Talk:Hurricane Darby (2010)

Move

Article needs to be moved...ADMINISTRATOR!!! TropicalAnalystwx13 22:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not finshed. It need celanup, and i have quite a few comments. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I believe its ready. Look at Hurricane Danielle (2010) and then look at this article. The only section it needs help with is the "Preparations and Impacts" section, which can be fixed, even when Darby has its own page. TropicalAnalystwx13 22:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality of article

I'm sorry to be so blunt here, but this article is quite poor. In a very brief skim through, I found several issues with the writing structure as well as some factual issues. Unless this article is improved soon, I'm going to push for it to be merged since it doesn't supply additional useful information which isn't in the season article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I was going to say the same last night. I made some minimal improvements, but most of the article is just illegible. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it just needs some grammar correction and general cleanup. atomic7732 23:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I did some minor copyediting today. Is it better, worse or the same? YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}

I agree with Cyclone and Hink. I made the article trying to give this system an article of its own, like I believe each storm should have, but with very little information or impact, there's not really anything we can do to it..So...yeah. TropicalAnalystwx13 22:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

There were many mistakes and redundancies in the met. history, which I have fixed. Now it reads a little better. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The quality is much better, but it is still pretty short, I was going to eventually create this article, but it would have probably been a better idea to wait until the TCR comes out, IMO, because there is little about the origins, intensity, or dissipation.--12george1 (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The article needs expansion, now. I'd prefer to expand this page than merge it as expanding does more good to this site than merging. I do not know why the notability was put on the article; we have less notable storms with articles. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe Erick had an article made because of the area it traversed to become a storm...I mean it crossed the whole Atlantic basin, and Mexico, and still survived. TropicalAnalystwx13 19:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Erika...? Either way....I'm not so concerned with notability...but the size and quality of this article need improvement. I will merge it in two days time if no serious attempt has been made. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Erick, sorry. TropicalAnalystwx13 20:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

There is one record that could be mentioned with Darby; it dissipated on June 28, and that's the earliest date for the season's last major hurricane to dissipate of any season on record. It was the earliest 2nd, and earliest last, major hurricane of any Pacific season on record. Should that be mentioned(the best track supports it)? Rye998 (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, both of those records aren't directly caused by Darby, they're seasonal records. That is, if Celia hadn't happened, they wouldn't have been records. That belongs on the seasonal page. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It makes the season notable and the storm notable, and IMO it belongs in both. Anyway, the storm is notable, it just needs expansion. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Tropical Storm Alpha in 2005 isn't more notable than other storms, just because it was the 22nd storm of the season, or Zeta for being the final of 28. Storm notability is based on a storm-by-storm basis, not how it fell in the season. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The notability tag should be taken down as it passes WP:N. It needs expansion. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter anymore, YE. This article is getting merged tomorrow if no huge changes have been made. TropicalAnalystwx13

YE, if you really think that this is a notable storm, expand the article to a reasonable size (and ensure it has at least fair quality). Arguing whether or not it was notable does no good for improving the article. Also, the deadline for expanding this article is set for tomorrow afternoon around 1830 UTC (1:30 pm EDT, 10:30 PDT) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am currently being bold and in process of expanding the article. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not think I will have enough time to finish it unless if you extend the deadline 12 hours. I will be going to my grandparent's house in real life where there is no spellchecker on his computer and will remain there the rest of the day. However, I will be contactable on IRC. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That will not be a problem...I can spellcheck with Firefox if you edit it. Just be sure to try to spell as well as you can. :| TropicalAnalystwx13 21:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so scratch my earlier comment. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Still, I don't think this storm even deserves an article. It did next to nothing. This is more suited to be merged or become a new type of article (a Met History article). Darren23^Edits|Mail 22:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think otherwise, it was an interesting storm gave some minor affects on land. In addition, I think we as a project merge tow many articles. Requesting weather an article should be merged, sometimes causes drama in this project. Also, wtf is a Met history article. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is causing too much trouble... TropicalAnalystwx13 22:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

This is where I disagree. I think this project merges too few articles. Anyway, why should that matter in this? This article did next to nothing as I said above. Next to nothing. What can be covered here that can't be covered in the main article? Darren23^Edits|Mail 22:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A more detailed MH can be covered here and next to nothing is not nothing. Expanding helps the site, merging does not. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

A more detailed MH? That storm barely lasted a week! This storm caused non-notable impact. An article for such a storm is unneeded. And btw, creating many unnecessary and terrible articles hurts the site more than merging. When we merge, we remove and put the information somewhere else. You can easily summarize this whole article in 2 paragraphs or less and still have all the information. Darren23^Edits|Mail 22:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Is'nt the goal of Wikipedia to have as much info as possible. Even so, WP:TROP has many articles with lesser notable storms with articles, some of which have been around for years. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That depends on the type of info. Common sense YE! If it is terrible or sub-par info, then why should WP have it! And what is wrong about merging those articles? Anyway, we are talking about this article. I have said and I will continue to say that the impact for this storm is not great enough to warrant an article on it. Darren23^Edits|Mail 23:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying an article is "terrible" is a perfect reason why to imporve it. The article passes WP:N. Instead of fighting of this nonsese, be bold and improve it (which is what I am trying to do). YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Darren, for once, YE has a good point. You don't go around merging an article as soon as it comes off the creation line. Give it time to be improved. If you don't get that point, then you must not understand a concept here. atomic7732 23:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it meets WP:N in Sources? My point is, Darby isn't noteworthy enough to deserve an article. I'm not talking about its quality, but the necessity of an article for it. Darren23^Edits|Mail 23:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sure it meets WP:N. The storm did not self publish and there is a decent amout of preps/impact. Gorgette has similar amout of info, and nobody is complaing about that existing and is also start-class. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Decent? C'mon YE, give up. Why are you so adamant about keeping this article anyway? Heck, there's only 2 sentences of Impact in this article, and I can't find news sources giving me more impact, and some impact may not even be caused by Darby at all. Not all articles (especially EPAC storms) are notable enough deserve an article. Darby did little (almost none) to deserve an article. There are more important articles that need to be created or saved out there, why this one? Darren23^Edits|Mail 01:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there more important articles to need to be imporved or in the case of Frnak/Oliva need to be created. However, I hate to see articles get merged. The only reason why I told Cody (a.k.a TA13) to make this is becuase he wanted to write an article to he tracked (I know he did not like Frank, which was my first choice). I also thought that this would be an easy choice for an article. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Why do you hate to see articles merged? The info is simply in another location, where more people will see it. For most storms (excluding retired/US landfall ones), the season articles get more views than the individual articles, so just think of it as your content being placed somewhere else. That said, I think perhaps there should be a project notability discussion sometime soon. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason why season articles get more views than storm articles is becuase season articles have multiple notable storms. I oppose a projec tntoablity discussion as it cause dramatic debates. I do not think we as a project should foucas on what to mere and instead focuas on what to imporve. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yea, what's your point about the season articles? They are more viewed, and that's a good thing. We should be improving them more. If you can do that by merging a sub-par article, let's do it. And if a dramatic debate yields good results (instead of the quagmire of a status quo that we've been in), then that's a good thing. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, but look at some of the info that is in the article.

• "a green alert was issued for the states of Oaxaca, and Guerrero" - what is that even?
• "Officials there were asked to execute certain procedures and inform the public." - could that be more vague? "certain procedures" - officials generally do more than just that ;)
• "The local civil protection was asked to review emergency caution and check the condition of local shelters." - that's hardly even preparations. That just seems like ordinary work that happens every year.
• "The general public was asked to monitor local weather conditions" - of course, that happens all of the time.
• "After dissapating, gusty winds reached 25 km/h (16 mph)" - the winds reached 16 mph? That happens every day across the world, and most people aren't bothered by that at all. Is that even info worth noting?
• "and some rainfall was reported in the area" - as with above, rainfall happens often, especially in the tropics.

The article really seems like it's grasping for straws to beef up the content, but in reality, there's next to nothing there. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not gonna take sides, but YE, the guidlines can only solve any future debates on article notability. But Hink, give the article a chance. If you are gonna sit there and complain about it being bad, do something about it. Don't merge it because you don't like the way it's written. atomic7732 04:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing more I can do, though. What little impact that's there completely proves how non-notable it is, since it's primarily trivial and a non-event. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Rainfall map

Is the rainfall map from Darby itself? The track doesn't correspond with the track of Darby. It looks like it came from TD 2E. Can someone put link to where that pic can be found? Thanks. Darren23^Edits|Mail 22:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It's clearly Darby's track, the image is of Darby. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad, that was a big oversight :P Darren23^Edits|Mail 22:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclone Report

Darby's Tropical Cyclone Report (TCR) is out...Link

Merging

Although Yellow Evan has made an honest attempt to improve this article, the quality remains poor at best and its notability is nearly non-existent. The Tropical Cyclone Report mentions no effects on land, mainly due to the storm's small size and thus, I've decided to merge the article. More than enough time has been given to expand and improve this article, which was a waste of time in my opinion and I'm closing this argument. Please refain from undoing the upcoming merge just for the sake of undoing, having the article to "further expand on information" (which can easily be placed in the seasonal article) or for any "personal" reasons such as "I like this article" or "I think storms should have articles". Lastly, if someone does want to bring this article back, it must be of fair quality and length, as a stated previously; however, I would advise against doing so due to the article being unnecessary. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I am going to say a special thank you for crediting me for trying, CB. I am ok with it, and was a good try for me and Cody. In all, it reminds me of Hurricane Marie (2008) in quality and notability. Just for people info, I have no objections for un-merging this, but I know we have two many bosses to allow that to happen. YE ^{Tropical Cyclone}