Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Hurricane Dean

Hurricane Dean

Main page	Articles
Hurricane Dean	Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean - Effects of Hurricane Dean in the Lesser Antilles - Effects of Hurricane Dean in the Greater Antilles - Effects of Hurricane Dean in Mexico

I am nominating this topic for featured article status. The topic has been a labor of love, and I am very proud of what it has become. I look forward to your comments. Plasticup ^T/C 02:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearly meets the criteria. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great job Plasticup. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, primarily because the lead article is an FA. The other ones don't need much to get a fully featured topic. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support non-controversial. Z gin der 2008-09-30T03:01Z (UTC)
A few comments - firstly, can we get a navigational template for these articles? Secondly, it would look more uniform for the Effects of Hurricane Dean in the Greater Antilles article to have an {{Infobox Hurricane Impact}} template. Finally, I appreciate there were no deaths, but $97 million is a lot of money - can you briefly justify why the effects in Belize aren't notable enough to have their own article? I appreciate such an article would be difficult to source, but that doesn't mean it's not notable enough to exist - rst20xx (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if it is not notable enough for its own article, the destruction in Belize could be mentioned in the main article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a two paragraph section on Belize in the main article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dollar figure for damage in Belize is much lower than the other sub-articles, and even then the damages weren't as "interesting", if you know what I mean. It was just crop damage. No deaths, few injuries, and minimal residential damage. I tried to write an article on it, but there is just nothing to write about. The two paragraphs that you see in the Impact section are all there is to say. Plasticup ^T/C 22:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wild about the idea of a navigation template, but if you can convince me that it adds something to the articles then I'll add it. I imagine that it would look something like this:

History

Meteorological history

Impact

Other wikis

Plasticup ^T/C 00:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could look more like this, and then be placed at the bottom of the pages. It facilitates moving between the articles, especially moving from subarticle to subarticle - rst20xx (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I'll write it myself - gimme 5 mins - rst20xx (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually quite nice. I'd love for you to make one. Thanks. Plasticup ^T/C 00:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, I have written it and added it to the articles. See {{Deanseries}}. Now I shall vote - rst20xx (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh crap, I missed out on that last part and added another copy up at the top. Hmm. The {{Deanseries}} at the very bottom *below* the references doesn't seem too useful (though I know it's standard). Links up by the lede are better IMO. But is there a policy on this? — jdorje (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - the damage may be less than other articles here, but it's more than some in the Hurricane Isabel topic, for example Delaware, which saw no deaths and $40 million damage, and yet has a featured article written about it. However, I believe you when you say that the damage in Belize was all crop damage and the like, and hence I shall vote neutral, not oppose - rst20xx (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to badger you, but I'd just like to point out that the United States has more coverage of tropical cyclones than other countries do. Hence the Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware article and a lack of Effects of Hurricane Dean in Belize. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notice, Julian, that I voted neutral, not oppose, so please don't badger me! And the fact that information is harder to find does not effect whether an article merits creation or not - it is whether enough information exists at all, in any language that decides this - rst20xx (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a problem that more information on Belize can't be added without worsening the main article. — jdorje (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there was more available I could certainly split it into a sub-article without affecting the main article, but take a look at Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware for a minute. You don't get this sort of damage reporting in third world countries: "powerful winds blew out the watchroom window. A group of eight volunteers quickly repaired the damage". No one writes about one broken window in Belize. Plasticup ^T/C 21:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that and do agree it doesn't justify a separate article. Would Effects of Hurricane Dean in Mexico and Belize or Effects of Hurricane Dean in Central America be possible though? — jdorje (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lumping Mexico with Belize is not a natural combination, so I'd object to that. Lumping Mexico in Central America to incorporate a Belize article would be a violation of WP:NPOV (see Americas (terminology)), so I'd oppose that even more strongly. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I don't see the need. There is nothing more to say on the issue of Hurricane Dean in Belize, and what we have right now is easily contained within the main article. What would be the benefit of moving it into a sub-article? Plasticup ^T/C 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit is limited. If, however, someone DID want to expand that section (if it became possible), you'd have to tell them not to unless they could make a full article out of it. If there were already an article it could fit into, then it could be expanded if information became available. Weren't there any effects or preparations in the rest of central america? That seems strange, even for a fairly small storm like Dean! — jdorje (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It might be needed in the future" is not a benefit. If it is needed in the future it can be created in the future. Plasticup ^T/C 01:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my own nom. I really don't like the {{Dean links}} template that has been added to the lead. Not only is it a violation of WP:ACCESS, it is also ugly and redundant since the {{Deanseries}} template has already been included. Can I strip it out? Plasticup ^T/C 22:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I should read WP:ACCESS. Indeed, I didn't even see the links at the bottom - I do feel however that having links near the top would be good... — jdorje (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we find a more attractive way to do it? Plasticup ^T/C 22:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Isabel actually uses two templates, with the equivalent of {{Deanseries}} at the bottom of every article, but also {{HurricaneIsabel}} at the top of all the articles aside from Hurricane Isabel itself (the theory being I guess that all the subarticles are linked at appropriate places in the text of the main article). We could change {{Dean links}} to look like {{HurricaneIsabel}}, though obviously the resultant template can't appear at the very top, because unlike the Hurricane Isabel subarticles, the Hurricane Dean subarticles have {{Infobox Hurricane History}} on them. So maybe this new template could appear just below {{Infobox Hurricane History}}, on all articles apart from Hurricane Dean? rst20xx (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it some to match the (much larger) one used by Hurricane Katrina, which is somewhat similar to the Isabel one. We should probably pick a standard for formatting it and use that throughout all hurricane topics... — jdorje (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please discuss changes here before implementing them in all five articles? Plasticup ^T/C 01:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, I think that the Katrina infobox is hideous. The only reason it exists is because the Katrina topic cannot be navigated without a guide. This series is much smaller, and links to all of the sub-articles are prominently displayed in the text. Furthermore this box, in Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean‎, creates an unavoidable text squeeze in the first section. Plasticup ^T/C 02:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could model it after the Isabel one instead but it's not much different. I don't see why one topic (Isabel) would be given a navbox while the other isn't. Though perhaps the navbox text could be worked into the bottom of the infobox? As for meteohistory, the high ratio of graphics to text there is a problem. I moved some images around but perhaps it could be done better. — jdorje (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Isabel does it" is not a satisfying argument. Why does this series need another navigation template, and is that box worth sacrificing aesthetics or the current infobox? There are only five articles here, all clearly linked from the main article, and all sharing a common navigation template. Plasticup ^T/C 04:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should only have one nav template, somewhere near the top where it can be found, and it should be consistent with the other nav template designs used within the wikiproject. See WP:NAV. Also, I was thinking it could maybe be stuck inside the infobox the way season articles do - like this as an quick design example. — jdorje (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that looks good! The code makes my head explode, but I really like having it all condensed into one box. Yes, that is great. Plasticup ^T/C 05:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that instead of putting all that code on the pages itself, you create a new template that's an adaption of {{Infobox Hurricane History}} but with the extra stuff at the bottom - rst20xx (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I was thinking of creating {{Infobox Hurricane Series}}. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course it should go into the infobox :). I just did a subst: and glued it together by hand for a demo. IMO it should go into the main infobox which already has provisions for what the various series articles need. — jdorje (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the navbox situtation - jdorje has graciously incorporated a navigation template into the existing hurricane templates. I love it, and presumably he does too. As this change allows the same navigation to be implemented for all hurricane series, the discussion is moving to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#Topic_navboxes, but input from Featured Topic experts is welcome there too. Plasticup ^T/C 03:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 13:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]