Talk:Hurricane Linda (2009)
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Yellow Evan in topic Merge?
 | Hurricane Linda (2009) 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
Merge? edit
The storm didn't really do anything. It was rather lengthy in its MH, but I trimmed it down without losing any real content. It was just bloated. So, I propose merging. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- What's the point in merging when it's already a GA? YE Pacific Hurricane 02:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Does it really warrant being a GA when it's only two paragraphs and is rather stubby? Especially if it could be merged without losing any content? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- There is no size criteria for GA. What is missing here in this article? The fact that it could be merged is not relevant to the GA criteria. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing is missing. If anything, it's too broad for the topic, that's why I cut it down, and it could be shorter. It was a short-lived hurricane that did nothing. If it shouldn't have an article (and I'm arguing as such), then it shouldn't be a GA either. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Putting notability aside, does it meet the GA criteria? YE Pacific Hurricane 02:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not speaking of notability. I'm speaking that there are two paragraphs of meteorological history. This is a sub-article of the 2009 Pacific hurricane season, and the content here is not long enough to justify being split off from the season article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- But there's no size criteria for GA? With all notability arguments aside, so why should length matter if you said "Nothing is missing"? YE Pacific Hurricane 02:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Because for as non-notable as the storm is, there's too much info, thus failing criteria 3b. If a storm does nothing, should it really have two paragraphs as its own article? Not to mention, the four paragraphs it had a few hours ago and for when it was reviewed. As I said, it's a sub-article of the season, so the content here isn't long enough to justify being split off. Therefore, if it shouldn't be split off in the first place, then it should be delisted and properly merged. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- In answer to your question, yes, it should have two paragraphs as its own article. As for your splitting off logic, your assuming that Linda is a sub-article of the season article. In all, the overall condensation of material that was not doing any harm. I understand this message ("If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it.") exists; an hour or two of time and effort was put into making these masterpieces and to be honest, I don't think it is productive to just move/condense the content. Hence, which leads me to as thing? Why was this article made? That's the question, and something I think we fail to consider this as a whole. While I am not the biggest fan in the world of this article, and to be honest, I almost hate how this storm has an article and Guillermo and Carlos do not, the whole purpose of articles that did little there is having a more detailed (I don't mean every single thing that every happen, but a comprehensive article with a summary of the storm in the season article. I've done this myself a few times over the years, though this seems somewhat harder to do with older storms). A few years ago, dozens of articles like this existed (i.e. Lidia 05) yet there was a push in 2010 to in random fashion (which as I said on IRC, I honestly feel it was directed towards me and in particular, my creation of the articles for Waldo 85 and my attempt to re-due the article on Darby 10). While most of the articles merged in 2010 were made by RB and GC, most of which I supported, I was more carious when supporting a fishpsinner GA for merge (though I did a few times to try and make the editing atmosphere less toxic and try to get alone with everyone). I also think some of this merging is done to get people to work on the retired AUS/SPAC/ATL storms. However, by merging articles like this, it makes me less wanting to finish the 1992 Pacific hurricane season. I'm sorry if I've been dramatic here. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I disagree that two paragraphs of content should have an article, when that's the same length as for the section in a season article. Taking that message above "save page" even further, if you don't want articles to be merged, then don't work on something that'll likely get merged. This storm did practically nothing. As I and other people have been saying for years, you should fill out the section in the season article first. If the section gets too long, then it can get split, but the project rarely gets to that point, because it's so easy to just make an article, pad it with irrelevant details, and then complain when people think, maybe it shouldn't exist. It doesn't matter about if it's productive or not to merge. There simply isn't much content here. I even asked the author, and he said he wouldn't mind it getting merged. It's just a short-lived storm that did nothing, and I'm surprised it fell by the wayside after all of these years. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have not check the word count of this article, but my personal length requirement for an article is 450-700 words. Most people, myself included, find it easier just to create an article without expanding the season section. However, this articles was not padded with irrelevant details IMO. IMO, it does matter if it is productive. I still don't see the point in delisting this GA; ill repeat what I said above "the whole purpose of articles that did little there is having a more detailed (I don't mean every single thing that every happen, but a comprehensive article with a summary of the storm in the season article." While I agree that this storm does not truly need an article, this storm was able to support a reasonably sized article. The bottom line is that content was being removed (in this case, it happened to be a few hours ago). Just because CB does not mind it getting merged, does not mean I mind :P. The storm was not that short-lived. With that said, I am surprised it fell by the wayside as well. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I disagree that two paragraphs of content should have an article, when that's the same length as for the section in a season article. Taking that message above "save page" even further, if you don't want articles to be merged, then don't work on something that'll likely get merged. This storm did practically nothing. As I and other people have been saying for years, you should fill out the section in the season article first. If the section gets too long, then it can get split, but the project rarely gets to that point, because it's so easy to just make an article, pad it with irrelevant details, and then complain when people think, maybe it shouldn't exist. It doesn't matter about if it's productive or not to merge. There simply isn't much content here. I even asked the author, and he said he wouldn't mind it getting merged. It's just a short-lived storm that did nothing, and I'm surprised it fell by the wayside after all of these years. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- In answer to your question, yes, it should have two paragraphs as its own article. As for your splitting off logic, your assuming that Linda is a sub-article of the season article. In all, the overall condensation of material that was not doing any harm. I understand this message ("If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it.") exists; an hour or two of time and effort was put into making these masterpieces and to be honest, I don't think it is productive to just move/condense the content. Hence, which leads me to as thing? Why was this article made? That's the question, and something I think we fail to consider this as a whole. While I am not the biggest fan in the world of this article, and to be honest, I almost hate how this storm has an article and Guillermo and Carlos do not, the whole purpose of articles that did little there is having a more detailed (I don't mean every single thing that every happen, but a comprehensive article with a summary of the storm in the season article. I've done this myself a few times over the years, though this seems somewhat harder to do with older storms). A few years ago, dozens of articles like this existed (i.e. Lidia 05) yet there was a push in 2010 to in random fashion (which as I said on IRC, I honestly feel it was directed towards me and in particular, my creation of the articles for Waldo 85 and my attempt to re-due the article on Darby 10). While most of the articles merged in 2010 were made by RB and GC, most of which I supported, I was more carious when supporting a fishpsinner GA for merge (though I did a few times to try and make the editing atmosphere less toxic and try to get alone with everyone). I also think some of this merging is done to get people to work on the retired AUS/SPAC/ATL storms. However, by merging articles like this, it makes me less wanting to finish the 1992 Pacific hurricane season. I'm sorry if I've been dramatic here. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Because for as non-notable as the storm is, there's too much info, thus failing criteria 3b. If a storm does nothing, should it really have two paragraphs as its own article? Not to mention, the four paragraphs it had a few hours ago and for when it was reviewed. As I said, it's a sub-article of the season, so the content here isn't long enough to justify being split off. Therefore, if it shouldn't be split off in the first place, then it should be delisted and properly merged. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- But there's no size criteria for GA? With all notability arguments aside, so why should length matter if you said "Nothing is missing"? YE Pacific Hurricane 02:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not speaking of notability. I'm speaking that there are two paragraphs of meteorological history. This is a sub-article of the 2009 Pacific hurricane season, and the content here is not long enough to justify being split off from the season article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Putting notability aside, does it meet the GA criteria? YE Pacific Hurricane 02:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing is missing. If anything, it's too broad for the topic, that's why I cut it down, and it could be shorter. It was a short-lived hurricane that did nothing. If it shouldn't have an article (and I'm arguing as such), then it shouldn't be a GA either. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- There is no size criteria for GA. What is missing here in this article? The fact that it could be merged is not relevant to the GA criteria. YE Pacific Hurricane 02:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Does it really warrant being a GA when it's only two paragraphs and is rather stubby? Especially if it could be merged without losing any content? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
<--Yea, most people do that, but when the season article isn't finished, then it's easy and logical to merge a short article like this. No content was removed when I trimmed it down. The previous article was bloated and excessive, so I cut it down to a manageable length. Right now, it is the ideal length of the section in the season article, which is highly productive because the season article is not yet finished (and Linda's section isn't complete, either). Again, the storm did nothing, so it doesn't pass the project's notability criteria. That alone means it shouldn't be a GA, since the article should be merged. Unlike other articles that remain in existence despite not affecting land (such as Elida 02), this storm was short-lived and was very boring, meteorologically speaking. The reason I brought up the author not minding is because you seem to be claiming some stake at ownership here. You had no qualms about agreeing to some loose standard that an article should have some non-NHC sources, so why is this one any different? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree that the previous version was bloated. As for the season section, compared to other storm articles, Linda's is in good shape. As for it's meteorological significance, the most notable thing it did IMO was intensify 20 knts in the operational advisories (from 30 to 50 knts) in its formative stages, though this was adjusted considerably in the TCR; hence, I disagree that Linda was "very boring", but very few people are as passionate about hurricanes in the EPAC than me. I agree that Elida 02 as well as several lone lives and/or powerful mjaor hurricanes. As for the stuff about non-NHC-material, I found this in a quick Google search. Regarding your second qualm about the lose criteria, I wrote the following above "While most of the articles merged in 2010 were made by RB and GC, most of which I supported, I was more carious when supporting a fishpsinner GA for merge (though I did a few times to try and make the editing atmosphere less toxic and try to get alone with everyone)." YE Pacific Hurricane 13:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it was four paragraphs for a storm that did practically nothing. As for that source, there's nothing there that couldn't be found in a NHC advisory, and it adds nothing new. I don't know why you're trying so hard to keep the article when the author even supports the merge. The only reason this is toxic right here is because, and I am sorry, that you are so unwilling to merge a two paragraph sub-article on a storm that did nothing and had no meteorological significance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- So what? I still think four paragraphs for a storm like this is okay for a storm article. Regarding the source, I beg to differ. Please show me where in the NHC bulletins that they said that it would likely delay the landfall of Discovery because as far as I know, the NHC never mentioned a thing about it in their advisories. I don't understand why you pushing for a merge of a GA. No offense, but the reason why it's toxic is because you're proposing an article for merging that until last night, nobody has issues with and it was not harming Wikipedia. If this makes you feel better, I merged Georgette 92. As for CB not minding a merge, I will re-post what I said earlier "Just because CB does not mind it getting merged, does not mean I mind :P". YE Pacific Hurricane 14:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, four paragraphs is far too bloated, and does not follow WP style or the GA criteria, specifically 3b - "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail ". As for the Discovery bit, did the storm actually affect it? It said there was a potential, and as Wikipedia doesn't deal with the realm of the uncertainty, it isn't anything new. Whether or not the article harms Wikipedia is not and has never been a valid reason for keeping an article. We should follow the criteria, maintain some consistency, and not get heated when dealing with simple little matters of merging :) It's only two paragraphs, it's not that significant. I didn't think anyone would've minded when I proposed the merger. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would not consider four paragraphs unnecessary for a modern-era storm article. The Discovery bit is not in the article, but at least it's something outside of the NHC. WP:NOHARM redirects to a page called "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" However, this is technically not a deletion discussion, so it could be a valid reason. However, your do have a point "maintain some consistency" as as I as I said earlier, I was almost tempted to ask for it to be merged last ear, but I knew it was be a drama festival and that I would change my opinion after a few weeks. The ideal purpose merging is if the articles is extremely short and/or does not cover an encyclopedic topic. I did a Microsoft word count check and it is 610 words, which IMO is just enough to keep the article. As for what you expected when you proposed this, I will remind you that WP:LAWS sates that "No matter what you do, someone out there, somewhere, will hate it". YE Pacific Hurricane 15:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- For a modern-era storm that lasted barely five days, yea, that's excessive. As for the Discovery bit, it isn't anything new. Did the storm actually affect the mission? Saying what storms could do is not encyclopediac. I don't know where you got the 610 from, but I got 392 words that would be merged (the lede wouldn't be merged, for example, as it's duplicate), versus 167 words currently in the section in the season article. That's significantly less than half the number of words in the article than what's in the season section, and it furthers my point just how redundant it is having this article. As for what's in the "impact" section, none of that would be merged, as none of it is actual info. We don't say when storms didn't do something. Why not say that Linda didn't affect any sports teams? That it didn't cause any viral Youtube videos? That it didn't influence any elections? I went ahead and expanded the season article section to highlight how redundant this article is. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I said earlier, I respectfully disagree that that's not very excessive. Comprehensive? Yes, very comprehensive. To make things clear, the ~600 number was the total content, not the content the was merged. The facts that the season section is (or at least was) 167 words is perfectly fine IMO for the section of a fishspinner storm article. As for the Discovery bit, I said it's not in the article, and it should not be added to the article, but it at least meant that paid professionals cared about the storm, which is better than nothing. I truly hate to accuse an admin of this, but as for expanding the season section, "expanded the season article section to highlight how redundant this article is" sounds like WP:POINT to me. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- For a storm that did nothing, it is excessive. As for the word count, you can't assume the entire would be merged, as the impact had nothing, and neither did the lede. The season section was on the short side for a hurricane, so I expanded it with the prose from this article. I don't think that was disruptive. The section is now a normal length, along the lines of the sections in the featured articles 1995 Pacific hurricane season and 1998 Pacific hurricane season. And as for the Discovery bit, that doesn't show that the storm actually did anything. It was simply mentioned in the news, as many storms are. It isn't anything different or new. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree on it being excessive. As for the word count, you are correct. If Linda did not have an article, yes, the season section would be of a perfectly fine, but it currently does so, IMO it should be shorter than normal. As for the discovery bit, meh. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, if the section is fine right now, then let's officially just merge it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree on it being excessive. As for the word count, you are correct. If Linda did not have an article, yes, the season section would be of a perfectly fine, but it currently does so, IMO it should be shorter than normal. As for the discovery bit, meh. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- For a storm that did nothing, it is excessive. As for the word count, you can't assume the entire would be merged, as the impact had nothing, and neither did the lede. The season section was on the short side for a hurricane, so I expanded it with the prose from this article. I don't think that was disruptive. The section is now a normal length, along the lines of the sections in the featured articles 1995 Pacific hurricane season and 1998 Pacific hurricane season. And as for the Discovery bit, that doesn't show that the storm actually did anything. It was simply mentioned in the news, as many storms are. It isn't anything different or new. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I said earlier, I respectfully disagree that that's not very excessive. Comprehensive? Yes, very comprehensive. To make things clear, the ~600 number was the total content, not the content the was merged. The facts that the season section is (or at least was) 167 words is perfectly fine IMO for the section of a fishspinner storm article. As for the Discovery bit, I said it's not in the article, and it should not be added to the article, but it at least meant that paid professionals cared about the storm, which is better than nothing. I truly hate to accuse an admin of this, but as for expanding the season section, "expanded the season article section to highlight how redundant this article is" sounds like WP:POINT to me. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- For a modern-era storm that lasted barely five days, yea, that's excessive. As for the Discovery bit, it isn't anything new. Did the storm actually affect the mission? Saying what storms could do is not encyclopediac. I don't know where you got the 610 from, but I got 392 words that would be merged (the lede wouldn't be merged, for example, as it's duplicate), versus 167 words currently in the section in the season article. That's significantly less than half the number of words in the article than what's in the season section, and it furthers my point just how redundant it is having this article. As for what's in the "impact" section, none of that would be merged, as none of it is actual info. We don't say when storms didn't do something. Why not say that Linda didn't affect any sports teams? That it didn't cause any viral Youtube videos? That it didn't influence any elections? I went ahead and expanded the season article section to highlight how redundant this article is. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I would not consider four paragraphs unnecessary for a modern-era storm article. The Discovery bit is not in the article, but at least it's something outside of the NHC. WP:NOHARM redirects to a page called "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" However, this is technically not a deletion discussion, so it could be a valid reason. However, your do have a point "maintain some consistency" as as I as I said earlier, I was almost tempted to ask for it to be merged last ear, but I knew it was be a drama festival and that I would change my opinion after a few weeks. The ideal purpose merging is if the articles is extremely short and/or does not cover an encyclopedic topic. I did a Microsoft word count check and it is 610 words, which IMO is just enough to keep the article. As for what you expected when you proposed this, I will remind you that WP:LAWS sates that "No matter what you do, someone out there, somewhere, will hate it". YE Pacific Hurricane 15:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, four paragraphs is far too bloated, and does not follow WP style or the GA criteria, specifically 3b - "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail ". As for the Discovery bit, did the storm actually affect it? It said there was a potential, and as Wikipedia doesn't deal with the realm of the uncertainty, it isn't anything new. Whether or not the article harms Wikipedia is not and has never been a valid reason for keeping an article. We should follow the criteria, maintain some consistency, and not get heated when dealing with simple little matters of merging :) It's only two paragraphs, it's not that significant. I didn't think anyone would've minded when I proposed the merger. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- So what? I still think four paragraphs for a storm like this is okay for a storm article. Regarding the source, I beg to differ. Please show me where in the NHC bulletins that they said that it would likely delay the landfall of Discovery because as far as I know, the NHC never mentioned a thing about it in their advisories. I don't understand why you pushing for a merge of a GA. No offense, but the reason why it's toxic is because you're proposing an article for merging that until last night, nobody has issues with and it was not harming Wikipedia. If this makes you feel better, I merged Georgette 92. As for CB not minding a merge, I will re-post what I said earlier "Just because CB does not mind it getting merged, does not mean I mind :P". YE Pacific Hurricane 14:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it was four paragraphs for a storm that did practically nothing. As for that source, there's nothing there that couldn't be found in a NHC advisory, and it adds nothing new. I don't know why you're trying so hard to keep the article when the author even supports the merge. The only reason this is toxic right here is because, and I am sorry, that you are so unwilling to merge a two paragraph sub-article on a storm that did nothing and had no meteorological significance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Merge – This article does not meet notability requirements and is not lengthy and in-depth enough to have its own stand-alone article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Merge - A pure fishspinner that shouldnt have an article imo.Jason Rees (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)