Talk:Tropical Storm Debby (2006)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tropical Storm Debby (2006) article.
Article policies
Good article Tropical Storm Debby (2006) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Hurricanes
 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.
Peer review
 This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

Contents

[edit] Merge?

OK, someone added a merge notice to this article. So, by definition, we should discuss whether or not to merge it. I think the article should stay for these reasons.

  1. It is the most comprehensive source for Debby information online. Nowhere else has the storm history using the Tropical Weather Outlooks and many discussions.
  2. What would it accomplish? This is a pretty good Debby article, IMO. By merging it, you would lose information on it.
  3. We already agreed that all storms for post-2005 would get articles eventually.

Hurricanehink (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All the "storms that did nothing" storm articles were kept. This is an awesome article, and I don't see any valid reason merging it. I'd say KEEP! :) RaNdOm26 09:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's well sourced and written. Someone waving around Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information will say this level of detail is arguably unnecessary for a fishie. Someone saying Wikipedia is not paper will say we can have this level of detail for those interested in the development, timeline and consequences of this storm. I agree per Hink and random26. TransUtopian 11:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep as long as equal effort is put towards the Eastern Pacific storms of which all have as much information available as does the least interesting Atlantic storm which has an article (See Tropical Storm Lee (2005). Otherwise, merge. It's the inconsistency and bias towards the Atlantic that drives me crazy. A fishspinner in the Atlantic is no more notable or interesting than a fishspinner in the Pacific. I don't know how available some of the information for the other basins is, I would imagine the Aussies are pretty good about it. So those storms should also have articles. I would think there are some far more interesting storms than Debby that don't have articles, but do have the information available to make them. It has been awhile since I have sifted through the JTWC archives, but from what I remember they are pretty good. Well, that's all I have for now. --Holderca1 18:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's probably not going to happen. The reason for the obvious bias is because more people are interested in the Atlantic. I think every named storm on the planet should get an article, but lack of interest is the biggest problem. You can't force people to make articles for EPAC storms. If people want to make Atlantic articles, why are you going to stop them? Hurricanehink (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
That is shown by the season articles. With the exception of 1997 PHS (A) and 2003 PHS (FA), most of the seasonal articles are very poor (and worse than the atlantic equivalent). I see no harm in doing the Atlantic stuff preferentially, though we shouldn't exclude the EPac storms when someone wants to write good articles :)--Nilfanion (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes and no, there always has been and always will be more interest in the Atlantic basin than the EPac, but I don't think there is more interest in every little storm. For most of last year only the major storms had articles, Katrina, Rita, Wilma and others. Most of even the landfalling storms didn't have articles. Tropical Storm Allison used to be the only TS with it's own article. But the trend started to change late in the year when Alpha hit Haiti and caused 20-25 deaths, which by Haitian standards isn't all that notable. Alpha got an article as did every other storm that followed it. With the unusually high number of storms and with very few of them being fishspinners, it looked odd to some to not have articles for these few storms. Well, the EPac is still creating articles the same way it and the Atlantic did prior to last year. But I think there are a few storms in the EPac that should get an article that doesn't have one. Daniel, which I have worked on a bit in my sandbox, being the most deserving. --Holderca1 19:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Last year, some non-major storms had articles; Cindy, Emily, Maria, and Ophelia all had articles. The reason most storms didn't have articles is, again, because of interest. A lot more interest joined the WPTC, which is why many more storms got articles. If you want to make Daniel, go ahead, and good luck with it. If you want to make Tropical Storm Gilma (2006), be my guest. However, you can't force people to make EPAC articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Cindy didn't get an article until November 9, 4 months after it dissipated. Emily made landfall twice as a major hurricane and deserved an article (also deserved to be retired). Maria didn't get an article until December 29, nearly 4 months after it dissipated. Ophelia lingered off the coast for what seemed like a month and there was debate and several reverts on it as well. I don't want to force people to make EPAC articles, I want people to stop forcing people into not creating articles. --Holderca1 19:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding you wanting people to stop forcing others into not creating articles, I agree. If someone wants to make an article, you shouldn't stop them. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I am reading into wrong, but when you say "you shouldn't stop them," it sounds like you are referring to me in particular. I have never stopped anyone from creating an article. I may disagree that some articles should exist, but I have not merged an article, redirected an article, or put an article up for afd. But maybe I just read it wrong. --Holderca1 01:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me, yea. I meant that, in general, you (as in any person) shouldn't stop articles from being created. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I say that we don't merge Debby, cause for the Atlantic, all storms should have their own articles. --ยง Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody (talk + contribs + userboxes) 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass
2. Factually accurate? Pass
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? Pass


Additional comments :

  • while passing 140 miles (225 km) miles south of the Cape Verde islands, ... hun? is it a typo?
  • Banding features continued to improve as the system slowly strengthened., what does improve mean in that case?

Lincher 13:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I clarified them. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Thanks for the clarifications. Lincher 02:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)