Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Merging/2005 Azores subtropical storm

Jason Rees (talk · contribs) believes the subtropical storm (featured) article should be merged. I'm ambivalent, as I've been known for my mergist tendencies in the past, and I don't want to rock the boat too much. I said back in 2006 "I don't see the harm in keeping it", but please remember that we don't dictate Wikipedia policy on some articles' relationship to each other (yes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). That said, the storm lasted about 36 hours, wasn't classified operationally, and doesn't have much outside of info from the NHC (aside from a neat article saying that Wilma should've been Alpha). Still, much of the records and naming would be more appropriate in the season article and not in the storm article. Any thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from @CooperScience:'s original proposal on the FARC - I do indeed believe that the subtropical storm article should be merged into the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season for a variety of reasons. For starters, I feel that the article is bloated and goes into unnecessary details like how it would have been named Tammy and Wilma would have been named Alpha etc. I also see a couple of records which are not directly cited and are made up based on an old version of HURDAT and NHCs website which are trivial IMO and makes you wonder if they are still valid after the reanalysis has shot passed 1933. I also suspect that the MH could be condensed quite easily and would love to know how references 4, 5 and 6 back up what I am forced to believe is cited to them when they are computer-generated and now dead. I also noticed that the only external source is a blog article from the Palm Beach which is a dead link, which is not really viewable to me (Thanks EU!). I also noticed that it only impacted one or two islands within the Azores and didn't cause any deaths or damages per say. As a result, I wonder why we really need to keep it when it can be easily contained within the season article and would, in theory, cause us less work when we renominate 2005 AHS for FT.Jason Rees (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already had a merge discussion on it which was open for over a week with no comments so I think in itself says few wanted to merge it. I don't know how I would feel about having another one immediately after an unsuccessful one. Noah^Talk 17:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that merger discussion was rather hidden, closed prematurely (There isn't a limit on how long merger discussions should run for) and that enough time has elapsed in the 10 days since you closed the previous merger discussion.Jason Rees (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it's worth the trouble, even if JR is correct based on past precedent in regards to a time limit on merge discussions. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it to be worth the trouble as i dont think this article is good enough to pass a GAR yet alone FAR, as it doesnt give enough coverage to all systems.Jason Rees (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, who's been working on keeping this up to par? I wasn't aware that the individual sections were in this bad shape until I actually looked at them :P My default philosophy is it should be up to them. Are they willing to write a section that'd be adequate out on their own or not? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As can be seen above @Hurricanehink: is more than aware of my views and I have helped with it a bit. I also feel that it is up to all of us to help get the season article up to scratch, which possibly involves mergers of Irene, Maria, Nate, Unnamed, ~~Delta~~, Epilson and Zeta.Jason Rees (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of that effort would be better spent trying to get Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, and Wilma to FA. That would be immensely more useful than going through merging a series of articles. Sure, it's "up to all of us", but we're the volunteer editors to a free encyclopedia, and there are many other articles that aren't quite up to snuff. I agreed with the effort to merge the statistics, list, Franklin, and Philippe. As to Yellow Evan (talk · contribs)'s comment I wasn't aware that the individual sections were in this bad shape until I actually looked at them - I wonder what is so bad about them. I had the aim to make the sections as short as possible, given how active the season was, and how many sub-articles there already are. We don't need to have two paragraphs for every single storm in every basin, not when we already have perfectly good articles for Irene, Maria, Nate, Unnamed, Epsilon, and Zeta. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: While I agree that not every system needs two paragraphs in-season articles, however, not every system requires an article and I would argue that Irene, Maria, Nate, Unnamed, Epsilon and Zeta might be systems that would be better covered in the season article than separately. Within these systems, I see that the meteorological histories are bloated or do not tell the story of the system adequately and would likely fail a Good Article Reassessment as I would argue that they fail criteria 2 & 3 which says that they do not contain original research and should not go into unnecessary details such as that it was named 9 hours after a what a hurricane forecaster thinks of the situation or that it was named as a hurricane 9 hours after it became a hurricane in BT etc.Jason Rees (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into this more, I'd expect more than two short paragraph from Stan for starters and more than two decent sized paragraphs from Katrina of all systems. Epsilon and Zeta (the first two storms I looked at when I gave this a look yesterday) seemed to read like they were average fish storms rather than the two most persistent storms. As for page length as a whole, the 2002 Pacific typhoon season is of similar length but its sections are more detailed. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 20:30, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added Epsilon's December record, more about Zeta's origins that Jason had started, and Zeta's impact on the boating race. As for Stan, it didn't last that long, so the two paragraphs adequately summarize the storm (which has its own article). As for Katrina, how much more do you include? What's appropriate for this section? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two sections for Stan is probably fine but it needs more MH - which can be said for a lot of the sections and articles, as they dont tell the story of the system properly IMO! I am happy to help expand the article when time allows though I stand by my assertions above that Irene, Maria, Nate, Unnamed, Epsilon and Zeta would possibly be better contianed in the season article.Jason Rees (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think rather than proposing the aforementioned articles get merged, I think there should be a more concerted effort to improve/expand the older articles, especially the ones that affected land in such a busy season. Epsilon and Zeta are the exceptions - they didn't affect land - but their unusual meteorological history and record-nature requires more explanation than should be in the article for the busiest Atlantic season on record. Keeping in mind the season's record activity, and the many storm articles that exist, I don't think this article should be any longer than it needs to be. I think in the more active seasons, the bar to split off an independent article is a bit lower than in an average (or quiet) season. Not that there is any official bar for what can or can't be an article. If we're already covering every storm in every season article for every basin, then the more active seasons should have more storms that are split off into articles, even if it might only be a few extra paragraphs. I'd argue the same for any active season in any basin, which is why we have an article for Hurricane Tina (1992) and arguably Typhoon Meranti (2004). The additional articles improves the ease of navigation for the reader, IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that the bar for more active seasons is a little bit lower than less active seasons, it should not be at the expense of the season articles telling the story of the system in a summarized version which is what I feel this season lacks. As a result, there maybe an exception for Epilson (need to do a bit more digging) but not for Zeta imo, as I feel that Zeta is better handled within the season article, even if it is the latest TC on record. Yes we don't want the article to be bigger than it needs to be, however, each section should tell the story and be about two paragraphs imo before it gets split off. Obviously the more significant ones like Katrina and Wilma should be three or four paragraphs.Jason Rees (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at 2017 Atlantic hurricane season, which is a GA, all of the sections are fully fleshed out and it is truly a good article. I simply have to agree that more needs to be included in this article due to seasons with fewer storms having significantly larger articles. The 2017 season as an example has fewer storms and a significantly larger amount of content. That article is in no way compromising its storm articles by having that much content there. Some of the storms that have articles for 2005 currently are not really that worthy, with Zeta being a clear example. It can easily be included in the main article. It was the latest on record, but that can easily be summed up in the storm section. I know there is a stigma out there that 2005 needs every storm with an article, but I don't feel that to be true. We need to reevaluate every article and decide what we need to ax. The quality of this article is crucial to the project. We need to make sure we get it right. Noah^Talk 00:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to what Hink wrote on Sunday, I don't like how there's not a single sentence in Katrina's section about the botched US response and the criticism they received. In general, this reminds me of Hurricane Andrew prior to FAC in that sense that many of the sections read as if it was an average system. There's nothing in the article (outside of mentioning Katrina was the second costliest system on record in the seasonal summary of all places) that resemble statements like "X was the worst storm to hit Y since Z". There's also not as much "X homes were damaged and Y were destroyed, leaving Z homeless." type of stuff as I would like either. I'm not as concerned about "telling the story" (because I think the article does a decent job of that as I am about not covering impact adequately tbh. Also Noah, the 2017 AHS is 150kb and that includes just 18 systems, so a 2005 equivalent would be approaching 200kb. That's insane. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Evan: I do not believe that the season does an adequate job of telling the story of the season and nor am I worried if the article approaches 200 KB as it should be that way since we are basically dealing with a Pacific typhoon season.Jason Rees (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I don't really see any reason to be more substantive than simply say I can't agree that 200kb's is not a problem in accordance with WP:SPLIT. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Back in articles like Tropical Storm Lee (2005) the users for merging them called them "fishspinners". Well, I've decided to bring back the term: for this un-necessary article!! Yes, I know it's a featured article, but remember Tropical Depression Ten? Well, this article should follow Ten (and Franklin, Harvey, Lee, Phillipe, 19, and 22). 🐔Chicdat (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]