Talk:Tropical Storm Arlene (2005)

Tropical Storm Arlene (2005) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 30, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
May 25, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Alabama

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

Merge[edit]

I don't think I agree with this one either, it made landfall here and the most notable thing was everyone freaking out since Ivan had just happened less than a year earlier. No fatalities where it made landfall, just another rainy day is all. I don't think the section in the main article was that long either. --Holderca1 13:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I vote for merge. Storms need to be notable in some way to have its own article. So why is this even here? I understand the 2005 season article is getting too long, but just find a happy median for the storm summary. It doesn't need to be 4 paragraphs, it is just a Tropical Storm. If we formatted the summaries like the 1950 through 80's seasons, it would be fine. Every last storm doesn't need exact details. Just brief track summary and effects should be sufficient. Hurricanehink 16:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I made it into a separate article is not for notability (I agree, it's not particularly notable) but for length. The summary in the season article was simply too long (in my opinion), and was the longest summary of any storm (which is obviously not good, since this was not the most notable storm). Additionally, moving it into a separate article allows the infobox and extra pictures to be added (yeah the satellite pictures are all pretty similar, but previously they were orphaned). Jdorje 19:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If a non-notable storm summary is too long, then remove some of the fluff rather than creating an extra article. --Holderca1 21:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is where you're confusing people. There's no set standard for article creation, and people are always finding a way to oppose the article. I created the Beta and Alpha articles based on the notability factor, and others were opposing Alpha based on length. But now, when an article is split because of length, people say it's about the notability. I must say I'm very confused as to what the standard is, or if there is a standard for this at all. --Revolución (talk) 20:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there is no standard; everyone has their own opinion. I opposed the Alpha article because of length, but after its length was increased I stopped opposing it. Other people were in favor of or opposed Alpha because of notability, and I'm sure anyone who judges on notability will be opposed to an Arlene article. Personally I don't mind having an article for each and every storm, no matter how short (except for active storms where this makes updates harder)...since at the very least this allows putting an infobox and 2 pictures up for the storm (usually a satellite picture, and eventually a storm-path map), which also doesn't fit in the main article. Jdorje 21:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I guess that needs some clarification. I don't mind a really short article for a storm as long as it still has more information than what the season article summarizes for that storm. When the Alpha article was word-for-word identical with its summary, that was bad. But as far as I'm concerned we could remove the storm summary sections from the main article entirely (they're already summarized in the season summary anyway) and have one small article for each storm. Jdorje 21:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed Alpha because it was neither too long nor notable. Killing 20 people in Hispaniola is not notable in my book. --Holderca1 21:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article was a sheer mistake and am posting a merge notice. I'm considering a vfd. This storm wasn't anywhere near notable, especially not in this season. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 02:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only way this storm would ever be notable in a season would be if it was the only storm. --Holderca1 04:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It can easily be merged back in just by copying the entire text over. The problem is then it'll go back to being the longest storm summary on the season page (by far). Jdorje 06:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did just that and rewrote it a bit to make it more concise. It is shorter than Cindy and Irene, and it is about the same length now as several other sections such as Emily, Katrina, Maria, and Tammy. --Holderca1 13:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agreed. This was not notable in any way. Damage virtually none. Where are the articles for Cindy, Irene, Jose, Maria and Tammy now? While you're at it, make the isolated fish-spinners (even lonely Lee)! Arlene did NOT have the damage of Ophelia, the death toll of Alpha or the notability of Vince. It should be merged back. CrazyC83 20:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I can somewhat see why an Arlene article was created since I'm from Florida and a lot of people were worried because of the previous hurricane season. However, unless more information is added, then it should be marged back. Other storms deserve an article more than it, such as Cindy, Maria, or Tammy. They are more notable. --Cool Genius 17:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

STROOOOOOONG MERGE. For reason stated in my previous post. Crazy C said it all. Having this article is ridiculous. Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article was written really well and has lots of detail--HurricaneRo 01:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Merge[edit]

Every single storm does not need an article, this storm barely did anything. Other storms article like Cindy, Jose, Gamma should all be merged. --24.83.100.214 03:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big yes. Hurricanehink 04:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 04:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo[edit]

Impact section. Anything would be nice. Hurricanehink 02:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, damage totals are needed. Hurricanehink 20:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some links. Hurricanehink 00:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. Is this B class yet? Hurricanehink 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added in the forecast stuff, modified that impact info to reflect the non-tropical rains in NY and added metric units; its a B now. I found a picture of some flooding here; its in a pdf, I'm not sure how to get hold of the actual picture - I think it might be public domain as it is produced by Florida state govt, but not 100% sure on that.--Nilfanion 17:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures would be nice.--Nilfanion 17:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one you provided appears to be public domain, but you should check with an admin. Hurricanehink 21:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA? íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 15:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NWS reports[edit]

These should probably be included, if it has not been already. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are freaks[edit]

Seriously, cyclones? How can you constantly find so much to talk about them? Anyways, it seems you guys did a good job, as usual. I really wasn't able to stay interested because it's not my sort of thing, but it seemed filled with all of the right facts. --SeizureDog 12:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass[edit]

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) 21:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blank article[edit]

Why is there no text and only categories on the article? You might as well tag it for deletion if there is no content.

Links[edit]

~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]