Talk:Hurricane Cindy (2005)

No More Subpages

NO NO NO NO! Why in God's name are we creating subpages! This is a NON-NOTABLE storm. This is ridiculous. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Completely agreed. This, Arlene, and many of the other storms could simple be condensed on the main article. Who cares about the loss of information? This is an encyclopedia, not a weather encyclopedia but just an encyclopedia. I understand that it is fairly current so there would be more interest in it, but 1995 should be used as a guide to keep 2005 season shorter than necessary, if that is the reasoning behind this page. If that isn't the reason, I don't know what is. We don't need an article on every last storm! Hurricanehink 04:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

As non-notable as this storm was, it's a lot more worthy of an article than Hurricane Faith and many other older non-retired storms we have articles for. (Not that I want to get into an argument about notability, since my own criteria is article quality.) Jdorje 09:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Faith was very historically notable though, like Vince and Alberto (2000) were. CrazyC83 19:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

YES YES YES YES! This is a NOTABLE storm. Saying otherwise is ridiculous.

*ahem* now that I've countered your argument point-by-point :-) note that debate on keep/delete/merge is on the WP:VFD subpage listed at the top of the article. I created this article as part of a gradual project of improving the New Orleans/Hurricane Katrina related coverage, and IMO an article on Cindy is an important part of it. The effects in the New Orleans area alone are important background for understanding events and actions of hundreds of thousands of people and historic incidents which have recieved international attention. (This article already has more information not duplicated elsewhere in Wikipedia than, say, the 17th Street Canal article.) BTW, I've observed with interest that many people in the New Orleans area are under the mistaken impression that Cindy actually was a hurricane, and refer to the storm that way. Hm, I think I'll add that last tidbit to the article. -- Infrogmation 15:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Cindy was a notable storm, but very much overshadowed by the many monsters that followed. This storm caused some significant damage (though not totally severe), flooding in many areas around here (I live in southeast Louisiana), hit New Orleans directly, and was still fresh on everyone's minds as Katrina approached (the mess left by Cindy was still mentioned as late as a week before Katrina annihilated my area). This storm should have an article... heck, if I had more time, I was planning on creating this article myself! We just need to put in a bit more research on how extensive its impact was... Now an article on Arlene, which I noticed was recently deleted... now that was not notable at all... Cindy was notable... Keep the article. Hey, if we can have an article on Tropical Storm Odette (2003), I think an article on a much more notable storm like this is warranted. PenguinCDF 21:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge back. Odette was in December, outside of hurricane season! That is what made Odette highly notable. Also that caused considerably more damage than Cindy did considering its area affected. Like Arlene, this storm did NOT have the damage of Ophelia (nowhere near the $800M estimated), the death toll of Alpha (nowhere near 26) or the notability of Vince (it was in an area where such storms were common). Cindy did little to create the Katrina disaster... CrazyC83 19:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed for merge. The storm is not notable. Some damage and flooding occurrs in any landfalling tropical cyclone. Why doesn't Barry in 2001 have its own article, which caused 2 direct deaths and 7 indirects, with $30 million in damage? What about Hanna in 2002 which killed3 and caused $20 million in damage? How about Erin in 1995? The reason that there are no articles is because they are not notable. How is this storm any different, except for the fact is from this year? Hurricanehink 15:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You answered your own question. The reason is that it is from this year, and there is therefore more information available on the storm. Jdorje 23:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Erin likely would have had an article had it formed today, due to the greater amount of information available... CrazyC83 16:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I mean it only caused 3 deaths and it didn't cause that much damage. Hell it wasn't even a hurricane.--24.83.117.65 20:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have merged it, but someone put it up for a vfd. It is now not in good faith for me to do that.-- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This argument is ridiculous. Using the same logic, let's go through and delete articles on Governors of Maryland and merge them into one large page since a lot of them weren't *cough* "notable". That doesn't make sense, and neither does this. Let it go. --tomf688^{talk} 21:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You give one kid a piece of candy then every kid wants a piece of candy and then you've got a big damn problem. You do it for one no notable storm, then you have to do it for the others. BAAAD! -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Isnt the point of wikipedia to have as much information as possible? and there is a lot more information in this article than the season article. Obviously there would be no point making articles on some hurricanes, like Nate, but if someone did make one on Nate then, as long as it has more info than the season page, keep it! Jamie C 11:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly...the point of wikipedia as I see it, is that more author/editors can produce more information, making it the most comprehensive collection of knowledge ever.

Wikipeda is not an indescriminate collection of information. You can't just put in whatever information you want. What does this article have to offer that the main one doesn't? Longer sentences that describe the same exact event with little additional info. ...Aside from Joey's grandma's cat getting trapped in a tree by floodwaters. Redundancy gets you nowhere. And little tedious facts are not helpful. If a student wouldn't find it useful in a thorough college paper, it shouldn't be here. There are tons and tons of storms like this that don't have articles and if we created ones for them all (they surely number over 100), Wikipedia would be an indescrimiante collection of information, which is against Wikipedia policy. I don't see how it could be any clearer than that. If you have a problem with merging this one, you have a problem with Wikipedia policy. Go whine there. Sorry I'm being gruff but this is getting ridiculous. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 00:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

To make a compromise, I think that if the TCR says it's a hurricane, we keep the separate article. If it stays a tropical storm, merge it. Fair enough?Icelandic Hurricane 22:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Why would it matter whether it was 75 mph or only 70 mph? This does not affect the notability of the storm or the quality of the article. Jdorje 00:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Why did someone put the merge tag back on if it says the result of the discussion was to keep? Its really just the same result. Good kitty 22:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Tornado

Keep it, the storm was big news in Georgia where there was a tornado at the Atlanta Motor Speedway. Also that one tornado was estimated to have done at least $40 million worth or damage. Also, why isn't that in the damages section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silence Knight (talk • contribs) .

Source? Jdorje 06:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Atlanta Motor Speedway page here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Motor_Speedway —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silence Knight (talk • contribs) .

Hah hah. And their source? Jdorje 06:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I live in Atlanta and it barely made the front page of the AJC if it did at all, I remember seeing it. No offense, but $40 million is pretty pitiful for storms nowadays. It needs to have caused at least $100 million in damage and at least 5 deaths for me to even consider agreeing to it. Cindy had her 15 minutes of localized fame. This storm wasn't notable...period. Let it go. Merge. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 08:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

<$100 Million and <5 deaths = no article? Then Merge Ophelia as well.

You'd better get Epsilon and Zeta and Vince first. Jdorje 17:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources seem to be fairly easy to google up: http://msn.foxsports.com/nascar/story/3744894 for example. --AySz88^-^ 18:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's true or not makes little difference. 3 deaths and $40 million in damage for a modern storm is NOT NOTABLE enough. What part of that fails to get through? It deserves it's nice big office on the main page, not a whole building/subpage. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 08:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Um, Eric the $40 million figure is the damage from that tornado in Atlanta, not TS Cindy itself. Irrespective of whether this article should remain in the long term or not; now it exists it should stay until after the TCR is published and there is actual information on the damage and other issues like if it was a hurricane. And having a hard limit in damage and fatalities before considering a storm notable is a mistake; what if a tropical storm caused next to no damage and claimed one victim - George W. Bush?. In any case if this article is to be merged, it should be merged with List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms not the season article. -- 86.141.84.112 11:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

So update the article already with the information about the tornado. Just make sure to include sources. Jdorje 18:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Internal Sources

I removed the line that said internal sources suggest... because the link given as a citation no longer has information relevant to Cindy... In fact it talks about Epsilon. Please replace this sentence when appopriate. Perhaps it was a bit redundant with the sentence before it as well... Hopquick 17:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"Internal sources suggest that it was indeed a hurricane. [1]"

The "internal sources" quoted is actually that picture of the board with the list of storms, where it lists Cindy as 75 mph. I agree it shouldn't be mentioned until the TCR comes out, though.

--AySz88^-^ 20:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign)

It says 320M dollars in damage-gonna add that?HurricaneCraze32 20:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... caused almost 5 times the damage of Ophelia ($320 million for Cindy vs. $70 million for Ophelia). Looks like Ophelia will definitely not be retired... Cindy has a better chance now, and it's highly unlikely to be retired. PenguinCDF 20:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. For a US storm, $320M is certainly not worthy of retirement. Besides, after Katrina, it is almost forgotten now... CrazyC83 06:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say totally forgotten... I live in southeast Louisiana. I went through both Cindy and Katrina, as well as the edge of Rita. We still refer to Cindy as quite a bad storm. It's definitely notable, just not notorious. PenguinCDF 01:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Todo

The impact section needs more work.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

NWS report

• New Orleans, LA report
• Birmingham, AL report (w/ tornado damage pics) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricanehink (talk • contribs) 15:36, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
• Peachtree City, GA report
• Greenville-Spartanburg, SC report
• Raleigh, NC report

These should be included in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Some rainfall figures here. May be included in other sources. Plasticup ^T/C 13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

GA nomination

I think it is pretty close to being ready. Anyone else have thoughts on the matter? Plasticup ^T/C 15:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hurricane Cindy (2005)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA, and should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A very well written article - I find no issues that need to be corrected. Due to this, I am passing the article to GA status. Congrats! Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Cindy (2005)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs a citation overhaul. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Looks good. Now just add some more preps and send it off to GAN. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 15:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hurricane Cindy (2005). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081009232923/http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=9311 to http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=9311
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050910122531/http://www.al.com/weather/hurricane/cindyphotos/ to http://www.al.com/weather/hurricane/cindyphotos/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051111215801/http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/newsrelated/100000withoutpower.htm to http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/newsrelated/100000withoutpower.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Cindy (2005). 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130104164919/http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv%5Cwb/43728 to http://www.roanoke.com/news/nrv%5Cwb/43728
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.delrionewsherald.com/story.lasso?ewcd=8d3a20080e1b17ef

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge Hurricane Cindy tornado outbreak?

The tornado outbreak article is start-class and isn't terribly long. I propose merging the tornado outbreak article into this article, and have the chart be collapsible. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)