 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Title
editMoved from Hurricanehink (talk)'s Talk Page:...
San Felipe hurricane
editHi, thanks for taking a look at the article, I hope to collaborate in a few Hurricane articles. I am going to change the name back since its name is San Felipe hurricane, not 1876 San Felipe hurricane, I have read that the project has a policy on naming hurricane articles by:
"Unnamed (including numbered) hurricanes (used for older tropical cyclones in all basins) should be distinguished by location, type, and year. Three naming conventions are acceptable: Galveston Hurricane of 1900, 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, or Unnamed Hurricane (1975). All unnamed hurricanes should always have a year in the name. Again, create redirects wherever necessary to avoid confusion or duplicate articles."
but as I have explained to HurricaneSpin; many of the "unnamed" hurricanes HAVE names. And they are not "location, type, and year" names. Since the 1870ts San Juan had a meteorological observatory, and Havana before that. Still most of the hurricane before that were named and those name were used officially by Governments. Just because the US was not aware of this, it does not make it less true. Those names were not "popular culture" name of because of tradition, well mayby in part. But still that was the way the hurricanes were named back then and Caribbean, American (in the real sense not only the US), European and other governments and their citizens recognized them as their names, even the US at times.
I created 4 hurricane article in good faith and in less than a few hours they were nominated for merging. Sorry if I seem to come on strong but I get the felling that if I had named them 1876 Puerto Rico Hurricane, the editor would not have been so quick to propose merge, and instead would offer pointer on what he considers would improve the article. I am not assuming that there is bad faith, but sometimes because of self imposed "guidelines" one can be unable to grasp something se clear and obvious. After all isn't wikipidia about learning new things. Sorry if I rambled on.El Johnson (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- thanks for the quick response. I know editors don't own articles, I have been around wiki since before 2007. As I also know Wikiprojects don't own them ether, although I do know they have more pro than cons, personally a member of 2. As for the name, you have a point, but the year in front of the name just isn't appropriate, in any case it could be San Felipe I, as is called in some official sources. In those the second one is written as San Felipe II. I feel that writing something like:
This article is about the hurricane San Felipe in 1876. For the San Felipe Hurricane of 1928, see San Felipe II Hurricane
or something like that. El Johnson (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Moved following from El Johnson (talk)'s Talk Page:...
Re: San Felipe hurricane
editI see what you're saying about how most older storms do have real names, but you can't simply call it the "San Felipe hurricane" when there is another more notable storm also known as the "San Felipe hurricane" (the one in 1928). Sure, the ladder is sometimes followed by "Segundo", but it's still better known than the 1876 one was, which is why I think the year is required. If you're going to add more to the article, just tell the other authors that, and the article won't get merged. Add some storm history (I can tell you where to find it), and include as much as you can on its effects everywhere. However, be sure to remember that you don't own articles, and other people can edit and do stuff to articles you made. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I notice that the San Ciriaco hurricane is called the 1899 San Ciriaco hurricane (that is, with the year in the title) even though there is no other hurricane called San Ciriaco II. Does anyone know why the inconsistency in this case? I believe there are others as well. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.
For example, it's called "meteorological history", not "overview", lead need expansion, need more reference, I will go help around if I got time. HurricaneSpin Talk 04:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- You said "Hi Tony, could you please move back 1876 San Felipe hurricane to the name I created it with: San Felipe Hurricane". I looked at the history of the latter "San Felipe Hurricane" which is a disambiguation page of the two hurricanes and did not see you as creator. Now, I think that as a disambiguation page it is fine, however "1876 San Felipe hurricane" should be "San Felipe hurricane (1876)". Now, I see that "1876 San Felipe hurricane" is part of a Tropical hurricane series. If you want, you can write a complete article dedicated solely to the San Felipe hurricane of 1876 and title it "San Felipe hurricane (1876)". Tony the Marine (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Per your request, I moved the article to "San Felipe hurricane (1876)". I placed the following reason: "Per request. Editor will expand article solely dedicated to said hurricane". Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the current title. True, a project doesn't own an article, but there should be consistency among articles. Years shouldn't be in parenthesis, simply put. It should be moved to "1876 San Felipe hurricane". --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- You contradict yourself, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones states:
"Unnamed (including numbered) hurricanes (used for older tropical cyclones in all basins) should be distinguished by location, type, and year. Three naming conventions are acceptable: Galveston Hurricane of 1900, 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, or Unnamed Hurricane (1975). All unnamed hurricanes should always have a year in the name. Again, create redirects wherever necessary to avoid confusion or duplicate articles."
that is a direct quote. I added the bold. So what is it, you follow your own guidelines only when its in your liking? El Johnson (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is, the Hurricane is not UNNAMED so there is even no need for it to have a year.El Johnson (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
moved from eljohnson15 talk page:
- It should be moved back, but the stuff on the project page is old and should be fixed. YE Tropical Cyclone 23:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree, it should be changed back, it should be changed back to San Felipe Hurricane. Since that is its name, simply put. You cant go around re-naming hurricanes just because its your "guidelines" even thou the fact of the matter is you are going against what your own project page says. As was stated above nether I not the hurricane project owns the article.
The fact is that its been called San Felipe Hurricane since 1876, and even NOAA recognizes it as such [1], [2], please provide me with any citation that calls it 1876 San Felipe hurricane, for I still haven't found any. But if you do find ONE the are a a lot more that call it by ITS NAME : San Felipe Hurricane.
One possible title would be "Hurricane San Felipe". I see there are other hurricane article titles that follow that format such as Hurricane Katrina. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 04:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC), and I approve this message.