Talk:Hurricane Dora (1999)/Archive 01

message: I don't see why this storm has an article. — jdorje (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welll...., this storm crossed all three pacific basins (like Hurricane John of 1994), and that storm was fish spinner and it had an article so i don't see why you guys want to merge this article when there's already a simliar fish-spinning storm that has an article (mentioning Hurricane John). Storm05 (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you p-p-p-p-put it that way, then I'll say keep-p-p-pE-Series 19:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hurricane John was the longest-lasting and one of the strongest hurricanes ever recorded.  Crossing basins has nothing to do with it. — jdorje (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So was Dora!, cant you give me a break, the seasonal article said that Dora was a notable storm. Storm05 20:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dora was not the longest-lasting nor one of the strongest hurricanes ever recorded.  For instance, the Dora article is half as long as the John article. — jdorje (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Big merge. There is less information here than in the seasonal article, as sad as that is. Hurricanehink 02:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speedy merge. This storm wasn't anything close to notable. [begins sharpening axe] -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 21:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. Axe it! Hurricanehink 21:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [wipes blood off axe]. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 21:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo 

message: Zero impact = zero preps = zero info = MERGE. Please don't waste your time, it's highly unlikely any article here will stay unless it becomes a Hurricane Ioke-like article.– Chacor 15:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, thats because the article isnt finished yet. (thats why the  tag is for. Storm05 15:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not alter others' comments like you did to mine (striking it out) - it is vandalism and WILL get you blocked. – Chacor 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  means that it is actively being edited. Do not use it to signify that you are working on it - that violates WP:OWN. – Chacor 15:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced it with  and theres no such critera to determine what article is finished or not (being on mainspace does not determines it). Storm05 15:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mainspace means that it's up. Anyone can access it. It will be treated as a complete article, regardless of whether or not it is, once in mainspace. – Chacor 15:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with any possible merge. There's nothing here besides storm history and a microsopically small amount of impact, and there's no more to add. --Coredesat 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After all that work expanding the storm history, not enough damage/impact for notability and article. Please don't waste your time. Merge. - SpLoT (*T* C+u+g+v) 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  I was under the impression this kind of insulting/negativity was saved for Global warming, which is why it's under review by wikipedia and likely to lose FA status.  I think this article looks fine, and could easily stand alone.  When did affecting land become the ONLY criteria for writing storm articles?  If Storm05 wanted to work on systems that lasted 12 hours, I'd be good with it.  This discussion includes elements of NPOV and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, which shouldn't exist within wikipedia, let alone this project.  Thegreatdr 15:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have a very warped view of NPOV, it seems. NPOV only applies to articles. It is ridiculous to say people cannot take sides in discussions because it would be POV. That's blatantly wrong. POORLY WRITTEN ARTICLES, AS THIS ONE WAS, SHOULD BE MERGED POST-HASTE. There was a clear consensus to merge here. Please don't waste your time on a useless, badly-written article. To Storm05: there still is a clear consensus for the article as it was to remain merged. Do not take DR's comments as an endorsement of the article as it was (i.e., do not restore it to that state. If you've improved it greatly, then fine, we'll have another discussion if necessary.) – Chacor (RIP 32@VT) 16:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hurricanehink's viewpoint "why can't you use this effort to a storm that actually affected land?" doesn't even apply to this article and shouldn't be in its talk page.  I saw this fitting into NPOV.  Chacor's and Splot's comments like "don't waste your time", as I see it, fit into WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND because they weren't constuctive to the article being created.  My comments don't reflect the voting.  You could vote to merge this article into toaster and it wouldn't violate wikipedia policy.  I don't think the article is badly written, the way it looks now.  It looks like the discussion got off to a sour note early on when Chacor felt slighted, and hasn't improved.  Thegreatdr 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  Folks, telling people how not to waste their time (particularly when it is done in good faith) is a very good way to waste yours. The article needs some work, definitely, but I do not think this is a "must merge" article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still not good enough 

message: I saw from Storm05's page that Hurricanehink became in favor of this being its own article in December.  I agree.  Maybe we should take a new vote, or just allow it to be an independent article.  Thegreatdr 17:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Increaing support for this becoming an independent article