Talk:Hurricane Adrian (2005)

message: This storm wasn't that notable. Landfall in Central America and 3 deaths are the only things setting this storm apart. The article is a little shallow but pretty good. I'm leaning merge though. -- Hurricane Eric archive -- my dropsonde 03:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weak keep. Revisit this later, but right now I think it should stay here. Very rare path, only landfall ever in western Honduras, fears of a repeat of Mitch, etc. --Golbez 04:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep. Only notable storm in the season, and the article is well-written. bob rulz 05:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep, but only because of the track. There aren't that many EPAC articles, though I think this should get Hurricane Adrian (2005), not the main page. What if in 6 years Adrian is destructive? Hurricanehink 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we'll redirect this one to Hurricane Adrian (2005). 2011 is a long ways off. I don't think we have to worry about that at the moment. bob rulz 01:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a move instead of a redirect, that would be much easier. -- §Hurricane ERIC§ archive -- my dropsonde 01:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. I just thought the format was the main article is for retired/extremely important/used once, and all others got the year notifier. Hurricanehink 02:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This page has to be moved because this Adrian isn't gonna be retired; It killed fewer people than the previous Adrian. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone for a merge? 

message: Actually a pretty complete article, except for a few missing crucial items. It needs a see also section, "preparations" and "impact" should be split, and more on impact is needed. Jdorje 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: some links;
*Aftermath
*Impact
*Impact
*Everything
íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: ... íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 00:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It might be, but has anyone seen if there are any useful Spanish links? One more thing that should be added in the article is another image, maybe one of it at landfall? The storm history needs to be sourced, and preferibly updated using the TCR. Mentioning the monthly report isn't useful. The article doesn't even mention that Adrian weakened to a tropical depression before landfall, which is a must. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More lede and inline sources are needed. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo 

message: Is it possible to place two diagrams in this section to show what is unusual about it's track?  While the text may be accurate, it is still a bit hard to visualise. PrometheusX303 00:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, since no one had added a track map for the storm. Storm05 17:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unusual track 

message: OK, shall we discuss? This article is somewhat important, since it was rare in affecting Central America. Does that mean it should be Mid-importance? For EPAC, low-importance means it affected land, which for most storms means affecting Mexico, SW US, or Hawaii. This storm is one of only five to strike Central America. I think that should be mid-importance, but let's agree first before changing it again. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with mid-importance, which is why I didn't revert when YE first changed it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on Mid-importance. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good. I changed it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you should take it back to WPTC talk page first. One-of-five does not sound like a significant record, and I think this would call for a lot of reassessments if it is considered one. There isn't much interest in this article as is. I know I'm not the only one who doesn't like Very-low, but as long as it exists, what is wrong with putting most articles in the Low category? Potapych (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I already said, low importance means it affected land in general, which is appropriate for most hurricanes and tropical storms in the EPAC (other than fishspinners). However, this one is more important than that, because it hit an area only struck four other times on record. Yes, I do think one in five is significant - not quite enough for high (obviously), but still somewhat significant for it to be mid importance. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there wasn't that much interest because, well, look at the year in parenthesis. People in the season had other storms on their mind. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with this because ratings are supposed to reflect external interest, not what the storm did. It is not very important to the project either because it has gone over three years without significant improvement. Potapych (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm working on that now. Once the main season article is GA, I'll work on the storms, starting with this one. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) So if Hurricane Katrina failed to receive significant interest outside of the meteorological world, it would be assessed as low-importance? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I left this at mid, but I am not sure if this be low. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance war