Talk:Tropical Storm Douglas (2008)

Tropical Storm Douglas (2008) was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 7, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
January 5, 2013	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

What else is needed?[edit]

What is needed to improve this article? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten the lead. Copyedit needed overall. Any Spanish sources? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tropical Storm Douglas (2008)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Overall, this is a nice, short article. I did a bit of copyediting, so I have no problems with the prose. A few things came to mind as I read it, though:

From the lead: "Upon the upgrade, Douglas reached its peak intensity of 40 mph (65 km) 1003 mbar (hPa; 29.63 inHg)." Can something be added between the wind speed and the pressure (perhaps an "and" after 65 km?)
"The center of the depression was elongated as it entered an area of strong northeasterly wind shear, also causing the low to become displaced to the north of the convection." What caused the displacement? The elongation or the wind shear?
For consistency with other 2008 tropical storm articles, the section name should probably be "Meteorilogical history" rather than "Storm history".

The Impact section is fairly short, which is mainly due to the facts that it didn't become a hurricane and it didn't make landfall. However, more information would be nice:

Was any damage reported in Manzanillo?
Are any statistics available for the flooding damage (depth of rainfall, financial cost of damanges, etc.)?
Was the name retired? This seems to be a part of similar articles, so I'm wondering if the information is available for this article.

I will place the nomination on hold to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have added this page to my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the three things you stated. As for the impact part, there was no damage reported in both english and spanish sources, no statistics available, and if your referring to the lack of retirement part on the Elida article, I've removed that because you reminded me that the meeting for retirement requests hasn't taken place, so I can't state that yet. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. The Impact section is still short, but if no information is available, no information is available. After the meeting about retirement requests, a little bit could be added. Based on all of the information available now, though, the article is comprehensive. I believe that it now meets all six GA criteria, so I am promoting it. Great job! GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :D. If any info on impact comes out, I'll try to add it asap. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

Similar to Kika, this article has very little impact, limited to one minor warning and some light rainfall. If this is condensed, it can very easily fit into the 2008 Pacific hurricane season. Therefore, I propose that we merge Tropical Storm Douglas on account that there is little impact and the storm is not very notable.--12george1 (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I object. It's an impacting tropical cyclone in the modern era—I believed that was the de facto—requirement. Further, I don't know why we have to condense everything just for the purpose of merging it, when it's perfectly happy by itself with extra detail. Juliancolton (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge, per above. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So is there a minimal amount of impact a storm should have to deserve an article? If not, some people could take that the wrong way, like a certain user (I will not say his name) in the recent past. Personally, I do not believe that a storm which this much impact (or lack thereof) should have an article and that is exactly why we merged TD9 00 and TD7 03.--12george1 (talk) 02:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why though? Why does a verifiable article on a known and relevant scientific topic hurt Wikipedia? Juliancolton (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, TD9 and TD7 were not in the modern era of TC coverage (2004-prensent), and even so, since this is a wiki and things can be change, the merger can be undone. Not trying to be the rule police, but simply wanting to merge an article since one user took it the wrong way could be a violation of WP:POINT. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for defining "modern era", but I would still consider 2003 to be "modern", since it was well into the internet age. By that point though, any storm since 2004 that caused a drop of rain on land deserves an article.--12george1 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming the article is verifiable and has at least one non-NHC ref, I don't see why not? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So does this rule apply to the Atlantic, too? If so, Cindy, Franklin, Gert, and Jose from 2011 would deserve an article. From the Pacific we could create: Dora and Hilary in 2005, Gil in 2007, Olaf in 2009, TD 2-E, Darby, TD 6-E, and Estelle in 2010. To tell you the truth, I used to be against merging articles, but then I realized that you just can't include every single detail about a storm and that someone reading Wikipedia could click on the links for further reading.--12george1 (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody does the work... why delete it on the basis that it might be done in the future as well? The lack of common sense surrounding that wikiage-old argument is resounding. Juliancolton (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one of those storms did not do any impact at all and another of the ones you named did it as a remnant low. OTherwise, I don't see why not? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 03:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the whole merge, not merge, work being done, whatnot, consensus can change. The fact that someone wrote something four years ago or more should not mean the article should be exempt for merger because one's feelings might be hurt. I'm sorry to sound so cold, but we're an encyclopedia, not a social network. We have to be rational in our decisions. We have to decide rationally if a storm that only caused minor rainfall warrants an article. If people are worried about editing because their work might get removed, then those people should focus on more important articles. The project has focused for too long on the least important storms, myself included. Seeing as the same people are discussing here and on Erick's talk page, we shouldn't be so insistent on keeping things at the status quo. If someone creates an article and it is ignored for years, that doesn't mean it was the proper route of action. We just have to be rational and cool-headed when we decide anything. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Hink. We have to be rational in our decision, to be honest though, I think we pretty much are. However, we have to remember one thing- this article was made for a reason. In addition, the fact the people are not wroking on important articles (this has gotten much much better in the past year or two), is not a valid reason to merge, in fact, it makes me less likely to do so, as the edting atmoshere become toxic. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was it indeed made for a reason? I'll admit, I do my writing based on what seems fun, so "fun" would not be a good reason to keep it. With regards to the toxic editing atmosphere, people need to be rational. Might I point out right below the editing window - If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Every time I edit something, I do so knowing that it could be reverted, removed, destroyed, whatnot. Regardless of why the article was created, we should calmly discuss the merits of this particular article. The storm was short-lived, so, unlike storms like Hurricane Hernan (2008), it should not be kept on the merits of its meteorological history. Unlike Erick, this storm did technically affect land. The debate comes whether light rainfall, minor flood damage, and "a blue alert" constitutes enough impact for an article. This isn't so much whether it has an article outside of the NHC, so it's automatically granted an article. The debate is whether we should have an article on a storm that caused minor rainfall and little damage. No other meteorological phenomena in the world would have an article on such a non-impacting storm. If it wasn't named, I seriously doubt it would have an article (unlike Hurricane Irene, as an extreme example, which would surely have an article if it wasn't named). The section in the season article is currently 194 words and could be a bit longer, whereas the article is 494 words and could easily be shorter. In the grand scheme of things, is Douglas distinct enough as its own tropical entity, or is it better known as a storm in the 2008 Pacific hurricane season? In my opinion, it is more the latter. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see why Douglas can't get an article, it meets WP:N, I'd say it's known for both as a storm in the 2008 HPS, and for the ones affected by it, as a tropical entity. And Hink, how am I not begin rational and calm? I am just pointing out something that needs to be considered. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane

I'm just saying in general we have to remain calm and rational. I disagree that it's known as a storm on its own right, considering how little it did. The 2008 NHC summary devoted less information on Douglas than any other storm in the year. Furthermore, check out the news articles in 2008 that mentions Douglas also mentions another storm (meaning Douglas is simply a larger part of the season). The only article that focuses on Douglas was while it was active, and Wikipedia is not news. IMO, that should be a good determiner if a storm is notable: whether there are sources on it that aren't from the warning center, aren't simply a mention of the broader season, and aren't from when the storm was active. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the notability criteria should be if either there was damage and/or if there was info outside the NHC that are not re-writes of advisories. We used this in early 2011, before people started merging articles that met this. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What notability criteria? The one set by Wikipedia, or the one that the project loosely adapted? If the former, then I still question whether the storm meets that criteria, since I have a tough time finding independent sources on the storm that aren't from when the storm was active. If we're going by the loose project agreement, then I think that's a bit misguided, since we omitted the key factor that most news organizations do mention storms while they're active, and IMO that doesn't really establish any sort of notability outside of that it was briefly newsworthy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While two editors are opposed and two are for the merge the oppose arguments are particularly weak, basically boiling down to not merging because it exists. Wikiproject guidelines aside, it has no real coverage in secondary sources and does not meet the WP:GNG. The fact that it has Good article status is irrelevant, although it does suggest that no better sources exist. Article merges nicely into the 2008 Pacific hurricane season so there is no content fork reason to keep this seperate. AIRcorn (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the merge per WP:BRD. This has not been discussed in months. How does it fail W:GNG? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 12:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It fails GNG because the storm did nothing. The fact it existed does not mean it should have an article. The storm only did light rainfall along Mexico. How is that article-worthy? Furthermore, I believe the article is slightly bloated with some trivial facts (what is a blue alert?), and could easily be condensed for the season section. I'd be willing to trim it down. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I trimmed down on the MH, which was very bloated. I didn't get rid of any content (sans for a few redundant things, like mentioning several times that the shear was still bad, or that the circulation was broad). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does not mention anything about a storm did anything, so no. With that said, there might no longer enough content for it support an article. However, I'd recommend Kika to be merged first, as did less. After all, since when is a land impacting internet-age not notable? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several storms that have affected land that don't have an article. We're barely talking actual impact, either. It's just light rainbands. Given my argument above (how the storm has little to no Google hits from when it was not active and not related to the whole season), GNG does apply. Furthermore, with how short it is right now, everything could be merged in full, and it'd be the normal size of a season section. Right now it's too short to justify having a sub-article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most ppl misinterpret GNG, so I understand your argument in a sesne. As for the other storms, I think most if not all should get articles. Otherwise, I mostly agree with your rationale. but as I said, Kika should be merged first. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 16:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about Douglas though. And this storm barely has any impact and very little MH. Do you support merging it? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO something not being discussed for months is a reason to close it, not start another discussion. Hink was the only editor that judged the notability of the topic and there were no other valid reasons put forward not to merge. AIRcorn (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I demonstrated on the main article, the content of this sub article can easily fit into Douglas's section. Therefore, Douglas can clearly be merged into the season article.--12george1 (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 04:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still fine with the merge. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed. The main article was already updated from this one, but you might want to see if anyhing else needs to be added. AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess, but I suggest that we not specifically hunt for article to merge and focusing on added content. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been nearly a year since this was started, you can't keep them open forever. BTW I am not specifically hunting for articles to merge, I am "hunting" Good articles which have been tagged for a while. AIRcorn (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]