Talk:Tropical Depression One (2009)

Northerly Cyclogenesis
I went through all the records of pre-season storms at Weather Underground and found that TD 1 formed more northerly than any other pre-season system. The records at WU aren't considered a reliable source though, are they? Anyone know where a source for this could be found? Thanks. Caincameron (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As the best track only includes systems of at least tropical storm force (no TD's), there is no record that can be proven, unless it reaches TS status. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't DR have a link to a .txt file that has all TCs in the ATL and EPac, including Tropical Depressions? Cyclonebiskit 20:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, well I removed the sentence about the record until we can prove beyond a doubt that it's true. Caincameron (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. The link is here, and it includes all TDs that NHC recognized in their Atlantic non-developing systems database, as well as many of the TDs from the JTWC/EPac hurricane reports.  Like in HURDAT, asterisks indicate a TC. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The storm originated
I found something really interesting, it originated from 90L (the first one). HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 22:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Source? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Weather maps + satellite. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 22:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's original research then. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I will wait for TCR. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This might be useful. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * May 21 0600Z near Bahamas + 90L.INVEST deactivated 2009-05-19, 1815z @ 22.4ºN 76.0ºW. = The same storm. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 23:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, no. The first one dissipated as it was moving northwest, and another system formed in the same spot two days later.  The only thing similar about the two is that they both existed within the main inflow band of the Gulf of Mexico system, before the moisture band became a detached feature after it the original low moved into into the Gulf coast.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the NRL began monitoring 91L on May 25, four days later than what you're claiming. Cee Bee (Talk to me) 00:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This graphic proofs it (and it is from NRL). HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 01:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That map doesn't specify any dates prior to the current info. The points on their are from here and the first date is May 25, right near the Bahamas. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since those points originated within ATCF at NHC, they should be used to plot the track. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

TS winds
, might be a tropical storm in post-storm analysis. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 03:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's keep discussion on this page limited to improvements regarding the article itself. Thanks. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Tropical Depression One Track
Tropical Depression One dissipated a few days ago so why is there no storm track yet? --12george1 (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Patience, everything doesn't happen right away. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Added more to the meteorological history. The low dissipated about 30 hours ago well to the southwest of the Azores, according to the Unified Surface Analysis.  Thegreatdr (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like the TCR completely ignored the OPC surface analyses. Would there be an issue with reverting the meteorological history back to the way it originally was, since NHC apparently cannot follow a surface low on a series of surface maps?  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can find an archived version of it in text form (can't use images as a reference) sure, otherwise we have to go by the TCR. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's highly unlikely, but I'll take a look to see if old high seas forecasts still exist online. By the way, when did we cease using images online as resources?  Thegreatdr (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This has too much info that is not about the depression
Almost half the meteorological history is about the disturbance leading up to the depression, but this is supposed to be a tropical cyclone article. Potapych (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that because the system had a short life as a TC, but a long life before and after it was a TD? The low pressure area was trackable for nearly a week, if you include the track portion not currently covered in the article.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be weighted towards something that is beyond the scope of the article. The focus should be on May 28-29 because those are days this was a tropical cyclone. I notice people want to create articles because of damages caused by waves, but that information is just trivia in a tropical cyclone article. So by itself it shouldn't call for a new TC article. Potapych (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If we were to exclude all details except for those strictly related to TD 1, the article would not be comprehensive. Formation, evolution, dissipation, and post-tropical history are perfectly relevant. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are still excessive details, such as the standby recon mission (fairly trivial), the full details on each TWO, and numerous instances of using more words in a sentence than necessary. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 04:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in any detail. The meteorological history should focus on the middle two - evolution and dissipation. If its about the wave, change it to a meteorology article. This article has no meat, which indicates that it probably shouldn't exist. Potapych (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, we need to create better naming conventions. The article should be about the storm, not the official designation. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not about naming - it is about a tropical cyclone. You don't seem to understand what I am saying because I am not against providing some history before the TC phase. However, that stuff is indirectly related to the topic (like trivia) so it shouldn't overwhelm the whole article. Presently this reads like a college term paper (which is not a good thing). Potapych (talk) 05:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are some excessive details that could be removed, but the majority of the info is necessary for sufficient context, and by extension comprehensiveness. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 06:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I will fail the GAN for points 1. and 3. Potapych (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1? How is the article not well-written? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * &larr; I removed some excessive details from the first paragraph of the met. history. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Potapych, seriously, why are you complaining about this? The article covers the entire subject, not just the part you think it should cover. Please, no personal vendettas and what not. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not an article about the cyclone, this is an article about the object that (by necessity) was a tropical cyclone at some point. If we want an article on every storm they should not have less pre-/post-tropical detail than an important hurricane like say, Katrina just because people don't like how the pre+post:trop length ratio would have to be. Would you not mention the blastocyte, fetal and childhood stages in an article about anatomy because it's "not a standard body" yet? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Time zone
Should the time zone change to ADT at the end? HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 07:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Tropical Depression One (2009). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/46365517.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Merge proposal
This storm literally did nothing notable. All the information could be fit into the season article. No deaths, no damage, minimal impact, and it's a tropical depression, not a major hurricane. Even though this article is a GA, IMO, TD Nine doesn't deserve an article. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongly support, the only notable thing about this system was it’s latitude. We could easily put that into the section for Atlantic records. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support We could but IMO as a GA it takes stronger consensus. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Lean Support This literally is a toss-up for me. If this was just some, weakly made article about a tropical cyclone that was only notable for being a statistic, I'd be all in. GA status however, makes it harder to fully support. I still support the merge because this is one of those articles that sets a precedence (I think that's how you use this word. LOL!) for what storms can get articles and which ones don't. There are PLENTY of more meaningful storms that don't have articles that caused more impacts on land, yet this one got simply because it formed early in high latitude. I wouldn't mind keeping it, but a merger is definitely something to consider as well.ChessEric (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Even though it's GA-class doesn't mean it's so important. GA class merely means someone put a lot of work into it, and yes, erasing their work does feel bad. However, the pros to merging outweigh the cons. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 00:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh I know. I just bought that up.ChessEric (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say their work is "destroyed" as the article's history will be maintained if it's merged. Their work will serve a purpose regardless if it's a separate article or part of the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season. – The Grid  ( talk )  16:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Nothing about this tropical depression makes it a noteworthy event. Drdpw (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you created the article, you may want to give your opinion for the merge. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge – I created a lot of articles for non-notable storms back in the day. This is just a leftover that missed the cull. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)