![]() | Tropical Storm Alpha (2005) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So, can anyone tell me what this article has that the 2005 season article doesn't/shouldn't? OK, so it was the first time greek letters were used. That's nice. We have a disambig page that explains that, at Tropical Storm Alpha. An article on the notable naming is useful; an article on the storm, which was itself rather unnotable, is not, and should redirect to the season. -- Golbez 01:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
In addition, now, we can build this up easier. With the Wilma page pretty much slowed down, we can focus more on this. Being in the shadows of Wilma made information much slower with Alpha. CrazyC83 20:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Golbez: This article is a reasonable addition to wikipedia. If you are so convinced the article is unnecessay, please go through the AfD process. Please do not remove the article and replace with a redirect, then label doing so a "minor edit", as you did here. Thank you:
— Gaff ταλκ 20:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
{{ mergedisputed}}
While I hope this merge doesn't come off, unless someone has more to add to this article I think it should be merged back in a few weeks. The current three-and-a-half paragraphs plus one picture are the exact same length as the summary entry in that article. While we could certainly make the summary entry shorter (and will, if this article stays), the fact is this article needs more fleshing out. What I'd particularly like to see:
Jdorje 20:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Can one of you people who thinks the article should stay please spend some time to improve it a little? In fact, can everyone who spent time voting on whether to merge the article instead spend your future time improving it? I just did a once-over on it, before which the quality was horribly low. Some picutures would really help and would probably justify a separate article on their own (since unlike everything else in this article, they are not included in the main article already). Jdorje 05:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Since I have improved this article to a minimal level of quality and length to justify keeping it around (in my opinion), I withdraw the merge proposal. For the record, the amount of effort needed to do this was much less than what you have all spent trying to convince us that the article shouldn't be merged. My merge proposal was an attempt to get some of you to actually spend some time improving the article, but as such it was a total failure. Since I added the merge proposal I figured it would be okay if I removed it...although I know that others are still in favor of the merge and you may of course feel free to add it back. Jdorje 19:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Do not merge. Content will be lost. Rangeley 23:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Please stop redirecting this article to the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article. -- Revolución ( talk) 21:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Why?? Alpha has very little chance of being retired and there could be a Alpha storm next year unless they change the way they name storms. This should be moved back. -- Holderca1 16:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
There is no need for the "(2005)", as stated below this is the first "Tropical Storm Alpha."
by merging you are effectively deleting the article, so I urge you to go through the WP:AFD process instead. -- Revolución ( talk) 23:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I would agree with that. If those so hellbent on eliminating this article insist on it, when minor league baseballplayers, state highway route numbers, the lineups of lesser teams in the Spanish football leagues, Star Trek episodes, and B-movie Hollywood types and other non-"life and death" articles can continue and be expanded upon... I think that a record breaking tropical storm, the first ever named by an unexpected-to-be-used contingency, that ends up damaging the homes of thousands, and kills a few dozen is worthy of a brief mention in an article of its own. The main article for this 2005 season is already way long and if Alpha and other storms retain their own pages, the main page information can be shortened to a general season summary and articles like these contain more specific and detailed information storm-by-storm. Wikipedia is supposed to allow for an encyclopedic coverage contributed by many members: not pigeonholed by a few members. -- Sturmde 01:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
If Alpha warrants its own article, then we need to write articles on every landfalling storm. Why is Alpha more notable than Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Gert, Jose and Tammy? -- Holderca1 04:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
If you want to delete this article, then delete all the other articles in Category:Tropical storms. oh wait, you don't want to delete those, because (except for Odette) they made landfall in the U.S. Be consistent people, if you don't like accusations of U.S. bias then don't take actions which support the idea that you are putting forth that bias -- Revolución ( talk) 17:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
And by the way, Odette (which has an article) made landfall in the same place, but caused 10 deaths, compared to Alpha's 26 -- Revolución ( talk) 17:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
It is completely ridiculous to have a disambiguation page, or a (2005) at the end of the name, because there has NEVER been another Tropical Storm Alpha! The 1972 Atlantic hurricane season storm was Subtropical Storm Alpha (strong emphasis on the subtropical), and was named for the NATO phonetic alphabet, as all subtropical storms (which were called neutercanes then) were in those two years. The 1973 storm was Subtropical Storm Alfa, which was not only not a tropical storm, but was not even spelled the same! (Both were followed by a Subtropical Storm Bravo). If Alpha and Alfa became tropical, they were renamed with a proper tropical storm name.
If this extraordinary and unprecedented hurricane season should repeat itself (it hasn't in at least 155 years), and the NHC and WMO fail to add X/Y/Z names, only then could there ever be another Tropical Storm Alpha. The likelihood of this is extremely remote: 1/155 is less than 2/3%. – radiojon 17:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see a point for a disambiguation if there has never been a tropical storm named Alpha before. -- Revolución ( talk) 17:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I firmly believe a disambiguation is needed and should be pointed to from the article page. However I don't care whether the article is named Alpha or Alpha (2005). Jdorje 20:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Honestly people, if as much time that has been spent on this talk page as the article, then this article wouldn't be fighting for its life rather than a merger. -- Holderca1 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Subtropical storms can be easily confused for tropical storms, and they should treated as the same thing here. CrazyC83 07:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The point of disambiguation is so that people can choose between other identical page names. Clearly "Tropical Storm Alpha" is not identical to "Subtropical Storm Alpha" or "Subtropical Storm Alfa", therefore a disambiguation page is not needed. As a courtesy to readers however, it should have links to those two other storms. This fulfills the purpose of the disambiguation page in a much more streamlined way. I also must point out that in 155 Atlantic hurricane seasons, there has never been a 22nd tropical or subtropical storm (in any basin for that matter), so it is extremely unlikely to occur again anytime soon (i.e. this century). If that somehow is the case, and the NHC and WMO will not create X/Y/Z names, only then is disambiguation warranted (unless it is subtropical, in which case the dab page would go there). – radiojon 14:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Disambiguation is unnecessary as no other tropical storm in the the entire history of the world has bore this name. Rangeley 23:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Move request not fulfilled, insufficient consensus. Rob Church Talk 23:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Good content, but this has too much of a work-in-progress feel so I put it at Start-class.
Jdorje 09:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Who objects if I completely redo this page? Juliancolton ( talk) 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this sentence make no sense at all? A tropical wave, which had started out from Africa about October 15, then reached the Windward Islands on October 19 and organized into a tropical depression about 180 miles southwest of San Juan, Puerto Rico, on October 22. Juliancolton ( talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer ( talk) 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Overall, this is a well-written and well-referenced article. All of the things detailed above are fairly minor and should be easy and quick to fix. I am putting the article on hold for seven days to allow you time to make these few tweaks. If you have questions, you can ask them here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer ( talk) 01:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | Tropical Storm Alpha (2005) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
So, can anyone tell me what this article has that the 2005 season article doesn't/shouldn't? OK, so it was the first time greek letters were used. That's nice. We have a disambig page that explains that, at Tropical Storm Alpha. An article on the notable naming is useful; an article on the storm, which was itself rather unnotable, is not, and should redirect to the season. -- Golbez 01:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
In addition, now, we can build this up easier. With the Wilma page pretty much slowed down, we can focus more on this. Being in the shadows of Wilma made information much slower with Alpha. CrazyC83 20:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Golbez: This article is a reasonable addition to wikipedia. If you are so convinced the article is unnecessay, please go through the AfD process. Please do not remove the article and replace with a redirect, then label doing so a "minor edit", as you did here. Thank you:
— Gaff ταλκ 20:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
{{ mergedisputed}}
While I hope this merge doesn't come off, unless someone has more to add to this article I think it should be merged back in a few weeks. The current three-and-a-half paragraphs plus one picture are the exact same length as the summary entry in that article. While we could certainly make the summary entry shorter (and will, if this article stays), the fact is this article needs more fleshing out. What I'd particularly like to see:
Jdorje 20:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Can one of you people who thinks the article should stay please spend some time to improve it a little? In fact, can everyone who spent time voting on whether to merge the article instead spend your future time improving it? I just did a once-over on it, before which the quality was horribly low. Some picutures would really help and would probably justify a separate article on their own (since unlike everything else in this article, they are not included in the main article already). Jdorje 05:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Since I have improved this article to a minimal level of quality and length to justify keeping it around (in my opinion), I withdraw the merge proposal. For the record, the amount of effort needed to do this was much less than what you have all spent trying to convince us that the article shouldn't be merged. My merge proposal was an attempt to get some of you to actually spend some time improving the article, but as such it was a total failure. Since I added the merge proposal I figured it would be okay if I removed it...although I know that others are still in favor of the merge and you may of course feel free to add it back. Jdorje 19:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Do not merge. Content will be lost. Rangeley 23:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Please stop redirecting this article to the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article. -- Revolución ( talk) 21:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Why?? Alpha has very little chance of being retired and there could be a Alpha storm next year unless they change the way they name storms. This should be moved back. -- Holderca1 16:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
There is no need for the "(2005)", as stated below this is the first "Tropical Storm Alpha."
by merging you are effectively deleting the article, so I urge you to go through the WP:AFD process instead. -- Revolución ( talk) 23:12, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I would agree with that. If those so hellbent on eliminating this article insist on it, when minor league baseballplayers, state highway route numbers, the lineups of lesser teams in the Spanish football leagues, Star Trek episodes, and B-movie Hollywood types and other non-"life and death" articles can continue and be expanded upon... I think that a record breaking tropical storm, the first ever named by an unexpected-to-be-used contingency, that ends up damaging the homes of thousands, and kills a few dozen is worthy of a brief mention in an article of its own. The main article for this 2005 season is already way long and if Alpha and other storms retain their own pages, the main page information can be shortened to a general season summary and articles like these contain more specific and detailed information storm-by-storm. Wikipedia is supposed to allow for an encyclopedic coverage contributed by many members: not pigeonholed by a few members. -- Sturmde 01:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
If Alpha warrants its own article, then we need to write articles on every landfalling storm. Why is Alpha more notable than Arlene, Bret, Cindy, Gert, Jose and Tammy? -- Holderca1 04:50, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
If you want to delete this article, then delete all the other articles in Category:Tropical storms. oh wait, you don't want to delete those, because (except for Odette) they made landfall in the U.S. Be consistent people, if you don't like accusations of U.S. bias then don't take actions which support the idea that you are putting forth that bias -- Revolución ( talk) 17:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
And by the way, Odette (which has an article) made landfall in the same place, but caused 10 deaths, compared to Alpha's 26 -- Revolución ( talk) 17:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
It is completely ridiculous to have a disambiguation page, or a (2005) at the end of the name, because there has NEVER been another Tropical Storm Alpha! The 1972 Atlantic hurricane season storm was Subtropical Storm Alpha (strong emphasis on the subtropical), and was named for the NATO phonetic alphabet, as all subtropical storms (which were called neutercanes then) were in those two years. The 1973 storm was Subtropical Storm Alfa, which was not only not a tropical storm, but was not even spelled the same! (Both were followed by a Subtropical Storm Bravo). If Alpha and Alfa became tropical, they were renamed with a proper tropical storm name.
If this extraordinary and unprecedented hurricane season should repeat itself (it hasn't in at least 155 years), and the NHC and WMO fail to add X/Y/Z names, only then could there ever be another Tropical Storm Alpha. The likelihood of this is extremely remote: 1/155 is less than 2/3%. – radiojon 17:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I don't see a point for a disambiguation if there has never been a tropical storm named Alpha before. -- Revolución ( talk) 17:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I firmly believe a disambiguation is needed and should be pointed to from the article page. However I don't care whether the article is named Alpha or Alpha (2005). Jdorje 20:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Honestly people, if as much time that has been spent on this talk page as the article, then this article wouldn't be fighting for its life rather than a merger. -- Holderca1 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Subtropical storms can be easily confused for tropical storms, and they should treated as the same thing here. CrazyC83 07:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The point of disambiguation is so that people can choose between other identical page names. Clearly "Tropical Storm Alpha" is not identical to "Subtropical Storm Alpha" or "Subtropical Storm Alfa", therefore a disambiguation page is not needed. As a courtesy to readers however, it should have links to those two other storms. This fulfills the purpose of the disambiguation page in a much more streamlined way. I also must point out that in 155 Atlantic hurricane seasons, there has never been a 22nd tropical or subtropical storm (in any basin for that matter), so it is extremely unlikely to occur again anytime soon (i.e. this century). If that somehow is the case, and the NHC and WMO will not create X/Y/Z names, only then is disambiguation warranted (unless it is subtropical, in which case the dab page would go there). – radiojon 14:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Disambiguation is unnecessary as no other tropical storm in the the entire history of the world has bore this name. Rangeley 23:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Move request not fulfilled, insufficient consensus. Rob Church Talk 23:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Good content, but this has too much of a work-in-progress feel so I put it at Start-class.
Jdorje 09:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Who objects if I completely redo this page? Juliancolton ( talk) 00:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this sentence make no sense at all? A tropical wave, which had started out from Africa about October 15, then reached the Windward Islands on October 19 and organized into a tropical depression about 180 miles southwest of San Juan, Puerto Rico, on October 22. Juliancolton ( talk) 00:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer ( talk) 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Overall, this is a well-written and well-referenced article. All of the things detailed above are fairly minor and should be easy and quick to fix. I am putting the article on hold for seven days to allow you time to make these few tweaks. If you have questions, you can ask them here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer ( talk) 01:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)