Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45

Merge discussions getting out of hand: moratorium proposal

As an admin who has no involvement in Tropical Cyclone articles (or any weather articles), I'm closing this discussion. There is a moratorium on initiating new merger discussions involving tropical cyclone articles until 03:45:00 UTC February 23, 2021. There were different proposals for 2 months, 3 months and 6 months but the majority favored a 3 month period. There is no consensus about reverting previous recent mergers or current merger discussions, they should be discussed on their individual merits on the relevant article talk pages.


I do request that should an editor unaffiliated with this WikiProject suggest a merger, this decision is politely explained to them. Most editors who are not regulars here will be unaware of this decision and they should not be expected to know about it until it is explain to them. You are all encouraged to go out and write some great new articles! </pounds gavel> Liz Read! Talk! 03:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

@HurricaneTracker495, Destroyeraa, I like hurricanes, Weatherman27, LightandDark2000, Hurricanehink, Cyclonebiskit, SMB99thx, Juliancolton, TheAustinMan, Nova Crystallis, SMB99thx, Chicdat, ChessEric, Hurricane Noah, KN2731, Yellow Evan, Knowledgekid87, and CyclonicallyDeranged: and others I probably missed: The recent rapid spree of merge discussions (such as this, this, and this) is getting very out of hand now. In my opinion, this is causing a large drop in the number of good articles we have and many of these proposals do not seem warranted. Objectively, this is creating too many discussions for us to keep track of and is increasingly taking away time better spent on improving existing articles.

Because of this, I think we need to have a formal moratorium on any merge discussions for tropical cyclone articles at least through the end of this hurricane season, because this is simply unsustainable. --Jasper Deng (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I strongly support a merge moratorium. Preferably three months (per Hurricanehink), but I can also support a six-month one if necessary to put this activity into a halt and finally focus on what we have to do (building many articles into GA). SMB99thx my edits 07:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to come off as more harsh than I'd like here but why did you propose so many mergers in recent weeks then? YE Pacific Hurricane 15:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
See below (my reply to Cyclonebiskit) SMB99thx my edits 22:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Support moratorium and reversal of closures for several discussions. Some of these discussions have been rigged by obvious canvassing and meat puppetry. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 07:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely. Merging articles which in turn deletes a good deal of info is cheap and unproductive.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment – I'm fairly certain a good portion of recent merge discussions are backlash from denying Epsilon 2020 an article. Questionable methods of canvassing aside, It's been a bit disheartening to see people jump at removing content rather than adding. I get that curating and discussing is a lot easier than researching and writing, but time is much better spent writing. WPTC seems to be going through growing pains right now—this year has seen the largest increase in active editors that I can remember since I joined in 2007—and reorientation might be needed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I requested some mergers (Fausto and Hernan 2008, TD 01-E and Blanca 2009, TD 02-E 2006, TD 16-E 2004) because I see them as the remnants of the old WPTC which houses Tropical Storm Erick (2007), not because of backlash (as I was not involved on the Epsilon 2020 dispute). SMB99thx my edits 07:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
What is wrong with preserving the "old WPTC"? YE Pacific Hurricane 15:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Strong support for ≥3 months. The users involved in these rapid-fire merge discussions don't appear to understand the actual process of merging articles as outlined over at Help:Merging. A similar level of detail is expected to be preserved when an article is merged (which is another reason why GAs aren't usually merged). Simply redirecting the article (e.g.), or copying over a few sentences (e.g. here and here), looks more like the "redirect" outcome of an AfD instead (and that should only happen if the article is essentially a copy-paste of the season article). I would recommend that these users go spend their time and effort building up articles instead to gain a better understanding of the processes of article creation and maybe realise why many of the more experienced editors are more opposed to these merges. (#Goals for 15th year anniversary of the WPTC and #2018 Global FT could use some help.) ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
As it is, I fully agree with Cyclonebiskit, it's frustrating to see merge proposals like these two spring up when land impact obviously exists and expansion could be a far better alternative. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 100% I definitely support this, per what users above have said. I will admit that I have participated in some of these merge discussions, and I do apologize for anything that I have said on those discussions if my thoughts go against the consensus, I am still fairly new to this and I may not always make the best decisions, as I do not always have the time to look the article through and make the right decision. I do agree that they are getting out of hand. In the past 3 days alone, I have been pinged to at least 3 different merge discussions, so I support this completely. Some articles though, should be merged, but for the most part, I agree that we should expand and build the articles as KN2731 and others said above. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 09:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Soon, we would have been merging Hurricane Katrina if this kept up. Stop, stop, stop these merges. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

*Neutral I shall not partake in this discussion. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC) Struck because user continuously participated in disucssion after this. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No, current merge proposals will not be closed unless there is no consensus/ A merge moratorium means no new merged from here on out, not revert and close all of the merges we did in the last two months!m~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, Destroyeraa, the consensus seems to be building around at least 3 months up to 6. Not just 2 months. i personally think 4 months, but a full year if it's a good article and 2 years for featured articles. However, users outside of WPTC who merge articles during that time should kindly be pointed to this discussion and they should self close, but we won't completely shut it out if they prove to be unaware(but anyone who comments here is not unaware). --HurricaneTracker495 School Chromebook (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495 School Chromebook: No, remember that GAs and FAs can be merged, the the moratorium for them should be the same time as the regular articles. They have no superiority over a plain C-class article. I can support a 1 year new GA moratorium (ex. Tropical Storm Bertha (2020)) and 1 2 year new FA merge moratorium (ex. Hurricane Hector (2018)). ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I'd suggest no mergers regardless of quality unless a new article pops up during the moratorium for three months. All current mergers should be withdrawn IMO in the meantime, given the circumstances here and the broad agreement here. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
agreed, but how about 9 months for GAs? There may also be so many merges because we are literally in the most active Atlantic hurricane season in history. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Yellow Evan's proposal sounds the most reasonable of all of ours. GAs and FAs are not superior, so they have the same time. Also, the season will end in around a month or so, long-term forecasts show little activity in the last half of November. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Closing those mergers could be seen as disruptive editing due to editors who have already weighed in so far. If we are going to have a merge pause then those discussions that are open have to be exempt. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Fair point. Can someone close the discussion? Consensus appears to have been reached. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
This discussion has been open for less than 24 hours so let's not jump the gun here. The issue with grandaftering the current merge proposals is it doesn't bring a sudden halt to the merging drama, which I think is necessary. It is worth nothing with regards to grandfathering the current merge proposals in is there's some overlap between the users proposing mergers and supporting the moratorium so I don't think it's too much to ask for the people who have current proposed mergers to withdraw their request, and one could argue it's hypocrtical for them not to. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Bringing a sudden halt to merge discussions that opened before this discussion even took place is disruptive. I don't think its unreasonable to ask for the moratorium to be for merge discussions going forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see the problem if the proposer agrees to withdraw the merge request. Otherwise, I agree with you. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Destroyeraa: that is a horrible metric to go by. 2020 has trolled us. I never thought we’d have a category 5 in mid-November. So we never know. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: The increase in merger proposals is a result of a new wave of interest in the project sparked by the extreme hurricane season this year (this project took off 15 years ago under similar circumstances). We have a lot of established articles from an era in which we were much more liberal with article creation, some of which were merged in the early 2010's but many are still standing and are often part of longstanding good topics. We aren't as lenient today (largely because more emphasis has been placed on developing season articles and splitting them off only when needed). I don't really consider this gap of standards a problem but I understand why new users are eager to act on them, even if I strongly disagree with the reasoning. The reason I'm in favor of a three month stoppage is it's long enough to get us out of the "habit" of merging articles. Saying 9 months for GA/FA mergers won't change that. YE Pacific Hurricane 19:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:Effects of Hurricane Charley in Jamaica#Merge
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
=== Hurricane charley effects in Jamaica ===

Little damage or deaths in Jamaica, but Cuba had a rough impact from the storm. $923 million. Why not we just instead make it into the Caribbean. --HurricaneTracker495 School Chromebook (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

If you read the article, you can see there is more damage done than just $1 million. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 15:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment How about consensus on preventing merging during the active season of the respective basin? – The Grid (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no benefit in halting merge discussions until November 30th (end of the season). Its worrisome to me that some of these articles are being kept (2005 Azores subtropical storm) based on WP:WAX, and WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Pointing to a previous discussion that says "well what about x" is not helpful in any way as each storm is different. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Knowledgekid87: Irregardless of the merits, we have way too many merge discussions going on at once. That is a fact. There is usually little policy basis for these merges in any case; the merge proponents' rationales almost never quote things like WP:SPLIT.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
      • Merge discussions can always be undone though if you disagree with the closer. I for one agree with some of these merge discussions on storms that have no impacts or have broken no records. The NHC is a great source.... but if the article is almost fully linked there then how does the storm pass WP:N namely WP:DIVERSE? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
        • You and I both know that DIVERSE doesn't apply to meteorological information (which comes from the NHC only) and we never write impacts based on just a single source whenever we can avoid it. In any case, you completely sidestepped the salient point, which is that the sheer number of merge discussions we have going on right now is way too large, too unwieldy for us to reasonably keep track of. --Jasper Deng (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
          • Actually the NHC is a division of NOAA and there are additional services that can be used as primary sources. The MET also puts out models for hurricanes that factor into tracks used by the NHC. As for sidestepping... I said that if you disagree with the closer then a merge can always be undone. Why do you need to keep track of the merge discussions when we have trusting editors closing them based on the results? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
            • @Knowledgekid87: I brought up a few instances in my support !vote above where discussions have been opened without a WP:BEFORE search, and where mergers have been improperly closed. This leads me to question if the users involved in the recent spate of discussions have a sufficient understanding of WP:Merging to be quickly coming to a localized consensus and implementing the merges. The fact that several discussions have been derailed by WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OSE arguments on both sides, not limited to but including Arthur (2020), Epsilon 2005, and Azores 2005, just adds on to my concerns over the validity of consensus (or lack thereof) reached at these discussions. There is hence definitely a need to manage and track these discussions. The allegations of canvassing and meatpuppetry also make me wonder if some of the discussions need to be procedurally overturned and/or reopened. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I am changing my opinion to support for only merge proposals going forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • support even though I may of supported some of these GA merges (guilty) I didn't really realize that this was making us try to get back old goals. I like hurricanes 19:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support Though most of the merge appears to be rational and in good faith, the number of the proposals is too many (more than 10 in a week). It is difficult for editors to catch and discuss on how to improve those articles. IMO three months moratorium is a suitable length. --219.78.191.50 (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Two key questions

  • 1. How long will this moratorium be for? I am hearing until the end of the hurricane season (November 30th), 1 to 2 months, and 3+ months.
  • 2. Should the merge discussions that are already be opened be allowed to close by themselves as not to circumvent consensus? This discussion should not impact arguments made for/against individual merges.

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  • The current merge discussion should stay open for as long as possible until consensus is reached. Currently, for many of the articles, there is consensus to merge the articles. Thus, they should not be closed base off of this discussion, they should be merged if consensus says so. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My answer to question 3 is 4 months. 2020 was an extremely active hurricane season, and the cyclones might persist into 2021. I'm not talking about Tropical Storm Zeta (2005) either, like, an actual Tropical Storm Ana, Bill or possibly Claudette. And we won't know when it will die down.
I agree 100%, as I said above the merge discussions were initiated before this discussion even took place. Closing a discussion that appears to have a consensus is not helpful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
My answer to question 2 is that all outstanding merges that close after this discussion closes should be no Declined, but if it's before it closes, then we shouldn't close it. This discussion needs to be up for 24 hours but will likely be up for much longer. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
No, all merges that were started before this discussion took place should be merged / closed accordingly to consensus. All merges that took place after Jasper started this discussion should go with what you said HurricaneTracker495. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Also HurricaneTracker495, if activity persists into January, and a system forms on say...January 2, then it will be named Ana, not whatever Greek name we get to. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 20:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes Destroyeraa, but there will still be a hype for closing articles. Especially if we have 3 systems in January. We have never had 3 storms preseason, as TS Cristobal, the earliest 3rd storm, missed it by 21 hours. That record could cause merges. Please don't ping me until 22:00 UTC. I'll be busy. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Meteorologically, it is nearly impossible for three storms to form in the month of January, as waters there will be below 24 degrees celsius in the subtropics, too cold to sustain tropical storms. In the tropicals, the tropical wave train does not kick into high gear until late July. In the SHEM, yes, that's possible. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Three months for all articles, and the merge proposers should ask to withdraw their proposals, but there's no grounds if said proposer refuses to do so, I don't think there's anything we can do. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Yellow Evan: Sorry, not Kristy. Fausto: I care a lot less about keeping this than most merge proposals just because of how generic the storm was and at least the season article isn't well developed. I'll merge this and delist if there's no discussion on this further by the end of the week. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC) ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Right, that was (a few hours) before this moratorium discussion started on this talk page. I clarified my position regarding Hernan and Fausto (which there's at least some reason to merge because it'd actually improve the season section rather than merely take someone else's article down) here. YE Pacific Hurricane 21:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Since both Hernan and Fausto merging would help expand and improve the season article, why not get away with it already? There is consensus to merge both currently. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Also I'm just pointing out, the amount of text we all wrote here (and a similar amount of text in the proposed mergers) is worth several articles. Let's keep in mind what we're doing and why we're doing it. We want to build up the encyclopedia. That should be the focus. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed result: The merge moratorium will be enacted and in effect at ____ on ____, and it forbids merging any article with the WPTC banner until ____. This moratorium does not apply to any articles proposed for merging before enactment of this moratorium.

I slightly disagree. Per Destroyeraa, if consensus is not for a currently ongoing or recently dissipated article, then we should be allowed to merge it. As an aside, if we make an effects article, and there is an effects article swallowing that area and including more, we should be allowed to merge it. But I mostly agree. We should also add that failure to oblidge may result in blocks up to 1 week. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
No, blocks should never be used in this case. Blocks are not used to punish. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal, and am fine with blocks if needed to curb disruption. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: Blocks should not be used unless someone rapidly nominates articles for merging without some clear reason or someone intentionally merges articles without a discussion. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Destroyeraa: disagree. If they repeatedly nominate articles despite this ban, they will be blocked. It’s just like disruptive editing. We will start out with {{uw-disruptive2}}(as level 1 is for new users)then go to {{uw-disruptive3}}, {{uw-disruptive4}}, then take it to WP: ANI. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: We should start with level 1 for all users. What I meant is that most people aren't stupid enough to defy the rules and merge a bunch of articles. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Destroyeraa: {{uw-disruptive1}} says “welcome to wikipedia” and isn’t meant for new users. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I would support using level one for new users, but only if they try and nominate an article in good faith, and they don't have a history of disruptive editing though. That is my take on it. Otherwise, I think that we should try and limit warnings unless they are necessary. I would recommend reminding the user first that we aren't going to be nominating articles or merging them, and if they then try and continue to merge it, then I think that would be the proper time to warn them. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 22:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
It's really simple. If an editor violates the moratorium, i.e. edits against consensus, in any way, then they should be warned accordingly. Only if they persist should blocks be considered; such blocks would then be preventative because discussion wasn't enough to stop the undesired behavior. We don't need to really formulate this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 14:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Occasional exceptions should apply

Only when there are blatant violations of WP:CFORK~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

Fhere should be some exceptions. For instance, Effects of Hurricane Dorian in the Carolinas is useless as Effects of Hurricane Dorian on the Mainland United States is published. Thoughts? HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@HurricaneTracker495: I don't think we need an Effects of Hurricane Dorian in the Mainland United States as Florida wa really the only other badly impacted states, and it had many more preparations. Anyways, regarding exceptions, it really depends on the situation. I like hurricanes 02:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, I have reversed my decision to publish the draft. I also changed the concept of that draft, so it will cover only Florida. SMB99thx my edits 03:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Well, Florida’s impacts are small and there were impacts on Georgia. It’s either you don’t have it at all or for the mainland. Other impacts are small. Also Effects of Hurricane Dorian in the Carribean needs some aid. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 13:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Having this very conversation on those particular articles is violating the spirit of the moratorium.
One goal of this moratorium is to allow time for us to not only have a discussion here about the general direction we should be taking with these merges, but also to improve and expand existing articles, or to at least put in a fair amount of effort and then definitively conclude that an article isn't warranted in some situations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The mainland article I never liked. I see now that there was enough content for the Carolinas though.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Another example of when a merge discussion is appropriate is if we WP: FORK or to contents new articles but besides that we shouldn’t merge. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: The moratorium as proposed is an absolute one, with the usual proviso that consensus here can modify the moratorium. Even though some merges are probably justified, the overall pattern of them requires that even those merges be put on hold for now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: thanks for the comment. I think that we put off merges except in the following scenarios.
  1. New articles, so if there published and consensus is against it, we can merge it back in. This includes effects articles due to WP: CFORKing, and more.
  2. If an article is created but it turns out to be a fish storm like Omar and Rene 2020.
HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
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.

When should the moratorium start?

Will begin when discussion closes. Further discussion in this spcific subsection is futile. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

@Jasper Deng: The moratorium should start at 0000 UTC on Sunday, Nov 22, 2020. A few more days to merge the existing merge nominated articles with consensus. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
No.....more like 1200 UTC November 21. Give it 12 less hours. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
But why in the middle of the day? 0000 UTC is the start of a new day and week. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Few reasons. We both live in Eastern Time. 1200 UTC is 7AM, which is before we wake up. 0000 UTC is 7PM. Also, Sunday isn't a new week for everyone. Some people believe it's Monday. But if you really want, 0000 UTC November 21. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
@HurricaneTracker495: but what about the other editors? If you didn't know already, SMB99thx lives in Indonesia, and many other WPTC participants are probably living elsewhere. I like hurricanes 02:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I know. 0000 UTC in Indonesia(or at least Jakarta) is 8AM. Also, SMB gets up at 6:45 it seems. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Around 05:45 AM (using Indonesian time) is the earliest time that I normally get up. Also note that 00:00 UTC = 08 AM isn't Jakarta time, but it's certainly Bali time. SMB99thx my edits 04:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I keep my very location (I know that I live in Indonesia) private to prevent people who send death threats at me know where I am exactly living. SMB99thx my edits 04:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
For Yellow Even, 0000 UTC is 4PM. KN2731 is in the same time as SMB99thx I believe. Hurricane Noah and Hurricanehink I believe is eastern. JavaHurricane I think is Pacific. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
You're right about KN2731. We share the same timezone. I don't believe that JavaHurricane is Pacific though, given that I see JavaHurricane starts to actively editing when I'm also actively editing. SMB99thx my edits 04:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
A reasonable time for Australia too as we're similar to SMB's time albeit a tad earlier on the East Coast. ThePelicanThing (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
What's the difference between 0000 UTC Nov 21 and 0000 UTC Nov 22? They're both 0000 UTC, and this discussion is getting rather stupid. Just find a coordinated universal time and use it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 03:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The moratorium starts when this discussion is closed. It is, simply put, unnecessary bikeshedding to haggle over specific hours. Whoever closes this discussion–it won't be any of us who commented on this–will have the moratorium start then.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
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.

3-month length

@HurricaneTracker495, SMB99thx, KN2731, I like hurricanes, Yellow Evan, Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, Destroyeraa, Knowledgekid87, Nova Crystallis, Weatherman27, Juliancolton, CyclonicallyDeranged, Chicdat, LightandDark2000, ChessEric, TheAustinMan, and Hurricane Noah: I think, in order to formally enact a moratorium, we should agree on the specific timeframe of 3 months from the closure of this discussion (which is not a definitive time) for the time of the moratorium, which can be changed by future discussions as necessary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I definitely discourage the habit of hounding articles just to start a merge discussion. I'm okay with 3 months, but I wouldn't oppose a longer time of 6 months, 9 months, etc.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree, also seconding CyclonicallyDeranged in this. I wouldn't oppose a longer time of 6 months or more, since I want to not be distracted with these discussions anymore and finally focus what I want to do, which is creating articles/publishing articles from draftspace and improving most WPTC articles into GA that I can do. SMB99thx my edits 08:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree with a duration of 3 months beginning when this is closed, though there is no reason why anyone should be starting a new one even before it officially comes into effect. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with 3 months, as users said above. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat, Edits) 14:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes. 3 months. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Pause existing discussions

This is now moot as the only open discussion was paused per the nominator's request. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

@HurricaneTracker495, SMB99thx, KN2731, I like hurricanes, Yellow Evan, Cyclonebiskit, Hurricanehink, Destroyeraa, Knowledgekid87, Nova Crystallis, Weatherman27, Juliancolton, CyclonicallyDeranged, Chicdat, LightandDark2000, ChessEric, TheAustinMan, and Hurricane Noah: Similarly, we should formally propose too that existing discussions be paused during this moratorium, to be only resumed after it expires, or as decided otherwise by consensus here. Note that this is WP:NOTAVOTE: a "support" or "oppose" without any comment will do little to affect the resulting consensus.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Because there are too many merge discussions right now and this proposed moratorium was in response to this influx of merges, I support those discussions right now to freeze and no longer proceed until after the length of time passes.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Since I proposed the mergers of Hurricane Fausto (2008) and Hurricane Hernan (2008) into 2008 Pacific hurricane season in order to expand the 2008 PHS into eventual GAN, I decided to close the mergers (as we are closing to merge moratorium) before I give comments here because I want to finally do some work on that PHS article. As such, I'm sorry for delayed correspondence. I support pausing current discussions, including a merge proposal currently in discussion I have proposed (Tropical Depression Sixteen-E (2004)) to give more time to assess possible expansion of that article. SMB99thx my edits 08:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes. I support it, per how tiring it is to have to relentlessly participate in all the merge discussions. Thank you, Jasper Deng, for this merge moratorium. In fact, until now, I was so amazed at the huge portion of our articles that were GA+. Yet these merge discussions are mostly killing good articles, particularly in the East Pacific. I'm glad they'll be gone soon. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • If you count, this and this as adequate summaries of the content, sure. Someone should either revert or condense further. Otherwise, with only 16E pending (which can be closed as no consensus as is), this is resolved on its own. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
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.

Revert merged articles

  • Comment I have seen rushed edits in the last couple of days to close the merge discussions in relevant articles while this moratorium discussion is ongoing. Those edits did not sit well with me. I could argue the merged articles during this time should be reverted as if the merge discussion never happened. Thanks.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    • i.e. Kristy 2006, Fausto 2008, Hernan 2008 and I could probably add in Humberto 1995 as well.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
      • I strongly oppose reverting the mergers of Fausto and Hernan (both 2008 Pacific storms), as I believe it's key to expanding 2008 PHS towards GA. The main thing on this moratorium, other than stopping merges, it is about improving existing articles (is increasingly taking away time better spent on improving existing articles). If you didn't feel well about it, then I have to note that I have some plans on the 2008 Pacific hurricane season article (which is an existing article) - making that article GA. SMB99thx my edits 13:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@SMB99thx: merging articles which are GAs ultimately reduces the number of GAs, even if 2008 PHS is GA, that’s still a GA we lost. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 13:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm willing to sacrifice these two GAs for getting 2008 PHS into GA. SMB99thx my edits 13:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
@SMB99thx: eventually we’re going to kill all of our GAs. In fact, we likely have. It’s very easy to get an article to GA. We lost Tropical Depression One (2009), Tropical Storm Josephine (2008), and more. Unless it means EVERY SINGLE SUBARTICLE from the 2008 season gets GA, I support a revert of the merge. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't see anything in any way that could hinder an improvement of the merged articles' parent article if the merged articles get reverted back to how they were. Each article's quality should be assessed on their own without having to rely on the quality of any other articles on Wikipedia that are closest in subject matter.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
By the way I've quickly scanned through the 2008 PHS. The section on Hernan right now is too long, goes into minute detail, and is all bunched into one lengthy paragraph. If I were to do a GA candidate review for the article, I would likely raise those issues.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Good thing 2008 PHS isn't up for GAN yet. I rewrote Hernan's section to streamline the prose, which was a bit overly detailed on the exact temperature and convection structure. Sometimes being a bit more general helps the writing, so Hernan's section is now two simple paragraphs. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • For the record... I also strongly oppose reverting the mergers. Some of these "GA" articles should have never been promoted as there were issues from the start. Editors are not perfect.... we all make mistakes when it comes to wanting to strive for quality articles. There is also no need to be overly dramatic about "losing all of our GA's" so please stop. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Reverting these merges would mean overturning the established consensus of a discussion. These articles were also not "deleted" as the article history is still intact. You have to respect the outcome of a discussion sometimes even if you don't like the results (WP:STICK). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • There would be no consensus to merge when a discussion to prevent those merges takes place. Please respect this discussion. Any of those established decisions would be futile. Nope those merges were rushed so WP:STICK does not apply.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • And yet you completely ignored the comments in those merge discussions that the moratorium proposal was taking place. As far as I know, there was no consensus to merge, especially when this discussion had started.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The discussion for Kristy 2006 was alarming in that the discussion closed sooner and the merge was done sooner so that the article will not go under the proposed moratorium. That alone seems WP:POINTY. Also, I want to move on too.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • All I want to say about this, is that rushing to get things done that would later be banned from doing is very bad practice (very much like, for example, sneaking through the land border before the government imposes a ban on border crossings due to COVID). The end.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose reverting those merges. What's done is done, and most were done by Hurricanehink, an admin who knows his merges. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment if no one cares that those applicable articles got merged, that is absolutely fine with me as I do not care either. However, my stance on the matter remains the same, and if anyone would like any of those articles revived, I have support for that, because as I said before, none of those articles have any major problems.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment this is my 1000th edit and my last edit(or 2nd last)before I sign off today. The best sentence is, If any merge discussions were closed with a merge after 07:26 November 18 2020 UTC, they should be reverted. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    I oppose this move as editors had already weighed in on the discussions, reverting the merges will not change their consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
    Remember, a moratorium can not overturn consensus of something that already happen unless you gain consensus. For example, if you disagree with the Kristy merge, you should gain consensus to revert the merge for Kristy along, without mentioning the moratorium. The moratorium is not a policy, and cannot be used. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Closing moratorium discussion

I think this is now the time for the moratorium discussion to be closed (now November 22, which is the date Destroyeraa suggested) and put this moratorium in effect. I have enough of this. SMB99thx my edits 00:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

We need a completely uninvolved user to close. Find someone unrelated to close. But SMB99thx, remember that there are different moving parts. Consensus is reached to have a momitorium for 3 months, but some smaller things need to be worked out first. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I think this whole thing was an anthill made into a mountain. There are no more outstanding merge discussions open, so what is the point in going forward with a moratorium? I feel instead that GA standards need to be raised for this Wikiproject as it has clearly become an issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@Knowledgekid87: people were making way too many merges. This is kinda just to get people out of the habit. I mean, at some point, Hurricane Katrina would be merged at the rate we're going in less then a year. There is a point to this. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
You and me both know that suggestion is not going to happen. If uninvolved editors from outside this project are suggesting merges then it might be time to look at the cause and search for a viable solution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
​ We have solutions. First, we revert it and gently notify them that they shouldn't merge. If they persist, we will have to implement blocks. There is strong consensus to have this; we only have small details to work out, and someone will close this discussion. Btw, I'm gonna pin this so it won't be automatically archived. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I am talking about long term. This moratorium isn't going to last forever and project consensus can not override community consensus if valid policy points are made in regards to merge discussions. (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) We should focus on making better WP:GA articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
This is just to get us out of the habit of merging. After 3 months, this will end. And articles will be merged, we just won't hunt for them. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
If after the moratorium ends the habit of merging begins again I will support putting up another moratorium. Plus I still support reverting the recently merged articles that were rushed so they got in before the ban. The point of a moratorium is to ban all merges. Community consensus says no merges to take place (per this discussion).--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@CyclonicallyDeranged: but per Knowledgekid87 above, if there is community consensus to merge, it overrides our local consensus. Like, if someone appeals our merge momitorium to WP: AN or WP: ANI and it passes, we have to end our momitorium that way. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I will abide by the consensus of this moratorium and support a closure, I am just preparing others for possible things going forward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
I made a official request at WP: AN to close the discussion. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
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.

Exception to Merge Moratorium for Hurricane Michael articles

Clear consensus to allow an exception to the merge moratorium to discuss a potential merger for the Hurricane Michael articles. To participate in the actual merger discussion, please head on over to Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael. Closing this discussion, per WP:SNOW. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

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.

Since the Merge Moratorium was implemented, the flood of ridiculous merge proposals have since ceased. (And the one that was "paused" shouldn't be restarted, in my opinion.) However, this 3-month moratorium is presenting itself as an obstacle to our ability to improve Hurricane Michael's articles. As multiple editors have noted previously, the Met History article of Hurricane Michael probably shouldn't have been created to begin with. It isn't that lengthy of an expansion of novel content to begin with, and the unique article content could easily be merged back into the main article without even nearing the readable prose "limit." This would bring more badly-needed Met History information to the main article, in addition to giving us a boost in the efforts of the 2018 FT Project to upgrade Michael's main article to GA, and eventually, FA status. Because as things are right now, we're unable to significantly improve on a proper expansion of the Met History info in the main article (which would probably amount to a de-facto merger anyway). Moreover, the moratorium lasts 3 months, which will extend well beyond the winter break for any editor who is a part of this effort, meaning that if an exception isn't made to this moratorium for this one case, we will be sitting here for almost another 2 months without being able to make headway in getting Michael up to GA status, especially since many of us, such as Noah and myself, will be much busier once our Winter Breaks end. According to WP:IAR, if a rule is preventing us from improving Wikipedia, we should just ignore it. Now, I'm not asking us to overturn the community consensus regarding the moratorium. But I am asking for an exception to be granted to the articles concerning Hurricane Michael. I ask for this on behalf of the 2018 FT Project and others who have a vested interest in seeing Michael's main article upgraded. Please consider this proposal. Thank you. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah, Hurricanehink, Cyclonebiskit, Knowledgekid87, Jason Rees, Jasper Deng, Destroyeraa, Nova Crystallis, KN2731, TheAustinMan, Yellow Evan, Cyclone Toby, SMB99thx, Weatherman27, CyclonicallyDeranged, Chicdat, ChessEric, and DavidTheMeteorologist: Notifying the main editors with a vested interest, including those who were primary participants in the merger moratorium discussions (save for HurricaneTracker495, who still hasn't fully developed his understanding of WP policies just yet). Please comment below and let us know what your thoughts are on this proposal. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Do we really need to have a discussion to decide if there should be a discussion to merge an article?.Jason Rees (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
@ChessEric: This discussion is for making a one-time exception for the moratorium to allow a discussion on the merger (which in turn will make the proposed merger viable), not to discuss the proposed merger itself. That discussion is on the talk page of Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@LightandDark2000: Oh, sorry. LOL! In that case, Support.
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.

Hurricane Jeanne subarticles concerns

Surely, the prose of this article is <20 kB. Not really at the size you'd expect to have subarticles. It is only C-class. It has 3 subarticles, for Puerto Rico, Mid-Atlantic, and Effects of Hurricane Jeanne in Florida. And SMB99thx published the Florida article when the main article is in dire need of expansion.

The Mid-Atlantic region one is B-class, which has ~20 kB of prose. That's not too bad, but since there is so little info in the main article, it's an unnecessary WP: CFORK that can be used to help Jeanne. The Puerto Rico one has ok info in the article, but <10 kB of prose in the subarticle and is C-class. So is Florida, which is start class. Sufficent impacts, but not info. It's hard to expand them, and this will lead to articles rotting away, and an unecessary WP: CFORK. As such, I am asking the question of if a merge moratorium exception is needed to fix Jeanne into a well written article, as I fear they will rot away if we continue to keep them like this. Merging them together may add Jeanne's prose to(wild guess)30-60 kB of prose. While 60 is too large, 30 is not, and a rough estimate of 40s kB does not necessitate a split. --Hurricane Tracker 495 21:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards support on this proposal, per WP:IAR. SMB99thx my edits! 23:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I have moved the article Effects of Hurricane Jeanne in Florida into the userspace, and copied these contents to that article. SMB99thx my edits! 01:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@SMB99thx: Yes, but there is still PR and the Mid-Atlantic region. --Hurricane Tracker 495 02:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
For PR and the Mid-Atlantic region, I'll wait until this proposal gets enough support. SMB99thx my edits! 02:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Let's hope this doesn't get stale. I pinged you directly as you made the article. --Hurricane Tracker 495 02:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, I didn't make that article. It was an abandoned sandbox. SMB99thx my edits! 02:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Pinging 12george1 as nominator of sandbox. --Hurricane Tracker 495 13:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
If you want, there's WP: G7 if you want to stop working on it.Hurricane Tracker 495 02:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The PR one can probably be merged. When I wrote that, I figured that the focus of the article would be on the Hispaniola impact (which is still only two paragraphs or so). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink: what about the mid atlantic one? --Hurricane Tracker 495 23:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Sure, it would help the main article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Archive_42&oldid=1137361888"