Talk:Hurricane Shary

Hurricane Shary 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
January 9, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
June 22, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic 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 Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Move without 2010?

While we moved Igor, should Shary be next? It is the only Hurricane Shary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.99.32.171 (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it moved back? Rye998 (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tropical Storm Sebastien (1995) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 04:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Shary. 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://go-jamaica.com/news/read_article.php?id=23786
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7270749.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.weather.bm/climatereport/climateReport.asp

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} 08:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Basically a weak, short-lived storm that caused little to no impacts, even though it brushed Bermuda, it wasn't enough to cause significant impacts. Not really notable IMO. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given your earlier actions, I'd like to remind you of WP:POINT. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as though I got 2010 AHS to GA a while ago, it'd probably better just to redirect. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with merging – it's a well-developed article with an extensive met. history, and documented tangible impacts on land. Merging requires that we either delete a significant amount of notable information or create WP:UNDUE coverage of Shary in the season article, neither of which are acceptable options. I've reverted an attempt to redirect this article and unilaterally delist it as a GA, pending further discussion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

NOT MERGED

No consensus to merge or redirect. Article is GA and some editors are unhappy to see their work wasted.~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:35, 7 October 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.

A short-lived and non-notable storm that caused minimal impact and zero deaths. I saw that someone tried to merge it several years ago, but the merge discussion was stale. The impact section is very short, and overall this was a non-notable storm that did pretty much nothing. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Season article is a GA. I wouldn't bother just to take someone else's article down for no reason. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons are listed above. A short-lived and non-notable storm that caused minimal impact and zero deaths. The impact section is very short, and overall this was a non-notable storm that did pretty much nothing.

Here's my assessment:

Does it pass WP:GNG
- It is disputed ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did the storm cause any impact?
- Yes, but limited
Did the storm cause any damage?
- Unlikely. It doesn't say much in the impacts section
Did the storm cause any deaths?
- No.
Is the storm notable for its longevity?
- No, it only lasted for four days
Is the storm a hurricane?
- Yes, but that doesn't matter
Is the storm a major hurricane?
- No, and that doesn't matter either
Did the storm break any records?
- No.
Did the storm have interesting meteorological statistics?
- No.

You see, it isn't a notable storm! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- No, you are missing my point. The whole idea of mergers is for the information of one article to replace the content of the respective season section. That seems unnecessary here given the state of things regardless. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 13:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The impact section can easily fit into the season summary. If you don't want to merge, it, I suggest redirecting it to the season article. The MH can be easily trimmed down - it isn't exciting. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Yellow Evan and Nova Crystallis: Danielle was merged, and that storm actually was long-lived and caused two deaths. This one - Shary - cannot even compare to the merged Danielle. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Danielle was before the season article was done and the author of the season article wanted it gone so it made sense to comply. The same logic doesn't apply here. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't want to hurt anyone's feeling by merging or redirecting this article, but this article fails WP:GNG. It's literally as notable as Tropical Storm Edouard (2020). ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Does it though? I'm not convinced and I've always argued that it was moot point in these discussions because storm articles are sub-articles of the respective season. Edouard 20 fits its season section well while here the season article is already established, so I think its counterproductive to merely take it down. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Since there is no consensus in merging/redirection, I'm withdrawing from the merge. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per juliancolton in previous conversation. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 06:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlike Tropical Depression One from 2009, this was a hurricane that had a complicated background to go with a unusual formation. Even though it had limited impact, I like it the way it is. ~ChessEric (talk)
Strong, strong support I literally don't see what these opposers are getting at. This can EASILY be mentioned in the season article, and it had no impact whatsoever. No claim of notability. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:15, 7 October 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.