Talk:Tropical Storm Krovanh (2020)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tropical Storm Krovanh (2020) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 December 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

Tambayan Philippines Low‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Weather: Tropical / Western Pacific Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article 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 article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pacific typhoon work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Merge to 2020 Pacific typhoon season

Merge moratorium applies. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 02:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Generally unnotable storm. Minimal damage to the Philippines compared to other storms this year and not even enough to have its PH name retired? I can go on and on for storms which hit the Philippines as a low pressure system then briefly strengthened in the South China Sea. Take Etau for instance; it impacted Vietnam and Philippines but has no article???

Also it appears the impact section can't fit more than a few sentences and it's copy and pasted from the season article. MH is also a direct copy and paste from the season article. This storm doesn't need its own article considering the minimal damage and the very little media coverage on it. Unless you can expand the impact section and expamd the MH section (part of the reason we even make articles for TCs) my mind is not changed. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude it’s only been up for a few minutes, give it some time to expand.Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk)

You mean for about 2 days and 14 hours? Doesn't appear like you've put the effort into even trying to put more info on here for the days it was in draftspace besides what we already know from the info added to the season article (part of the reason this article didn't even needed to be made...)

Also I've also searched on Google for the news on for this, and I see little info on significant impacts (that's not already covered on the copy and pasted section). I have very little hope for this article to expand since there has been little updates online since yesterday and the day before Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm supporting a takedown of this article entirely. Actually, hold on... ~ AC5230 talk 21:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should move this back to draft since I was not ready for this to become an article yet. We should do that instead of deleting it.Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk)

Hmm, draftifying this would be fine for now @Robloxsupersuperhappyface:. Moving back to draftspace so you don't lose all you've put in the article and so you can put info in later, although not sure of what you would add (but for WP:CHANCE's sake I have no say), instead of removing the whole article's contents altogether would make more sense if you're truly confident enough you can expand it. Also, it appears AC5230 did not intend to request complete deletion? Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Oppose 8 deaths and $2 million in damage is really enough. The article is borderline start-class, though you can argue it a stub. However, this does not mean that we should merge it. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 22:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Struck per user request below, who closed discussion. --Hurricane Tracker 495 17:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Hurricaneboy23: There is a merge moratorium in place until February 23, you will need to gain consensus at WT: WPTC for violating that first. Also, I still oppose, maybe we can think of merging it in a few weeks. --Hurricane Tracker 495 23:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now and also same reasoning as Destroyeraa. I personally think Krovanh deserves an article, however let's see how the article goes for now. I'll try help expanding in the impacts section. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Did anyone listen to my merge moratorium comment? --Hurricane Tracker 495 12:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now No comment HurricaneEdgar 15:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we ignoring the draftification proposal instead? In this phase this article clearly isn't finished enough to be in mainspace, even the creator of the article said himself he wasn't ready for it to be published. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Destroyeraa: I think this merge should be closed because 90% is against the merge Dam222 🌋 (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it lacks of notability plus it also didn't do some dramatic as Linfa did. Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) 17:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However I would prefer to remain this as a draft rather than an article so that once it reaches according to WP:NN, we'll shift again to an article. Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I think we should move it back to draftspace and when it's ready by WP:NN and WPTC standards in general we'll move it back to draftspace. The creator of the article himself said he wasn't even ready for it to be published, so this is more logical. Hurricaneboy23 (page) * (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricaneboy23: We can move it to draftspace but absolutely must not merge with consensus for an exception to themerge moratorium or a WP: CFORK vio. --Hurricane Tracker 495 22:07, 24 December 2020 (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.

Error-10 minute sustained winds higher then 1 minute

This has to be false. It can't be 10 minute sustained a tropical storm and on our scale a depression. --Hurricane Tracker 495 13:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't false as the JMA considered it to be a tropical storm, while the JTWC only considered to be a tropical depression. These 5 knot differences of opinions happen from time to time and will no doubt be ironed out during the post storm anaylsis.Jason Rees (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable fact

Krovank was the third storm this year named Vicky. Should that be put in the article or is it too trivial? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idk, but no probs with me Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) 12:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial. --Hurricane Tracker 495 13:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possible inappropriate closure to discussion above

!vote struck per user request. --Hurricane Tracker 495 17:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Destroyeraa closed the above discussion twice, claiming per WP: IAR, to enforce a merge moratorium, to close discussion. However, as they participated, they can't close. Sure there's IAR but it doesn't justify every policy, and plenty of active users. Requesting another uninvolved user to reclose(Cyclone Toby perhaps), with his signature, because Destroyeraa technically !supervoted. --Hurricane Tracker 495 14:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneTracker495: The merge moratorium is in place, and this should've never been opened. The moratorium was imposed so we'll f ok customers more on improving content and creating articles than destroying them or bringing them down. IAR applies here: If closing it improves WP, then who cares about the rules? Merry Christmas! ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 14:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Destroyeraa: Yes, but there's WP: IAR?. It isn't too much to wait for an uninvolved user to close it, yes it should've never been opened but maybe that is an example of IAR too? Two wrongs don't make a right, do they? Hurricane Tracker 495 14:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneTracker495: Just leave it, ok? It will eventually be closed, but who closes it won't matter much in the long run, since it doesn't do much to the encyclopedia. Think of the encyclopedia as a whole. Too much talking and debating is a big problem for WPTC, which is why the MM is in place. Please leave it. Thanks, and merry Christmas! ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 15:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It won't matter in the long long run, but in short term, it will. I was thinking of the encyclopedia, when I wasted 45 minutes doing google searches to find information on Effects of Hurricane Andrew in Louisiana(which will likely be merged back or deleted if no one can do anything about it). Not wasting another half hour yet. If you want, I can remove your !vote, Destroyeraa. --Hurricane Tracker 495 15:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneTracker495: Sure, you can remove my !vote. Regarding Andrew, take your time. Finding sources isn’t easy, which is why we should be jabbing on other’s bottoms after they created an article claiming it is too short or notable but too short. Give them time to find sources. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 15:40, 25 December 2020 (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.