Having articles like these strewn about doesn't help with the development and growth of the WikiProject. It's about time we move on from trying to maintain these non-notable items simply for the sake of making the project stats look better and move on to fostering bigger things. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 04:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, these pages require no maintenance :F As for the offset WW rise, it is too small to make much of a diffrence anyway. I love the thought of having as many articles as possible (and it often gets in the way of my decision making), but at this point, if it's gonna be a 261 word season section, why should it exist? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 05:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why we're still in the habit of decimating articles in the midst of merge proposals. There's no good reason for it other than to possibly mislead passers-by into thinking we've somehow promoted such a dubious GA as to require immediate deletion. Fair would be to leave the article as close to its GAN revision as possible for the duration of the merge discussion. If consensus is in favor of merging, then it's appropriate to consolidate the info. That said, having seen the article yesterday, I think this is a fairly clear case of an inconsequential storm whose history could easily be contained within the season article. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

I just noticed this short, stubby article. Should it be merged? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tropical Storm Haishen (2008). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/ab/abpw10.pgtw..txt
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/dynasmon/JMA.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/wt/wtpn21.pgtw..txt
Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/wt/wtpn31.pgtw..txt
Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/wd/wdpn31.pgtw..txt
Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/wt/wtpn31.pgtw..txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (2nd)

This storm is short-lived and didn't cause any impacts.

@Jason Rees, Cyclonebiskit, and Hurricanehink: pinging the main editors of this article. --219.78.191.189 (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't this merged yet? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the merge because IP's aren't suppose to delist GA's AFAIK plus I didn't see the content actually moved. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]