Talk:Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season

Merge

Since we have merged the timeline of a season that was more active then the 1993 AHS (1991), it would only be right to merge with one. In addition, this is very poor quality for a timeline, for several reason: having no specific times for some events, it does not follow the standards of other timelines, it includes inaccurate and misleading information (e.g. "Cindy weakens into Tropical Depression Four (30 kt/hr)"), it is only complete through the ET of Hurricane Floyd, and all but two references are in cite web format. It would not seem worth the trouble to fix all of this, and overall, the season was not active enough to deserve a timeline, IMO. Therefore, I believe that the Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season should be merged/deleted.--12george1 (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Do it!!!!!!! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Merged. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 19:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 17:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1993, all Atlantic hurricane activity ended two full months early?

Two sources:

• https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/climo/ ("The Atlantic hurricane season runs from June 1 to November 30.")
• Page 871 of https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/mwre/123/3/1520-0493_1995_123_0871_ahso_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=pdf ("...the last named storm (Harvey) lost its tropical characteristics on 21 September. This is the earliest conclusion to tropical storms and hurricanes in a season since 1930.") Also the Atlantic hurricane database. A guide on how to read it is available here; while that page is a guide for the Eastern Pacific database, the Atlantic database is formatted the same way.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Epipterygium opararense
• Comment: This is in fact my seventh nomination; the first three were in 2009, outside the range of the QPQ tool.

Converted from a redirect by Dylan620 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC).

• Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can consider this a new article. There was a pre-existing article at this title from 2008-2011 prior to it being redirected which substantially overlaps with the construction and content in the current article. That content is still in the article history. For this reason, we probably would need to consider this a 5x expansion, as opposed to a new article created from a page that was always a redirect. In doing a character count, the current prose count is 22487 characters. The prior article was 6062 characters. A 5x expansion would require 30310 characters. The article is currently 7,823 characters short of the required length.4meter4 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @4meter4: Interesting. WP:DYKNEW does say that articles created from redirects count as new, as do previously deleted articles that have been re-created, but it does not say anything about the middle ground of previously redirected articles being restored (albeit, in this case, in greatly expanded form—I note that the previous article at this title was incomplete, as there was no timeline chronology for the season's two final storms, both of which were hurricanes and one of which killed over 100 people). Also, I thought bulleted text didn't count towards prose size? At the risk of shooting myself in the foot, DYKcheck says that the previous version of the article had 1,816 bytes of prose, while the current version has 4,085 bytes; in this case, I would need almost exactly 5,000 more bytes of prose if this were to be considered a 5x expansion scenario. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    • @Dylan620 Those are some fair points. I don't want to make you go through too many hoops if we don't have to. Let me get some input from others so we can find the most reasonable path forward. To be clear, the former timeline page never went to WP:AFD and was not deleted. It was merged and redirected without any prior discussion that I can find; a decision apparently made by a single editor. Regardless, it may be that only slight expansion of text would be necessary per your understanding of 5x expansion policy. I am going to ask for others to give input on the DYK talk page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
      • @4meter4: Sounds good. FWIW, there was a merge discussion, though it was a short one. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: 2011 - 1816 characters (283 words) - 2024 4085 characters (612 words): While not 5x, I do think this qualifies as new.--evrik ^(talk) 18:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. For the sake of keeping a centralized discussion, please refrain from commenting here if this is on determining whether the article should be considered new or not. That discussion is currently taking at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.4meter4 (talk) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620 There is now a clear consensus opinion to consider this a new article. Now on to the review. Article is long enough with the difference in prose count sizes between the old and new versions clearly passing the 1500 prose count length in order to align with the issue raised by BlueMoonset at the DYK talk page discussion. Even if all of the old text was reused from the older version (which it wasn't) there is more than enough new prose to go beyond the 1500 character count as indicated by subtracting the entire length of the original prose from the new version prose count which leaves a balance much higher than 1500 characters. Otherwise the article is within policy and no close plagiarism is detected. My one main issue is the lack of page number citations. It's difficult to check verifiability when citing to an entire reference. That alone isn't enough to derail the nomination, but we must have an inline citation with a specific page number directly after the sentence with the hook fact. That currently is not in the article. If there is a reason multiple page numbers are needed for the hook fact please provide details about exactly where in the text and on what pages the hook fact exists in the cited source. Once that is fixed, I will review the hook.4meter4 (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: I have added a page number to the hook source, and also added page numbers where this source is used as a citation in the timeline. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620 Thanks for working on this, but the specific hook fact sentence still lacks an inline citation immediately after the hook fact. This may seem pedantic, but we do consistently require an inline citation directly after the sentence with the hook fact, even if that means duplicating a citation already used later in the paragraph (annoying I know, but I have to do this too with my nominations). I placed a citation tag needed to help you identify where exactly I am expecting to see a cite. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: I've adjusted the refs in the lede a bit; how's it look now? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620 Thanks. That's better, although the second cited source came up as dead. Now at looking at the first reference, I am having trouble finding any prose directly stating this fact. Are you essentially analyzing the data yourself to arrive at this conclusion, or am I missing something here? If you are pulling this hook fact out of the data, can you explain exactly how you arrived at that fact? I'll need to double check that this is ok to run. When we start getting into analyses of science data it gets tricky between what can be considered obvious non-controversial interpretation, and what becomes WP:Original synthesis. I'm not saying it is SYNTH, I'm just needing some guidance to know where to look to find the hook fact. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: First, apologies for the rollback; that was a misclick which resulted when the 'diff' button slipped out from under me (watchlist was still loading). Second, the cited Monthly Weather Review journal states that no system of at least tropical storm intensity was active after September 21, which (per the NHC's hurricane climatology page, which is also cited) is more than two months before the official end date of November 30. Even including Tropical Depression Ten, which dissipated on September 30 without having ever reached tropical storm status, that's still a full two months before the official end date. Thinking about it a little more, "early" could be on the subjective side, so I'm going to suggest an alt hook:

• ALT1: ... that in 1993, all Atlantic hurricane activity ceased two full months before the season officially ended?

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, I've fixed the second ref; it was broken because of a typo in the URL, which I'm kind of shocked I didn't detect sooner. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I agree that the Alt1 hook fact is better, and while the hook fact is somewhat of a synthesis of the two sources, it's a logical straightforward conclusion that would be entirely non-controversial. Approving hook alt1.4meter4 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)