Talk:Tropical Storm Lee (2005)

message: I have added in advisory information (Dr Avila gets a quote again) and reformatted this article to make it similar to Irene's. A copyedit is needed but apart from there is nothing left to do. One thing I would like to mention though is the track map. I am aware that the shapes denote a different status to the system but at a glance that distinction isn't obvious. How about changing 'low' (and extratropical) data points to a much smaller triangle? --Nilfanion 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't think of anything else now.--Nilfanion 11:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd best hunt the MODIS pic (there is probably one...)--Nilfanion (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: We have articles on all 2005 storms, just for simplicity. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW!!! There is a heck of a lot of information about one very boring, insignificant cyclone.  Pretty soon, we are all going to make articles about every single storm that existed in the planet! (RaNdOm26 16:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, don't worry, just articles for all storms for the Atlantic back to probably around 2000, though we haven't set a date. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If anybody cares, I am very much opposed to that idea. I've lost count of how many times I've given my reasons for that but nobody ever seems to care. I just thought I'd through it out there for the sake of consistancy. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 04:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Eric, but if there's info, then we can make the articles. In fact, there's probably enough info back to 1991 for all storm articles ;) However, there'd be too many fish storms, so 2000 is a tenative data for a project we haven't even started yet. Only 2004 has started all storms. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo 

message: As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps Review: Pass

message: I know this was the storm that started it all, but really, it's just two paragraphs of meteorological information. There doesn't seem to be any real claim to notability, sans for it being in 2005. I thought we should have some sort of discussion. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to delete it, that's fine.  I thought that people were going overboard with adding articles for all storms.  Unless a storm establishes some kind of notable record, this type of article could be deleted.  Just keep in mind the stats for the met and TC projects will suffer as these articles have historically been quick passes for GA.  Thegreatdr (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with this being merged. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

text: As for the GA stats, I'm fine with having fewer GA's. What's more important is what is a GA - a storm that affected no one, or one that caused millions in damage and is notable. --Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to wikipedia, it's supposed to be notable, so the choice is clear.  Thegreatdr (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I fail to see the correlation between merging this article and "a storm [...] that caused millions in damage and is notable" becoming a good article. Cucurbitaceae (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I think there's an issue with the same editor who removed a large chunk of information arguing that the article is "just two paragraphs of information". Cucurbitaceae (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just following through WPTC policy, whereby that information shouldn't be in the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part of WPTC "policy" dictates the removal of statistical records? I'm not saying that info should have been kept, but at the very least, you should have been more transparent about its removal. Cucurbitaceae (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy is that articles shouldn't have the naming history (which has nothing to do with the storm from 2005) and non-retirement (which implies something we shouldn't be implying). Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge?