# Talk:1939 Pacific hurricane season

I know that some people want to experiment with doing older EPac seasons, but is it really necessary for this article to exist? Almost nothing in it could not be in the decadal article. Most of the storm sections are just a few sentences at best. That is just like in the decadal article. Just about the only unquestionble improvement over the decadal article is that it is easier to sectionally organize and use {{][[:template:main}main]]}} to show the 1939 California tropical storm is a main article (compared to the horizontal rules as was done formerly). Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this too. None of the storms have much substance. I think it could even work like List of Atlantic hurricanes before 1600, which is organized well in a table with notes about sources and stuff. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  00:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Merge to decadal article - there is no need for this to exist as details are scarce since WWII was starting.Jason Rees (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I think there is enough information for this to exist. The main reason why I made this is because of the 1780 Atlantic hurricane season. FYI, both of you could make the same argument for some 1950's EPAC seasons. YE  Pacific Hurricane 00:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Speaking only of this article, I disagree there is enough info - all but the California TS article come from the same basic source. There isn't anything added here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  00:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1950's seasons are in the database. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Somewhat off topic, I think a broader discussion is needed, as my arguments towards keeping it (and your arguments for merging it) would likely involve multiple season. YE  Pacific Hurricane 01:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Not particularly. It'd only involve the merger of this one season to the decade article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  03:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Actually, on IRC, a little bit after you (Hink) left, there was a discussion and I agreed that I could be convinced to merge the 1780 AHS into the decadal list as well. After all, that one is in a weirdish format, and much of it could be reduced to table entries. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:OFF. YE  Pacific Hurricane 21:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I knew that, but it's relevant to your suggestion for a broader discussion. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
So should this be merged then to the decade article? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  23:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's consensus here. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, three people agree. That should be enough. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  22:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
How is there not enough info for this to exist? FTR, This has more info than the 1953 Pacific hurricane season. YE  Pacific Hurricane 22:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Aside from the source on the California storm, all of the info comes from the same source. There isn't enough new info to keep it separate from the decade article, if the decade one was treated like the old Atlantic hurricane seasons (that is, make a table, indicate where sources are from). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  23:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
No, there are 9 sources in the article, all of which mention something other than the California TS. YE  Pacific Hurricane 23:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
No, all of them are from MWR but the one dealing with the California TS (sans the HURDAT one, which is inappropriate in the article). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  23:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Check again, Ref 5 deals with non-LB stuff. YE  Pacific Hurricane 00:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
So, only two sources then? Given how much MWR, the California report, and CPHC are the source for these older storms, I think it'd be better to indicate what source they come from in a decadal article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  00:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)