Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:54, 14 December 2020

Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael 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
September 12, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed
December 13, 2020	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

Template:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Merge

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: You'll need to get consensus for an exception to the moratorium first.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think there is enough information to keep the article.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- @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)[reply]
Oppose because it would bloat it and then it can't be FA. 170.24.150.111 (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ***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. ~ [[User:Cyclonebiskit|Cyclonebiskit]] ([[User talk:Cyclonebiskit|chat]]) 21:00, 14 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. ~ [[User:Cyclonebiskit|Cyclonebiskit]] ([[User talk:Cyclonebiskit|chat]]) 21:07, 14 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.   ;).  [[User:Thegreatdr|Thegreatdr]] ([[User talk:Thegreatdr|talk]]) 23:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)