Talk:Hurricane Epsilon (2005)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHurricane Epsilon (2005) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starHurricane Epsilon (2005) is part of the Off-season Atlantic hurricanes series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 16, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 14, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
October 20, 2008WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
December 15, 2010Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 8, 2011Good article nomineeListed
April 5, 2011Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Good article

Todo[edit]

references Jdorje 04:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed but this is more like it. This should be the standard expected of all hurricane articles in the future. They should be no less than this. This article is nice. -- §HurricaneERIC§ archive 14:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "third-strongest" sentence[edit]

Hurricane Epsilon was the third-strongest hurricane ever recorded in the month of December, with a minimum pressure of 981 mbar (hPa); only Hurricane Nicole of 1998 and an unnamed storm in the 1925 season were stronger.

This snipplet was removed from the "Records" section as dubious earlier today; is there anything backing this up? --AySz88\^-^ 18:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The HURDAT does not give a pressure for the 1925 storm; so it cannot be said how strong it was (and it looks like the reanalysis will reduce it to a TS anyway). However now that I've looked through the data more fully the claim that Epsilon is number 3 is valid: Its behind Lili 1984 (980 mbar) and Nicole 1998 (979mbar).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passed GA[edit]

Congratulations to all who have edited this article Gnangarra 13:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass[edit]

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 made a minor correction in 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) 03:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New format[edit]

Given that no one has complained yet, I am wondering whether anyone opposes how I re-formatted this article to be focused more on the meteorological history. Unlike other storm articles that have recently been merged, Epsilon is legitimately notable, based on the records it caused and its unusual meteorological history. I would like to move it to Meteorological history of Hurricane Epsilon, given that is its focus, but I'd like some feedback first. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone is objecting about the title, I would like to point out something. We have an article on Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, and Murder of James Bulger, not on the respective people related to those articles. The article title should be about the focus of the article, and given that Epsilon was only notable because of its meteorological history, that is how I believe the article should be focused. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Meteorological history of Hurricane Epsilon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • I took the liberty to fix any little issues I found, and there wasn't anything else worth noting. Looks good! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 20[edit]

Resolved

Reference 20 appears to be misplaced. It's used to cite a discussion from Lixion Avila but the cite describes a discussion from James L. Franklin. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, looks like someone merely copy-and-pasted the reference for Franklin's Discussion #20 intending to change it to point to Avila's Discussion #21 but neglected to update the pasted ref. Fixed now. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 02:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Epsilon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge[edit]

Nominator basically withdrew, now neutral. No consensus for a merge.~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article has 22 kb total, the records section can fit easily in season article and so can most of the information. Just because it was a meteorological oddity doesn't give it an article. --170.24.150.111 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The GA excuse won't apply as seen by Tropical Depression One (2009) or Tropical Storm Josephine (2008). --98.116.128.15 (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WesternAtlanticCentral: To be honest, I am leaning slightly towards merging the article, but for now I want to remain neutral and see what other users think before I make my final decision. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 19:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Support Epsilon 2005 is not Zeta 2005 as far as I know about both of these two. SMB99thx my edits 22:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 22kb is long enough for an article honestly, and I'd be careful merging into such large season article, my arguments about how we shouldn't merge Ga's into FA's not withstanding. Honestly I wouldn't mind an Epsilon article in 2020 either but that's moot point here. YE Pacific Hurricane 22:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose – This is a notable storm from a meteorological perspective, impacts notwithstanding. Also, the article seems expansive in scope and is pretty well-written. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons listed above. - It's a well-written article on a topic — that's had lasting coverage — and is a notable meteorological oddity (and, as mentioned above, merging it would bloat the already large 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article). Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- Though it's Epsilon in December, this is really well written and it is a December hurricane after all. From a impacts perspective, not notable, meteorological perspective, it is definitely notable Floridaball (talk)

03:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

*Merge This is how I feel with Azores, Delta, Epsilon, and Zeta. Does not need an article. Oddities can be covered in the season article. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • What's wrong with the season section as is that it needs to be re-written? YE Pacific Hurricane 17:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the merger would result in a significant loss of encyclopedic content, especially as this article is a whole 22kB large. Comparisons with Epsilon 2020 are invalid as this system defied forecasts to a much larger extent and in a much more unusual manner, if you think the two are similar I'd advise you to read through Epsilon 2005's advisory archive. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2020’s Epsilon shattered numerous records for rapid intensification. So many that there is a loss of encyclopediac content. WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no idea why you're bringing up Epsilon 2020 being record-breaking - it has absolutely no relevance to my argument, notwithstanding the fact that while records help to establish some sort of notability, they are not necessary in doing so. Ignoring that this is going off topic, I'm not sure what your definition of "numerous" is. I'm counting a grand total of two: the naming record, and being the "farthest east any storm had rapidly intensified this late in a season", which I'm hesitant to even call a record because the qualifiers are so vague. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – 5 for merging, 2 neutral, 5 for keeping. One oppose is weak. Pinging Jasper Deng. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 16:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In 2005, one reason for all these splits is that "can easily fit into the season article" is a much lower limit given the number of storms that need to be squeezed in. I don't think this Epsilon really meets that threshold for 2005. If it were another season with more room in the season article, it would have been different.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully disagree. This is only 164K, compared to 2020 which is over 300K. Pinging Hurricanehink next. WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 18:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That means 2020 needs to be trimmed, not that 2005 needs to be expanded. The lede of 2020 and almost all storm sections need trimming.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose - In the past week, articles for three named storms of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season have been proposed for merger - the Azores subtropical storm, Zeta, and Epsilon. With respect to the former two, I had no objections to merging, albeit barely for Zeta. However, with Epsilon, I have reservations. Why is this the case?

I want to start by acknowledging my agreement with some of the arguments made in favor of the merger of the Hurricane Epsilon article. Epsilon had no land impacts, and neither becoming a (Category 1) hurricane nor defying forecasts per se is meteorologically significant. Also, aside from Epsilon being the longest-lasting December hurricane, the article's trivia section is not really that important.

However, there is one thing that differentiates Epsilon from many other Atlantic systems - the commentary the National Hurricane Center (NHC) provided in its forecast discussions from the hurricane. Some of these statements are already acknowledged in Epsilon's Wikipedia article. Moreover, by even reading a couple of these discussions, readers can not only understand the frustrations that NHC forecasters experienced when forecasting Epsilon, but also appreciate how meteorologically abnormal this hurricane was. To illustrate:

"THERE ARE NO CLEAR REASONS...AND I AM NOT GOING TO MAKE ONE UP...TO EXPLAIN
THE RECENT STRENGTHENING OF EPSILON AND I AM JUST DESCRIBING THE
FACTS. HOWEVER...I STILL HAVE TO MAKE AN INTENSITY FORECAST AND THE
BEST BET AT THIS TIME IS TO PREDICT WEAKENING DUE TO COLD WATER...HIGH SHEAR AND DRY AIR." (from Discussion #21 of Epsilon)


THE END IS IN SIGHT...YES...BUT NOT QUITE YET. I THOUGHT I WAS GOING
TO FIND A WEAKENING SYSTEM AND INSTEAD I FOUND THAT EPSILON IS
STILL A HURRICANE. AS IT HAS DONE EVERY MORNING...THE CONVECTION
HAS REDEVELOPED AROUND THE LARGE AND DISTINCT EYE....KICKING THE
DVORAK T-NUMBERS BACK UP AGAIN. (from Discussion #32 of Epsilon)

Combined with an appropriate explanation in this article of typical atmospheric conditions in the North Atlantic during December, readers gain greater context on why Hurricane Epsilon was a completely unexpected tropical cyclone and should have lasted for a shorter time than observed. As I said in the merge discussion for 2005's Tropical Storm Zeta, I believe a North Atlantic tropical cyclone should have a Wikipedia article if it caused significant land impacts and/or is meteorologically significant in a way that needs a comprehensive explanation. A simple summary of Epsilon in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article may not be able to tell the nuances of a story of a hurricane that defied A.) professional forecasters' predictions so consistently to the point of visceral reactions, and B.) climatological explanations about Atlantic tropical cyclogenesis. Instead of merging, how about we expand this article on Epsilon to account for these details?

To summarize, if this article on Hurricane Epsilon is merged into the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season page, I worry that readers will be unable to appreciate why Epsilon was such a unique tropical cyclone. To the users that want this page merged - please send me either on my talk page or in response to this post a condensed version of the meteorological history of Epsilon that accounts for the NHC commentary and climatological descriptions I have explained. Until then, I do not support the merger of this article on Hurricane Epsilon.

Hurricane Andrew (444) 07:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak merge now, per the comment of AndrewPeterT. Epsilon's most notable record was that it made NHC forecasters show their personal FEELINGS in the advisories. However, that can still be covered in the season article, though the section will have to be a little long. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment–Thanks AndrewPeterT for your comment. I also only now weakly support, however, as the nominator I can't support. If it hadn't been such a hot debate I would have closed it.
  • AndrewPeterT, Hurricane Epsilon was an oddity. However, so were many other hurricanes. This years Epsilon underwent rapid intensification so late in the season so far north, going from a tropical depression to category 3 in 30 hours(7:18 AM ruins my thinking). So, I gotta say, you had good comments that changed the discussion. Also, very few people would even look up Epsilon 2005. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 12:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose MH is very long (although I guess it may need a clean-up just in case it is too long) and, unlike the Azores storm, was a meteorological rarity. It should stay.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChessEric: so was Epsilon 2020, which doesn't have an article. Your points don't add up. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @WesternAtlanticCentral: And I don't see your points adding up either, as this Epsilon lasted for 11 days as an annular hurricane over 70° waters IN DECEMBER. 2020's was just a large major over warm waters in October. Two totally different storms.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @ChessEric: this years Epsilon is notable for undergoing rapid intensification so far northeast in late October. It actually brought some damage to Bermuda. It went from having winds 45mph to 90mph in 24 hours, and continued to rapidly intensify to a category 3 hurricane. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @WesternAtlanticCentral: I understand that, but that was October and, compared to Paulette and Teddy, Epsilon was just a nuisance to the island. This Epsilon intensified into a hurricane in December and maintained that status for the better part of a week over cool waters. It is true that it did not affect land, but notability does not always have to include land impacts. Also, please don't single out my opinions. That's been happening to me a lot lately and it just feels like I'm being attacked when we are just discussing the merger of an article.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Chess Eric: the only reason it was notable besides that is the NHC expressed there personal feelings. The only real reason is because that article is 164K and it would bloat it up, but our season is 332K. WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above arguments, seems notable enough for me. Buttons0603 (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean oppose due to there being sufficient length to the article compared to several other articles that we've voted to keep. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I already decided to merge higher up in the section. Some of the Opposes mention 'meteorological oddity' as for keeping the article. I have read the article again today from start to finish, and I still do not believe 'meteorological oddity' makes this hurricane more notable than other hurricanes that were a 'meteorological oddity' with no Wikipedia article.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This storm is a big meteorological rarity, but not all of them get articles. I weakly support merging. WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging Gumballs678, Hurricanehuron23, Hurricanehink and Cyclonebiskit. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose because of its uniqueness and oddity. Also, oppose to keep from bloating the already bloated main season article. Epsilon has sufficient length to keep its article. Gumballs678 talk 13:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-These are the only reasons people are opposing
    1. It would bloat the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season(which is partly true, but 2020 is double that size),
    2. It is a meterological rarity(partly true, but many articles which were meterological rarities don't get articles, like this year's Epsilon)
    3. The NHC expressed their own feelings on the article(which is moot, because that can easily be described in 2-3 sentences),
    4. The 22KB is reasonable length to keep an article(which is moot, articles nearly this size have been merged)
  • --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • WesternAtlanticCentral This year's Epsilon isn't really an oddity though, sure it attained major hurricane intensity where no other storm had that late in the season, but that's all it has going for it. Furthermore, you can't just go and say "the 22kb is reasonable length to keep" is moot because other articles that length have been merged, because it is a fair argument. This is why we have these discussions, if those other articles that were that length were voted to merge, then that's why they were merged. That shouldn't discount the argument on Epsilon's article. May I ask, what are your opinions? Do you believe it should be merged? Gumballs678 talk 13:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Gumballs678: Arthur is 4,000 bytes longer and it’s also being talked about being merged, so it is kind of moot. As for your other point, Epsilon is also an oddity because it underwent such rapid intensification so far northeast so late in the season, which most storms don’t do. WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • These claims to notability are from us. My opinion is that Epsilon 2020 is also notable for its 'meteorological oddity'.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 14:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Arthur had two discussions about being merged and both resulted in it being kept and not merged. And like I said, the only thing Epsilon 2020 has going for it is its rapid intensification in a location so far northeast. That's it. That's all one has to write for Epsilon 2020. Epsilon 2005 was a hurricane in December, which is rare, and lasted a week in said month, which is a record. So, are you in favor of merging because Epsilon 2020 doesn't have an article? Gumballs678 talk 14:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I said before Epsilon 2020 was a 'meteorological oddity'...i.e. notable. What is your point here???--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @WesternAtlanticCentral: Your first, second, and fourth points are essentially "other articles have been merged/haven't been split, so this article should be merged/shouldn't be split", which is textbook WP:OSE. Sure, 2020 AHS's article is long (it has 83 kB of readable prose), but that is grounds for splitting/trimming 2020 AHS and irrelevant to 2005 AHS (which has 62 kB of readable prose and just above the recommended splitting size at WP:SIZERULE). Meteorological oddities do sometimes get articles but not all of them do, depending on whether each can be covered adequately in the season article or not. If Epsilon 2020 can be covered succinctly in 2020 AHS, then don't split 2020 AHS; if it can't then go ahead and split. That, however, has nothing to do with 2005 and this discussion. Lastly, "articles nearly this size have been merged" is not a reason to merge and does not address the claims that the content covered in this article is significant. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • (edit conflict) @Gumballs678:: there is an Arthur merge that’s still going, no one is commenting(which I will ping more people to to get more communication on the subject). The other one had consensus to merge but went stale. It’s kind of split evenly right now. Arthur’s main arguments are, however, that it did $112,000 in damage and delayed the SpaceX launch. That doesn’t apply here.
                • Oh, I didn't know there was still a discussion on Arthur going on, but you're right, it's not relevant here. Thanks for clarifying. Gumballs678 talk 14:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @KN2731: 2020 is still 20 kb more. WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does it matter here? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see your point. We clearly need more people to participate, there is no consensus. Pinging CyclonicStormYutu. I’m also bordering on pinging other people who aren’t involved with hurricanes, to get even more people. Imzadi1979, for example. WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • This article is long and I felt while reading it that it was a bit of a ramble, trimming it would still preserve vital info about Epsilon I reckon.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 15:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article is large enough to have its own article as a meteorological rarity, and especially considering the size of the AHS, I find no reason why a merge should be done, particularly because it inflates an already massive article. JavaHurricane 15:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • pinging Jayab314 and Hurricane Noah, and Knowledgekid87 for thoughts(this is WAC but I forgot to log in). No need to ping other people not involved yet.--67.85.37.186 (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral Epsilon was a meteorological anomaly, lasting longer as a hurricane in December then any other hurricane in December. But I would want to merge it due to it being not that much of a good record some people can argue. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Initial merge proposal stems from WP:POINT because of other articles being rejected, if I remember right. I'm in favor of keeping this one per WP:OSE alongside this being a longstanding article of good quality. I'm not really against Epsilon 2020 having an article at this point either, fwiw. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-This is around evenly split(a good discussion). WP: CONSENSUS is important. I'm pinging Sdslayer100 into the discussion. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, I don't think Epsilon was that amazing, even if it maintained hurricane status for a week in December. Affected no land, was similar to Epsilon 2020 in how forgettable it was. Sdslayer100talk 06:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, forgot to log in. Pinging Hurricanestudier123 and MarioProtIV and Robloxsupersuperhappyface. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, 2005’s Epsilon wasn’t notable at all. It hit nowhere and most of the article is just meteorological History. Zeta has an article since it interrupted a boat race and lasted into 2006. Epsilon isn’t notable and is a wasteful article. Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, how is it wasteful @Robloxsupersuperhappyface:? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well not wasteful but more of unneeded Robloxsupersuperhappyface (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the article was warranted/needed to explain its unusual meteorological history. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta agree with super here. It's an unnecessary article that, while it may bloat 2005, if we condense it it will be ok. And we must be willing to help. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per its unusual met history, which would be too much detail for the season article if merged. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-I condensed the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season by over 1.3 kilobytes. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 21:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose to merging per arguments given above, especially that of KN2731 about size and merging ("Lastly, "articles nearly this size have been merged" is not a reason to merge and does not address the claims that the content covered in this article is significant."). I further believe the article's content is of sufficient quality and detail to warrant its existence, not to mention that it managed to defy forecasts consistently along with its intensity and duration as a mid-latitutde December hurricane. Therefore I don't think merging to the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season will do the content justice. DarkShadowTNT (talk) 23:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Too much for the article, as well as the fact that 2005 anomaly is probably well-reported in the media at that time (I assume, and the times are long different back then). SMB99thx my edits 01:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment-This needs more organization. Based on the arguments people have given, I am now neutral, but I will leave the discussion up. --WesternAtlanticCentral (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2601:547:C500:6750:2556:B1A1:E318:3FA6 (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC) Keep This was A notable storm for its oddness and shouldn’t be merged[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Epsilon_(2005)&oldid=1211224047"