Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael

Merge

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.

---

As others such as Hurricanehink, Jasper Deng, and Mike Christie have pointed out, this shouldn't exist. I suggest that we just go ahead and merge it as it mostly is just a redundant WP:CFORK. Yes, there is a 3-month moratorium on merging, but that shouldn't be getting in the way of us improving articles when it is quite clear something shouldn't have been made to begin with. WP:IAR applies to this. Noah^Talk 12:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support – We can easily fold the unique content in this article back into Hurricane Michael's main article easily, without even going over the readable prose "limit." Also, such a merger would put all of the content in one place and make it easier to maintain Michael's main article and upgrade it to GA/FA status. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• @Hurricane Noah: You'll need to get consensus for an exception to the moratorium first.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

An exception has been granted for this discussion. See this discussion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I think there is enough information to keep the article.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support If there's consensus for an exception to the moratorium. @ChessEric: The question is whether it would be WP:DUE weight to split the article and it very much would not be for Michael.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jasper Deng: I'm not sure why you needed to ping me there just to tell me about WP:DUE, but okay; thanks for telling me about it. I'm always into learning new things about how I can improve myself on here and it helpful to know that. However, I stand by my thinking that there is enough information to keep the article. I also want to add that there was much uncertainty with the Cat 5 upgrade despite the rapid intensification before landfall (which should be explained thoroughly) given the questionable SFMR wind data readings in recent years. I also believe that a long explanation into a Category 5 that wasn't operationally considered one is needed, especially since the Florida panhandle had never seen a Category 4 landfall, let alone a Cat 5. I respect LightandDark2000's opinion on this (after all, it is the article he made), but I believe it is necessary to keep this article and not bloat the main article as this was a high impact storm.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Hurricane Noah is the one who started the Meteorological history article for Hurricane Michael. But I'm also an experienced editor on WPTC. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose because it would bloat it and then it can't be FA. 170.24.150.111 (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • 170.24.150.111, bloating things is how articles become FAs. They need to be large. Also, please remember to format your comment, it makes people annoyed when you don't. Thanks, ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 18:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Prose length does not correlate to article quality, it can be the opposite sometimes. Prose can be fluffed, repetitive, or just include otherwise inconsequential information for the sake of length which takes away from the quality. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Striking. HurricaneTracker495, sock of Andrew5. SMB99thx my edits! 04:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:CFORK. This article can be consolidated into the main Michael article while retaining all of the important information. A wild guess on the final prose size of Michael's article given sufficient expansion on impacts outside Florida and aftermath would be 50-70 kB without any splits. While on the large size, a split is not necessarily required at that length as the bulk of prose would be relating to Florida. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral – Thought it over some more and it's not really a big deal either way. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. There's more than enough information here to maintain a separate article. The splitting off of Florida would actually create a larger article than this one. It's best to be consistent.  ;). Thegreatdr (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak OpposeNeutral. Michael has an interesting met history. I had a good life as a TC, RI'ing all the way up to landfall. Then it became a hurricane-force ex. cyclone that had a long life and made it all the way to Spain. Noah has done good work on this, and I don't want to see it wasted. However, if a merge is necessary for Michael to be an FA, I will oblige. DUE weight concerns are valid. ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 02:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support at the moment. The met history is pretty basic, compared to other storms. When the main Michael article is done, if it's too lengthy for size concerns, then perhaps this could be split off again, but given how long the Michael article is now, it could handle the extra few paragraphs that are in this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support The article is really just a content fork. Everything in this article can easily fit in the main article. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say easily, it would be ~55 kB. Around the border length if a split is needed. We can probably trim part of the Florida info. --Hurricane Tracker 495 13:32, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose: will make 'Hurricane Michael' too long.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support WP:CFORK, WP:IAR. SMB99thx my edits! 04:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify my argument why I'm supporting the merge, please see my reply below. SMB99thx my edits! 04:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Qustion/Comment: What is this moratorium on merges you are talking about? GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @GenQuest: WP:WPTC placed a hold on the majority of merge discussions after a disruptive amount of them happened in rapid succession. We're having some growing pains right now with a significant influx of passionate editors and new ideas this year so we're trying to find a happy medium with content creation and notability criteria. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info. Hadn't heard anything about it. What three months are we talking about? GenQuest ^"scribble" 22:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  GenQuest, it starts from November 23, 2020 until February 23, 2020. SMB99thx my edits! 23:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Continued

This discussion was improperly closed by SMB99thx, in my view, and as such I've undone it. While they claimed "anyone can close [the] discussion", they were involved in the voting and closed a non-unanimous discussion only 10 minutes later. Per WP:MERGECLOSE: "In more unclear, controversial cases, the determination that a consensus to merge has been achieved should be made by an editor who is neutral and not directly involved in the merger proposal or the discussion." Although this discussion has been open for two weeks, scattered voting remains and it should not be closed. Keep in mind that strictly counting votes is not how consensus is achieved, the strength of arguments is and I would prefer an uninvolved editor oversee the closure of this discussion in the future. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment: I won't defend my improper closure here (I will acknowledge that and I will note this in the future to avoid future improper closes), but I stand with my view that this article should be merged to Hurricane Michael. In my opinion, this article stands in the way to making that article GA-class, which in turn makes this article quite a redundant content fork - I agree with the nominator on this one. And for the length of the article, this article is quite short and when I merged the contents of this article yesterday (last revision before the improper merge was undone) it ended up being around 20 KB of text and references added into Hurricane Michael article, which suggests that this is should not be a problem for everybody else. SMB99thx my edits! 02:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  By the way, I have put this under Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers to get more editors involved in the discussion. SMB99thx my edits! 07:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Copied to Target-Page Talk. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Closed merge

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.

---

Ackkkkkk, not agreeing to the merging closer. It reads like they just want it merged, and that they regard Hurricane Michael as simply not notable enough for split articles. I think Michael is comparable to a Katrina, a Dennis or a Gustav which I see have split Wikipedia articles. If ultimately most people want it merged, that's fine. I'm just dissatisfied with the rationale of the recent merge close.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.