Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael

Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael 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
September 12, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed
December 13, 2020	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 10, 2021	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This article was nominated for merging with Hurricane Michael on 12:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC). The result of the discussion (permanent link) was merged.

Merge

CLOSED

Agree to merging of article(s) as per

FORK as the main reasons to support the merge. The projected size of the merged articles would be near 110K, not an absolute impediment to an article which would probably not grow more in length. Therefore, the merger should occur. Someone interested and/or knowledgeable should enact the merge taking care to preserve all non-redundant, pertinent information. I would suggest the prior, reverted-merger edit to be a good starting point. Non-Administrative closure-- GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:53, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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]

An exception has been granted for this discussion. See this discussion. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:22, 30 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. @
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
]
- @
  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
  ]

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)[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]
    - Striking. HurricaneTracker495, sock of Andrew5.
      9thx my edits! 04:58, 27 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
]
- Neutral – Thought it over some more and it's not really a big deal either way. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:04, 25 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]
~~Weak Oppose~~Neutral. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose: will make 'Hurricane Michael' too long.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support
9thx my edits! 04:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

To clarify my argument why I'm supporting the merge, please see my reply below.

9thx my edits! 04:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Qustion/Comment: What is this moratorium on merges you are talking about? GenQuest ^"scribble" 17:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @
  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)[reply
  ]

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)[reply]
9thx my edits! 23:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Continued

This discussion was improperly closed by

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)[reply

]

9thx my edits! 02:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
By the way, I have put this under
9thx my edits! 07:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

CLOSED

Closing this discussion, as no other objections have been raised since the initial objection was lodged. For the record, I do not see any issues with the way in which the discussion in question was closed. Non-administrator closure-- LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.