Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Merging

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yellow Evan (talk | contribs) at 19:39, 21 September 2008 (→‎Hurricane Otis (2005)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject
Tropical Cyclones

WikiProject home (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32
| 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40
| 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48
| 49

Task forces

→ Western Pacific task force (talk)
→ Eastern Pacific task force (talk)
→ Atlantic task force (talk)
→ North Indian Ocean task force (talk)
→ Southern Hemisphere task force (talk)
→ Graphics task force (talk)
→ 2018 FT task force (talk)
Newsletter (talk)
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32
| 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40
| 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48
Project resources (talk)
Jargon (talk)
WikiProject statistics (talk)
Article requests (talk)
Cyclone Cup (talk)
Vital articles (talk)
Showcase (talk)
Style guidelines (talk)
Awards (talk)

Assessment

Main assessment page (talk)
→ Assessment tables (talk)
→ Assessment log (talk)
→ Assessment statistics (talk)

Tropical cyclones portal

Parent project

WikiProject Weather (talk)

This page contains lists and discussions about merging of particular articles. Generally, the question is whether a particular storm deserves its own article, or whether it should be merged into the season article.

Archives: 1, 2 3

Article discussion

In this section individual storms are discussed. Please do not remove old discussions; they should eventually be archived.

Western Pacific Start class articles

Though the following storms are somewhat notable, none of these have been expanded since the original author wrote it, and it seems highly unlikely that someone will take the time to find the needed information (outside the JTWC report). Examples of what I am referring to are;

Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all (except Joan). All the articles except Dot are pretty much storm history and a very small amount of impact, which can easily be condensed and merged into the season articles. Dot was DYKed a while ago, but that's probably not a strong enough case to save it since there isn't really much more information. --Coredesat (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold up on Joan. The "storm history" has been infused with some impact, so I'll see if I can split that up. – Chacor 02:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with Dot is that it probably needs more info on impact, especially in Vietnam. – Chacor 02:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yea, and info can be hard to find in this time period. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added ReliefWeb impact and aftermath and updated the totals. Still trying to find China or Vietnam info. – Chacor 16:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dot's getting there. Try and find some more impact in the Philippines, as well. Important dates, such as when it reached peak intensity and when it made landfalls, are needed. Trying using newspaper reports from the newspaper archive. A quick search of newspapers containing Dot and published on October 19, 1985 showed this newspaper with some info, so there could be others out there. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, Typhoon Bess (1982) (which should really be at the main Typhoon Bess - but that's already at WP:RM) is a start-class article with not much info either. Does this deserve to stay either? 59 fatalities with low damage isn't all that notable except that it got retired, but back then many WPac storms got retired for nothing. – Chacor 15:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagreed. There was another Typhoon Bess (1974) that was also retired. I think we should wait if we should merge a retired article. There's a couple retired Atlantic ones that might not have that much more info, so maybe we should wait until it's obvious whether it should be merged or whether it could possibly be expanded (you never know, maybe we'll find a good link for Japan typhoon impacts). Hurricanehink (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Kammuri to the list. There's only two paragraphs for impact, which can easily be copied and pasted into the season article. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Russian response to Hurricane Katrina

This was PRODded by an anon for some reason when a merge discussion was getting underway. If this article doesn't need to be here, the information should probably be merged to International response to Hurricane Katrina. --Coredesat 21:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge and summarize, as a complete merge would make its section unnecessarily long. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. — jdorje (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it, and while looking through the Katrina articles I saw another one that could be merged. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina in historical context

Orphaned or dual disambiguations

Today I was reading over the wikiproject standards and added an exception to the dab rule that seems common: when there are just two storms of the same name, a dab page is not necessarily needed. See Hurricane Andrew. Coincidentally later today I stumbled across the Wilma DAB which is orphaned - nothing links to it or redirects to it. It is therefore useless as a DAB since nobody's gonna search for "Tropical Storm Wilma (disambiguation)". But I'm not sure what to do about it. This fits into the 2-name category as covered by Andrew, but since the 2 names are from different basins there's no possibility for confusion. For the moment I de-orphaned it by linking the Wilma article to it. It's likely that no disambiguation page is needed at all. Also possible is that the Hurricane Wilma article should have a {{dablink}} at the top, but it will sound kind of silly to DAB a hurricane and a typhoon in this way. Perhaps the whole thing should just be merged into Wilma? But then what's to prevent that from being done with all other tc dab's? And how come Andrew doesn't link to Hurricane Andrew - and if it did, shouldn't it then also link to Hurricane Andrew (1986)? — jdorje (talk) 04:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's interesting. For starters, I support merging Tropical Storm Wilma (disambiguation) to Wilma. I think it'd be a good idea for, say, every dab with 3 or less storms to be moved to their name's dab (like TS Wilma to Wilma). A good example of what should be done is with Tropical Storm Waldo, which was used once in EPAC and WPAC. The article should be redirected to Waldo, with the link to Hurricane Waldo being redirected to the seasonal page (1986 was its only use); Typhoon Waldo could be redirected to the seasonal page (1998 was its only use), even though it didn't reach typhoon status. Of course, it can't be that easy. Some problematic dabs that come to mind are the Phonetic alphabet storms (only ones affected are Hurricane Easy (disambiguation), Hurricane Dog, and Hurricane Able), the Greek storms (only ones affected are Tropical Storm Alpha (disambiguation) and Tropical Storm Delta), recent Western Pacific storms, and PAGASA storm names, though these exceptions can be dealt with later (or maybe just left as is). For now, though, should this discussion be kept here (since it involves some merging) or put it on the Wikiproject talk page (where there have been some discussions about dabs). Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move this to the project page, there is a far broader issue underneath. As a practical matter, the Wilma dab should be at Tropical Storm Wilma (where it makes some sense). Remember, ideally the only link to a disambiguation page should be from the primary topic and hardly anything else. I'd be leery about saying "merge to the name" as a rule. Its much better to have Tropical Storm Alice linked from Alice than have all 19 storms listed on that page. Same principle probably should hold with other storms.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as mentioned above, I'm only for "merging to the name" rule for dabs with three or less articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Tropical Storms Jerry and Melissa (2007)

I know this might be controversial (with Melissa as a GA), but I can't stand seeing Melissa as a GA with only two paragraphs of info. This doesn't mean merge all of the non-notable articles at all. However, these two are really scraping at the bottom of the barrel. We don't need to have an article for every storm. IDK, those stick out to me a little bit. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest a GA review/reassessment to make sure someone else thinks it is of GA quality, before any merge occurs. I agree that we don't need an article for every tropical cyclone, but why get rid of one if more than one reviewer thinks is a GA? Thegreatdr (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that is that such a short article could be considered good in some people's opinions. Indeed, in the past, I know of an article that was an FA, before it was decided there wasn't enough info, and thus it was merged. I believe that it is up to us as a project to decide whether we should have a separate article. Is there a significantly greater amount of information, worthy of keeping the article separate? IMO, no. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say merge Jerry, for sure, so I'm off to preform the merge... I'm fine with Melissa staying. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Melissa is about the same quality as Jerry was. If we get rid of the one, I think we should do the other as well. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They both need to go.--72.193.254.254 (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ormoc tragedy

The article concerns the same events as Tropical Storm Thelma. There is precedence to merge the disaster article to the storm article - The Mameyes disaster to Tropical Storm Isabel (1985). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it, FWIW. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Pacific typhoon seasons

Category:Stub-Class Tropical cyclone articles consists mostly of Pacific typhoon seasons from 1945 to 1998, with the exception of 1939 Pacific typhoon season. To cut down on dozens of stubs, what does everybody think about merging them into lists of seasons, like 1950-1959 Pacific typhoon seasons? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love the idea. There are a few developed season articles that do actually list each storm, which would stay, but the rest often have summaries for only three or four storms. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took the initiative and merged the 1940 seasons together. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Atlantic hurricanes

This page is an unmitigated disaster. Pretty much we've been using it as a catch-all for any and all records affecting the Atlantic basin, but in so, it's lost its purpose. So, I recommend an inverse merger, a. k. a. a split into multiple pages. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed for the de-centralization of the page. I've been in favor of this for months now. Should we talk about a plan of attack for how to take apart the thing here, on the talk page of the article, or just start hacking? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, can you remember to fix the links in the season pages? I just got finished removing a bunch of links to articles that no longer exist.Potapych (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick update, the article has been dab-ified. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Hernan (2008)

No need for such a stubby article on a storm that never touched land. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Merge Hold out on the merge for now. I'm currently working on rewriting the whole article. Wait until I've finished, then see if it still needs to be merged. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds good. Fine with no merge for now. Don't forget to use TWO's and TWD's (both on here). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to move the article to a user sub page for now. I'm tired and I don't want to do a sloppy job on it. Sorry for delaying it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No MergeIt has not been edited since Labor Day, butI think we should all help Cyclonebiskit do the job.--72.193.254.254 (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The article was re-published today. I don't know why it was made in the first place, but there has been some effort to keep it. However, I still see no need for the article. It caused no impact (the little that's mentioned in the article is unsourced). The first two paragraphs of the SH are decent (though the first one has no source for the met. history prior to it forming), so those paragraphs could be integrated into the season article section. However, the third paragraph is very poorly written. Example: At 2 PM the NHC upgraded it to an 85 mph hurricane! Any thoughts? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong merge Poorly written, poorly formatted, no notability whatsoever. Merge and protect. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been fixing it. Thats way There is a To do section on the page its says fix templates.--Yellow Evan (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a slightly bigger issue than the quality, in that the article is unneeded. As I said before, it caused no impact. More importantly though, the article is poorly written. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is stupid. There is no need for an East Pacific fishspinner. All EPac articles that do what Hernan did never get an article - so per my opinion: Merge to 2008 PHS.Mitch32(UP) 22:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why there is an article because it is a the strongest storm off the season thats why there is an article for Elida, too.

No need for it still. Elida is even worse.Mitch32(UP) 23:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because Elida is in the stages that Hernan which is in the stages that Hernan was once was.Hernan did go through major editing that can be traced as far as August 8 when i posted a message stated that it in NEEDS an article now.--Yellow Evan (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been fixed for the most part however I see a problem that is an image, should we use an image showing it under rapid intensification. mabey, if we solve this it could come a GA.--72.193.254.254 (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. The page is still poorly written, for the section not written by Cyclonbiskit. I still propose this article be merged. It would make the section in the season article a bit long, but its section should be longest, since it was strongest storm of the season (so far). We don't really have a precedent for having these articles (EPAC storms that cause no impact), and I don't feel a need to start one. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Boris (1990)

No content outside of the main article. It doesn't even have a real infobox. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Copy and paste of the season article. Protect once your done. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if the article is merged (of which I have a split mind about it), protecting the article would be a very inappropriate of the protect privlege. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but we know that the article is going to be recreated by the user. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then use the edit button on the user's talk page, or nominate the article for deletion. Protection was not made for this purpose. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not fully Copy Paste article i tried to organize it, and thats how i start all my main articles same thing with 2008's Boris

Tropical Storm Erick (2007)

While well-written, the article is rather short. The article could be merged quite easily into the season article, as I tested here; it is just barely longer than the infobox. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead an merge. It was simply an experiment to see what Tito thought. :) –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you merge it, you would make the article heavy towards Erick; that section would be larger than Henriette, a landfalling storm. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article , its longer than Hernan.--Yellow Evan (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Hernan (1996)

Another Hernan. A copy and paste of the season article, albeit with a brand-new one-sentence lead. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

let it stay.--Yellow Evan (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


===Hurricane Otis (2005) Otis is unneeded.

It is ok.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Merging&oldid=240063423"