Talk:Hurricane Daniel (2006)/Archive 01

message: Given that it had an interesting storm history so far, and could have an impact on Hawaii, should we keep this article and expand it? However, it would be just as easy to keep it on the season article and update it there if it does nothing. So... what should we do? --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm merging it back in again. Chacor 03:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we should talk about it first. I un-merged it again. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clearly not worthy of an article yet. Start it when Hawaii gets TS Warnings. (check your mail, btw.) Chacor 03:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is nothing more in here that isn't already in the main article. Chacor 03:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should wait until it does something. There's no way to know for sure whether it will actually impact Hawaii. bob rulz 03:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The NRL's current forecast for Daniel is to have Daniel slice straight into Hawaii as a moderate tropical storm:-) Alastor Moody (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How could you say that this storm isn't worthy of it's own page, this is/was the strongest storm that I have seen in the Pacific for some time and it has/had really good form. Matter of fact it just could be the strongest storm of the season Atlantic or Pacific. This storm has long deserved its own article. O-TOWN'S AT 21:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia says be bold, doesn't it? Chacor 15:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ehh, true, but the article creator was bold in making it. It wasn't very bold in merging an article that no one even talked about. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatt, pray tell, is bold about copying and pasting the section from the main article right into here, without expanding on anything? That's a segment, not an article. Chacor 00:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it is forecast with some certainty that it is going to head straight into Hawaii, then that is enough for me. EPac storms get articles if they make landfall; that means this one qualifies for an article, at least in my eye. Don't merge it. Titoxd(?!?) 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Umm, Daniel surely? I think what Daniel does in Hawaii is the important thing not how strong it is. If it dissipates but its remnants cause major flooding its article-worthy, but if it passes through as a TS and does nothing it isn't.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant, if this does little except to pass through HI/dissipate before doing anything, and it is kept, last year's Kenneth, a storm not dissimilar, should get one too. Chacor 11:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Daniel is dirfiting towards Hawaii now, i think it will struck Hawaii as a weak Tropical Storm. Irfanfaiz 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  NO DON'T MERGE IT. IT EARNED IT'S RESPECT AS A HURRICANE. IT WAS A CAT. 4 FOR CRYING OUT LOUD AND IT WILL END UP HITTING HI AS EITHER A DEPRESSION OR A TROPICAL STORM. PLUS, AT IT'S PEAK INTENSITY IT HAD BEAUTIFUL FORM. PLEASE KEEP THE ARTICLE OUT... O-TOWN'S AT 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. This article should be merged back into the main season article. The CPHC is not calling for any regeneration, and Daniel is forecast to be a remnant low by the time it reaches the islands. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 23:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed as well. For a while, it looked like it might have actually done something, but looking at it now, it will probably do little. It would be easier to keep track of the storm and damage, if any, on the season article. Merge. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it does not do anything in Hawaii, just merge it back to the main season article. But expand this hurricane's section. Irfanfaiz 05:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good point,merge it but expand the hurricane section. -- WmE 11:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, why are you so adamant on keeping it? It was an annular hurricane, sure, but there's no point in having an entire separate article. The season article is capable of holding a lot of information, JTLYK. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am completely siding with Moody. Daniel has earned it's own article. Hit was beautiful form and was the strongest hurricane of either season (ATL/PAC) so far. O-TOWN'S AT 22:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no real consensus for whether or not it should stay. Epsilon and Zeta, along with the rest of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms, have articles because we agreed every storm should have an article. Before we agreed, though, non-notable and non-landfall storms didn't have articles. I didn't merge Ewiniar, Chacor did, but I agree with that. The key to making an article is having enough information. Atlantic storms have enough information for fish storms, normally, but Pacific storms generally don't. In addition, if every Pacific storm had an article, it would get extremely repetitive. Daniel isn't a stub page, but there's little room for expansion then what is here. If an article can't get beyond Start class, then what's the point of keeping it? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does not remotely compare in quality to Tropical Storm Lee (2005) even. Lee was a much less interesting storm, but its article is much better than this one. This article has a 2 sentence lead, one paragraph of prose and no inline referencing on a storm which a TS or stronger for 9 days. TS Lee's article has a 2 paragraph lead, 4 paragraphs of prose and has 7 inline references on a storm which was a TS for just 12 hours. Daniel could in theory have a very good article, but this article isn't good at all. And I agree with Hink do we really need a dozen articles expounding how a series of Pacific storms did nothing?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for doing that, currently there's no justification for it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If someone sincerely wants to write a good article on Daniel, they will have to follow the 2005 fishie formula - that is compare and contrast the TCR and what the storm did with the discussions and what was forecast. That will be nigh on impossible to do until the TCR is produced (and the CPHC's summary as well).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article

message: I've been working on this Irfanfaiz 09:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: cool. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 18:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: :Image:Hurricane Daniel 2006 latest.jpg
I've readded this picture under current storm info paragraph due to being recent satelite. Hello32020 21:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh god, theres Hawaii Irfanfaiz 22:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Some balance between intensity and quality is correct. Good kitty 02:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current storm info. satelite image 

message: ::There were supposed to be some advisories issued for HI soon, any word on that yet?O-TOWN'S AT 22:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None have been issued so far, and given how weak this storm has become over the past day or so I doubt any major advisories will be issued at all. At most, I'd expect a some flash flood advisories on the Big Island of Hawaii but I doubt we'll be seeing anything beyond that. 青い(Aoi) 03:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hey