This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tropical Storm Debby (2006) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Tropical Storm Debby (2006) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with 2006 Atlantic hurricane season on 2024-02-16. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was Merge. |
Text and/or other creative content from Tropical Storm Debby (2006) was copied or moved into 2006 Atlantic hurricane season with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
OK, someone added a merge notice to this article. So, by definition, we should discuss whether or not to merge it. I think the article should stay for these reasons.
Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It's well sourced and written. Someone waving around Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information will say this level of detail is arguably unnecessary for a fishie. Someone saying Wikipedia is not paper will say we can have this level of detail for those interested in the development, timeline and consequences of this storm. I agree per Hink and random26. TransUtopian 11:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep as long as equal effort is put towards the Eastern Pacific storms of which all have as much information available as does the least interesting Atlantic storm which has an article (See Tropical Storm Lee (2005). Otherwise, merge. It's the inconsistency and bias towards the Atlantic that drives me crazy. A fishspinner in the Atlantic is no more notable or interesting than a fishspinner in the Pacific. I don't know how available some of the information for the other basins is, I would imagine the Aussies are pretty good about it. So those storms should also have articles. I would think there are some far more interesting storms than Debby that don't have articles, but do have the information available to make them. It has been awhile since I have sifted through the JTWC archives, but from what I remember they are pretty good. Well, that's all I have for now. -- Holderca1 18:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I say that we don't merge Debby, cause for the Atlantic, all storms should have their own articles. -- § Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody ( talk + contribs + userboxes) 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Completely disregarding what I said above, I'm now feeling the article should be merged, seeing as it was very non-notable. Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :
Additional comments :
Lincher 13:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications. Lincher 02:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This is sorta a "Don" case here. Agencies warned of heavy rain (which, in this case, didn't have any impact), tropical storm warnings were issued, and prices of commodities went up slightly due to the storm. Thoughts? HF 25 15:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - High quality article should be kept, I personally disagree as it is a GA. J G ( edits · sandbox) 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Debby had minimal impacts, and the impacts that occurred could easily be merged with the article. Incognito Fedora ( talk) 16:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Procedural GAR after article was merged. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tropical Storm Debby (2006) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Tropical Storm Debby (2006) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with 2006 Atlantic hurricane season on 2024-02-16. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was Merge. |
Text and/or other creative content from Tropical Storm Debby (2006) was copied or moved into 2006 Atlantic hurricane season with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
OK, someone added a merge notice to this article. So, by definition, we should discuss whether or not to merge it. I think the article should stay for these reasons.
Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It's well sourced and written. Someone waving around Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information will say this level of detail is arguably unnecessary for a fishie. Someone saying Wikipedia is not paper will say we can have this level of detail for those interested in the development, timeline and consequences of this storm. I agree per Hink and random26. TransUtopian 11:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Keep as long as equal effort is put towards the Eastern Pacific storms of which all have as much information available as does the least interesting Atlantic storm which has an article (See Tropical Storm Lee (2005). Otherwise, merge. It's the inconsistency and bias towards the Atlantic that drives me crazy. A fishspinner in the Atlantic is no more notable or interesting than a fishspinner in the Pacific. I don't know how available some of the information for the other basins is, I would imagine the Aussies are pretty good about it. So those storms should also have articles. I would think there are some far more interesting storms than Debby that don't have articles, but do have the information available to make them. It has been awhile since I have sifted through the JTWC archives, but from what I remember they are pretty good. Well, that's all I have for now. -- Holderca1 18:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I say that we don't merge Debby, cause for the Atlantic, all storms should have their own articles. -- § Alastor "Mad-Eye" Moody ( talk + contribs + userboxes) 18:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Completely disregarding what I said above, I'm now feeling the article should be merged, seeing as it was very non-notable. Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :
Additional comments :
Lincher 13:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarifications. Lincher 02:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! -- Nehrams2020 ( talk) 23:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
This is sorta a "Don" case here. Agencies warned of heavy rain (which, in this case, didn't have any impact), tropical storm warnings were issued, and prices of commodities went up slightly due to the storm. Thoughts? HF 25 15:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - High quality article should be kept, I personally disagree as it is a GA. J G ( edits · sandbox) 16:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Debby had minimal impacts, and the impacts that occurred could easily be merged with the article. Incognito Fedora ( talk) 16:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Procedural GAR after article was merged. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)