Talk:Hurricane Ivan (1980)

Todo
This is a stub. It needs more info if it is to remain a separate article. Jdorje 17:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge

 * Ugh, I tried telling him. I vote merge for this. There is no information on this storm in the first place, and is not notable enough to have its own article. Hurricanehink 19:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. Jdorje 20:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The storm formed in waters that were below 80 degrees!(just like Vince, Delta, Epsilon and Zeta), isnt that notable? Storm05 20:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's one reason, but one reason doesn't warrent. Karl in this year did the same thing, yet it doesn't have an article. It shouldn't as well. Storms that hit nowhere rarely should have an article, with only extreme examples. Landfalling storms should have more than 25 deaths, and some info on how they impacted. Hurricanehink 20:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Vince, Epsilon and Zeta all broke or set significant records and Delta killed 7 people in an unusal place (though I'm not sure I agree with its existance). This storm did none of that. -- §  Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 03:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

uh-oh, i didn't see this before. is my article in trouble too? --Viennaiswaiting (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nope, this was the discussion for when they originally merged this article. --12george1 (talk) 00:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge2
Before this article gets GA reviewed, I'm wondering whether the article should get merged. It's just a meteorology history, albeit a fairly cool one. The only non-NHC information is that it was a threat to ships, but that's fairly obvious... all storms tropical or not can threaten ships. Strictly speaking, I wonder whether it passes the notability criteria, with regards to the section on "significant independent reliable sources". Just sources from the National Hurricane Center and a pretty iffy other stat from a newspaper don't really constitute as significant.

IDK, I'd like if we could get some thoughts on this before the GA review happens. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 13:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I want to do the GA review, but unlike most merge proposals this does have non-NHC sources. The storms is unusual for forming near the Azores. You do get 16 results here, but I am not sure if they are any useful information. However, I have a border question to ask- Why does WPTC focus on merging and make a big fuss over non-landfalling articles? YE  Pacific   Hurricane  16:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Every single one of those articles gets their info from the NHC (or the Weather Bureau in one random instance), so no, there still aren't "significant independent reliable sources". As for why we focus - it shouldn't be nearly as dramatic as people make it out to be. It's just a simple transfer of information from one place and putting it to another. Tropical cyclones are fairly unique, in terms of Wikipedia articles, in that every single one is a sub-article of the season by default. It'd be like if every single NFL season had an article for each individual game. While some may be notable (however unlikely, perhaps due to attendance records and whatnot), all of them still belong to the season article. People just become dramatic when an article of theirs is proposed or successfully merged. However, people need to lose their ownism and remember that - "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * All TC articles get their info from the RMSC/TCWC, even Hurricane Katrina does. I agree it should be be nearly as dramatic as people make it out to be. In fact, I am fine with merging articles that have only NHC sources (excluding media reports that are re-writes of advisories). However, I am against merging since this storm was unusual. I am aware that the content is transferred, but when I merge articles, I merge all the content to the season article (i.e. Hurricane Enrique (1991)) save the trivia. I have been noticing that when articles all merged not all the content has been moved to the season article, but this is because some of the info is unnecessary. Most NFL games don't have articles and a few dont have mentions in their season article as well. Are you pointing out that most Atlantic hurricane should not have an article? YE  Pacific   Hurricane  18:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not at all, just that every single Atlantic hurricane is a sub-article, which we should remember. Furthermore, this article almost is entirely based off RMSC/TCWC, unlike Katrina and most landfalling storms. Also, based on the sources I've seen, it wasn't that unusual (it doesn't have any significant Google or Google scholar hits). I'm not sure what you mean about the content, but merging shouldn't be a simple copy and paste. We get into the habit of writing out everything to make it as long as possible in individual storm articles. Obviously not as much detail is needed in the section article. After all, Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 18:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * After doing multiple Google searches, I realize that Ivan did nothing to the Azores. While I still think WPTC should not focus on this, I agree to a merge. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  19:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding your edit summary, the MH would basically just be copied and pasted into the season section. That wouldn't be getting rid of any of the high quality info. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a quick test here. If it was merged Ivan's section would be pretty long and about the size of Bonnie and Carley's section combined. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  02:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * But the MH is bloated to begin with, so it could easily be parsed down to a manageable level. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * How is the current MH bloated? YE  Pacific   Hurricane
 * For someone who didn't want to focus on this, you're putting a lot of effort into responding all of this time. Anyway, the MH goes into a lot of detail, and it could probably be trimmed down without losing any info in the section. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 03:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge - The storm did nothing noteworthy form what i can see.Jason Rees (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I am tried of this merging. I suggest that WPTC should stop merging articles and improve existing articles [like what I've been doing to Hurricane Tico (1983)(though I still need to improve the US section)]. I was fine with it for a little while, since most of the articles being merged were low-quality (i.e. Katia 11, Bill 97, Karen 89). However, it is now getting out of control. Have you ever considered why VW wrote this article? At Talk:Tropical_Storm_Fabian_(1991) we had a argument over it. To quote Tito "Whether you merge this article or not will not make me more likely to work on Hurricane Camille; in fact, it makes me less likely to do so, since the editing atmosphere becomes toxic." If tihs article is merged, no new content is created and will have no benefit to the season article. And worst of all, editors becoming angered with WPTC. For now on, I am going to oppose any merger of at least moderately high-quality articles (I weakly supported Katia's merger because it was a low-quality article at the time) and that includes Ivan. And Hink, for a storm the last 7 days, the MH is not bloated. After all, WP is not a paper. YE   Pacific   Hurricane  16:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And I suggest this to you - stop worrying whether articles are merged or not. How is it "now" getting out of control, when very few articles have been merged in the past few months? Merging articles like this are simply staying in compliance with Wiki policy, in that all of the content stems from the NHC. As for your argument that we're not improving existing articles, that is a complete fabrication. Merging this would improve the season article, of which this is a sub-article. And by the way, I am Viennaiswaiting - I wrote this article. Please, stop being so dramatic when it comes to merging. It's the simple moving of content from one place to another. If you just think of each storm article as a sub-article of the season, you'd realize that articles like this can and should easily be merged. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I worry about them because if they get out of control, they environment here becomes unfavorable for WPTC editing. Merging this article would de-intrest editors to WPTC. If we left storms like this alone that have high-quality articles, WPTC would better off. I understand WP policy would be for merging this article; however, since this article is high-quality I am ignoring WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS since this article IMO makes this site slightly better. Again, WP is not a paper. If this article was merged, it content would not fit very well in the season article and /could/ cause undue weight issues. The season section may have to be trimmed slightly, and as such content is being destroyed. In all, I think it would be best if we left articles like Ivan alone. Should I open an RFC to allow for more input on this matter or will just add fuel to the fire? Should I open a discussion on the WPTC talk page? And Hink, why did you write this article, then. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  17:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * At the time we didn't have the rule in place that we couldn't use HURDAT as a source for original records. It was a spontaneous decision due to the then-recent upload of all of the discussions and whatnot for all storms through 1983. Seeing as the bottom says "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" - I am fine with having my work ripped apart, which includes being condensed to a season article. With regards to the undue weight, consider this instead - if the season article was written properly (each section getting two paragraphs or so, along the lines of 1991), then Ivan would have two paragraphs in its section. This article would only have an extra sentence or two, which would create a major redundancy. Furthermore, what information is lost isn't that problematic, owing to the policy that Wikipedia isn't "a complete exposition of all possible details". I don't see why merging an article I wrote would de-interest editors in the WPTC, considering I wrote it and it hardly gets viewed. Please stop being dramatic about merging, with such broad statements as getting "out of control". --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" is not relevant, but I was just trying to fuss about merging in general. Anyway, I merged it. YE  Pacific   Hurricane  03:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)