Talk:Tropical Storm Tammy (2005)

Merge?

Given that much of this is in the seasonal page, I propose it be merged, mainly because it wasn't that notable. Hurricanehink 16:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a very poorly-written article; it should be either highly revised or merged. Icelandic Hurricane #12 17:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well there wasnt too much info i could write on it..... --HurricaneRo 21:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What if we merged Northeast U.S. flooding of October 2005 into this article? Sort of like TS Isabel and the Mayemes Disaster. Maybe then this article could stay. Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

what would northeast flooding have to do with florida?--HurricaneRo 21:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Look at the article on the Flooding. Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the flooding was from Tammy, STD 22, and a cold front. The Mameyes disaster was only from Isabel. The information can be split up, but I see no reason to keep this. Hurricanehink 21:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

well I sort of agree with you even though it is my article but in that case ts gamma article should be deleted...--HurricaneRo 21:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

any advice you people can give me to make the article better?--HurricaneRo 21:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. There's no real point to a Tropical Storm Tammy article. Much of what you said was already on the season page, and there arleady is an article on the Northeast flooding. Its effects in the southeast were relatively minor. Hurricanehink 21:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

When writing future articles, here are some things you can do to maximize an article's quality. Always have at least 2 paragraphs for storm history. For impact, try and have at least 2 paragraphs, so sometimes that can be hard. All around, try to not have so many short sentences. It can get a little annoying, and they're a little boring to read. Don't be afraid to combine sentences, be it using a conjunction or an appositive. Be sure to keep all related events together within one paragraph. For example, if you're talking about flooing, you should put everything about flooding from the storm in that one area. Don't switch from flooding to winds, to surge, to flooding. Impact photos are always nice, though can be hard to get for unimportant storms. The #1 thing you have to remember when writing an article is why you are writing the article. First, look at the storm's stats. Did it cause under 10 deaths or under $100 million in damage? If it did, you should reconsider, because it would be hard to get good information, and it might be more worthwhile to add more content the storm history section. If it is above it, try taking a look around at sites that can help. Don't go head first into an article. Try and find relavent information that is interesting and important. If the storm cancelled a parade or a block party, there's no need to mention it, but if it cancelled schools or cancelled an important national event (important meaning it already has an article), that would be good to add in. When actually writing the article, double check and triple check your writing. The preview button is your friend, and you can find simple errors that you might not find while writing in the edit window. If you don't like doing that, copy the article over to Microsoft Word and use the spell check to see your errors. Finally, when it's all together, add links to wherever appropriate- season page, other storms that affected the area (like if a hurricane hit Florida, then the storm you're writing about did as well, you could make a mention that your storm article also hit the state later in the season), and on disambiguation pages. I hope this helps. I, for one, don't like seeing articles get merged, but some storms simply can't have an article based on lack of information. If there's any doubt, ask! There are numerous places to ask, and by proposing the article, you can get pointers for things to add, like if there are any existing images. One more thing. Most of the important Atlantic storms have articles already... at least since 1950. Most others that don't either don't have enough information or aren't notable enough. For this reason, it might be hard to write a new, good article, on an Atlantic storm. Hopefully you can use these pointers when writing in the future. Hurricanehink 21:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

ok...I uploaded an impact picture and know im stuck on how to put in the article and i've read how to do it but i dont get it????????????--HurricaneRo 21:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Tammy flooding.jpg

Tammy flooding

However, there's still no need for the article. Also, you need a source for the picture. Where did you get that? Hurricanehink 22:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

My opinion on the 2005 articles is the same as it's been for a while now: either we should have an article for every storm, or we need to follow the criteria that every other Atlantic storm uses. Based on those criteria, Tammy definitely does not deserve an article and should be merged. And it seems the consensus is against having a storm for every article (rather we can just make the list article longer and longer). Also BTW, the article is misnamed: it should be Tropical Storm Tammy (2005). CrazyC83 already wrote articles for every 2005 storm (which were merged without discussion), his version was better (though now out of date) and can be found here. — jdorje (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree with a merge. It may have been part of the reason for the flooding in the Northeast, but on its own, it isn't very notable. --Coredesat 11:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My article is better than the other one! I have way more things for the impact section...You can't really tell what happened with Tammy in that article--65.9.62.189 00:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Re-merge. This storm isn't notable by itself. Merge it either with List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms or Northeast U.S. flooding of October 2005. As Tammy, this storm did little but drench the Georgia coast. And, Jdorje, the merging of the induvidual storm articles was chewed over endlessly. Many of us expressed our dissent of splitting up the article. We were ignored. Many of us opposed the creation of articles for every storm. We were again ignored. It was discussed. Us opponents however didn't just sit down and shut up like you guys wanted us to. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 00:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe every hurricane should have an article of itself, if someone wants to create one... theres no point in having one big page with all the storms with little info, when u can have one page with lots of information and detail about a particular storm. People want inforamtion and detail, they dont care about the signifigance, Tammy still deserves her respect and I perosnally created a Tammy page becuase I wnated to know all bout her for awhile, since no one else created one, I did... there are probably some people who do care about this storm and want to know about it.--HurricaneRo 03:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, that's a big issue. We agreed a while back that not every storm would have an article, due to better organization on the storm summary and lack of information. Hurricanehink 03:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

GIANT RE-MERGE. This is stupid. 3 months ago we decided on getting rid of all uneeded articles.Although I need to talk to Crazy to move his Irene one into the LNSB.The only 2005 storms that allow an article would be:

• Cindy-get rid of 2005 (320 million is enough i believe to get rid of the 2005 mark)
• Dennis
• Emily
• Katrina
• Maria
• Ophelia
• Rita
• Stan
• Vince-get rid of the 2005
• Wilma
• Beta-get rid of the 2005
• Gamma
• Delta
• Epsilon
• Zeta

By my count=15 articles.HurricaneCraze32 22:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Tammy should go. Maria, Vince, Epsilon, and Zeta were even less notable and should also go. Or we should revive all of CrazyC83s 2005 storm articles and get rid of the list article. — jdorje (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, never thought of that. I'm actually not opposed now to reviving all of CrazyC83's storm articles. The list article is pointless, and I can see the usefulness of having every storm have their own article. Eric, I am really sorry, but this time it could work. We now have all of the post-season reports, and it is 2005. If the Simpsons can have every episode in a season, what's wrong with having an article for each storm? Some might be small, but well-written stubs are not the end of the world. Hurricanehink 01:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have always been a strong supporter of an article for each storm, but I never really mentioned it. Also, I really think that we can get TD tracking maps. I don't see why we can't. Icelandic Hurricane #12 01:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I am very reluctant to make tracking maps of the TDs from hand-made data because these will not be included in future best track datasets, and thus will never be re-assessed. However I encourage you to pester the NHC to add depressions to the best track dataset. — jdorje (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hink, I don't think we have Beta's report yet. Also, we don't have the report-that-might-not-be of that unnamed storm in October. Jdorje, wouldn't it be best to give what information we DO have, the hand-made data tracks, even if it'll never be re-assessed again? What if casual viewers want to see the TD track, without going to another site or looking in the reports themselves? -- RattleMan 02:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot about Beta and the unnamed storm. Yea Jdorje, what's the harm in posting a track map for the depressions? You do it for WPAC and Indian cyclones. Hurricanehink 02:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree to reviving Crazy's Articles, BUT we should make a seperate page for them.Also it seems like that Gamma, Delta and Alpha deserve an article compared to Beta.43,41 and 7 deaths & 161 Million+ Damage is pretty more worthwile.HurricaneCraze32 12:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just the recurring storm article debate being played out on an individual storm isn't it? Isn't it more appropriate to hold a central discussion - presumably on the project page and try and find a solution to this once and for all? It is highly likely that the 2006 season will have the same issues as the 2005 one, with just average activity that is probable given the much larger number of editors now. Maybe the solution should be every storm from EVERY season is deemed worthy of an article, and if someone writes it up to a minimum standard it stays. -- Nilfanion 14:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, the once and for discussion is at the 2005 talk page. Hurricanehink 21:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a forecast section to the article, following the format for Lee. -- Nilfanion 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice. I upped it to start class, though a thorough copyedit is needed. Hurricanehink 21:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Damage

Though the TCR says Tammy was below the $25 million threshold, I found this FEMA site that says Tammy caused around $29 million in paid losses. While that does not mean damages, the amount paid from FEMA is part of the damage total, and I am going to add it in. Hurricanehink 21:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

How's THIS for damage: my beautiful outdoor wedding facing the Chesapeake Bay had to be moved inside due to this storm. My bride's name... TAMMY. I am not making this up... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.116 (talk) 12:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Page Name

Shouldn't this article be at Tropical Storm Tammy (2005), assuming it is kept (looks likely currently)? -- Nilfanion 14:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. All storms not retired, those that are significantly notable that deserve the main page, and some older storms should have the main name. All others should have the year identifier. Hurricanehink 15:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#Tropical_cyclone_article_naming. This may naturally need some revision after the current discussion as it's never been challenged before. — jdorje (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We should put (2005) back in. CrazyC83 17:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tried moving it to include (2005), but that page already exists, so it won't let me do it. But if I was an administrator (I wish I was, plz nominate me! :)), I could do it. Icelandic Hurricane #12 19:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

So find an admin (tito, nsle, golbez) and ask them. — jdorje (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I put the request in. Hurricanehink 12:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Content from old page (Tammy and 22)

Did you happen to read my suggestion?Why not include the infobox of STD22 with Tammy.They are the Teamwork Storms of 2005. They'd go well toghether.Tell me if you want to add this.HurricaneCraze32 21:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I did, but thought that they were distinct systems for their tropical lives and decided to keep them separate. CrazyC83 02:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

They are distinct systems, and should be kept separate. Jdorje 03:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

They are non-notable storms and should be merged. The front that absorbed these storms did all the flooding. The storms just gave fuel to the fire. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 04:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Whiel I promote articles for each storm, I agree that this is otherwise excessive. We don't have an article about 1991's Hurricane Grace, do we? But we do have one on The Perfect Storm. - Cuivienen 14:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Article should be kept if all other articles are restored (which IMO should be done), but otherwise (unlike Maria or Delta) it isn't notable enough if we are going by notability. Several other storms (i.e. Arlene, Irene, Jose) that had articles merged were more notable. My vote is Conditional keep. CrazyC83 23:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge This is ridiculous people! There's barely any more information on this page than there is on the season page. bob rulz 06:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, when the other least-notable storms were merged, this one was kept. I'm re-merging it for now, although if all the pages are returned, the information will be there... CrazyC83 16:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Todo

The impact section still needs a lot of work.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

South Carolina needed the rain. Plasticup ^T/C 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandbags in Volusia County? I'll have to find someone with access. Plasticup ^T/C 19:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Get more prep info out of here.
2. Re-write and cite the Impact section. Maybe break it down by state.
3. Submit to GAN (or FAC, depending on how I feel about things)
4. ???
5. PROFIT!!! Plasticup ^T/C 19:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the GAN should hold off for now. Format the references, and expand. More impact (check NCDC), more SH. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

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

I will be reviewing this article currently up for Good article nomination. The full review will be up within an hour or two. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Well Written

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "Tropical Storm Tammy was a moderate strength but short lived tropical storm during..." –The wording could be a little better, but otherwise no other things I can see.

2. Factually Accurate

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

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. Neutral point of view.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. Stability

   No edit wars etc.:

5. 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):

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Besides the first sentence, everything looks good. Just leave a comment here when the sentence has been fixed :-) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'm passing this article now, good job on it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Tropical Storm Tammy (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.

Expand the storm history using outlooks and discussions. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 30 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Tropical Storm Tammy (2005) → Tropical Storm Tammy – Only Atlantic storm named Tammy. 219.79.96.122 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support - per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Damage total?

Where does the $30 million damage total come from? It's certainly not from the TCR, which says less than $25M. David Longshore says "some $30M"], but implies that's just for Georgia. I wonder if the damage total was for the New England floods that Tammy contributed to. I'm getting a few other sources saying $30M, but most seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia, or they likely cited Wikipedia. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)