Talk:September 2016 Bay of Biscay cyclone

Storm track map
Hi, can anyone make a storm track for this cyclone, similar to the storm tracks done for recent prominent extratropical cyclones or hurricanes? I think that a number of readers would be greatly interested in such a visual addition. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't make a track because it's not an official storm, but there's the 2006 storm, so I guess there could be one but it'd have to say "Unofficial storm path". --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 13:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's unofficial, sure, but even non-tropical cyclones have received their own storm tracks. For example, see the 2011 Bering Sea cyclone and November 2014 Bering Sea cyclone. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * IIRC you made this for the 2011 Mediterranean storm named "Rolf", I guess you could do that for this storm if you felt like it. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I used photoshop to add a few points. I don't really have the storm track generator software. I know some users who do, however. Perhaps I can ask one of them. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge?
Unlike 2006 CPAC cyclone, there isn't much in here that can't put in separate articles. YE Pacific Hurricane  16:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent bold merging
just recently boldly merged this article, claiming this consensus as the reason why. I disagree, that consensus was only because the page name used the title "Subtropical Storm Stephanie" as the title, which was an unofficial name. In my version, I used a title that was more weighted, which was "September 2016 Bay of Biscay cyclone". The storm was also fairly notable in a few ways, considering multiple meteorological agencies were disagreeing over its status. This wasn't the first time this happened, as a similar thing happened in 2006. Under Jason's reason, he is claiming that the page 2006 Central Pacific cyclone shouldn't exist either because it wasn't tracked by the NHC. Please consider reaching something on the talk page here instead of just boldly merging and claiming stuff like that. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That consensus was for a full blown delete of the article and not just because it used a unofficial name as we could have just moved it at any time. The article as a whole contains a lot of original research and false facts like for example the NHC AoR not containing the Bay Of Biscay when it does. Also the article by Jeff Masters does not tell me that there was a lot of controversy over the systems classification and exactly how am i meant to verify that the surface map shows an occluded front was still attached to the system. As a result, I boldly decided to merge it after reading it through and noting that it has been redirected several times already when it was located at Cyclone Stephanie. Also the NHC is not tracking Cyclone Donna and the majority of tropical cyclones, but that does not mean I think that they do not need an article.Jason Rees (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If I am going to merge it, I'll just merge the MH and controversy among its status. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem with keeping the MH is that there is a lot of original research in it, because you decided to create the MH using images and not reports like this one created by the University of Berlin. Also there was no controversy all that happened was that Meteo France and NOAA supposedly disagreed, on where on the tropical spectrum to place a cyclone that was being monitored by both agencies which routinely happens during the season and is not notable.Jason Rees (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)