This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
:::Agreed. One of the few articles which I believe shouldn't exist. The only non-notable Allison.
CrazyC83 06:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC) With many new articles being created, I decided to get back to work on this one.
CrazyC8304:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Based on the consensus, what should be kept and what should be cut out? I say a shortened early formation, shortened storm history, and slightly condensed impact section. I just say that because keeping the entire section would negate the purpose of merging it back.
Hurricanehink02:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)reply
All useful info should be moved to the main article section (if it isn't already there) and then the article should be redirected to the main article, standard procedure. Based on the consensus of five users, I deem it appropriate to conduct the merge now. --
Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive18:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Todo
Any more impact? The article relies on only a few sources, so there's probably more info. Did you check HPC's rainfall map for this storm? That should be added, and it has rainfall for SE United States. Also, the fact that operationally it was a hurricane at landfall should be mentioned. The NCDC probably has more; you should check there. All in all, good redo, but still needs more info for B class.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
05:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Yea. It was also considered to be the earliest U.S. hurricane landfall in a long time, but not so in the aftermath. The NHC has news reports and local reports that should be worked in.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
05:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I've put the GA nomination on hold based on my review of the article.
Well-written- Pretty good - two typos, though overall writing is decent. Phrases in parenthesis should be avoided. The storm history could use another look-through to smoothen things out and make sure everything is there.
Factually accurate and verifiable - Good
Broad in coverage - I'd like to see more links that aren't from NHC
Non-POV - Good
Stable - Good
Images - Good, though more satellite images never hurt
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 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)
21:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Requested move 30 October 2016
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. While the supporters have pointed out that the 1995 storm was the only storm named "Hurricane Allison", the opposition counter that the 2001 storm was more significant. Unlike the storms, neither argument seems to be stronger here, so the status quo will remain. --
Tavix(
talk)21:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. Given that the Texas one was not a Hurricane it's not really a fully legitimate contender for the title, even allowing for people mistakenly thinking it was a hurricane. I think hatnotes are perfectly sufficient to differentiate the two. —
Amakuru (
talk)
15:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. There seems to be a general consolidation of all tropical storms of the same name (including hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons) to a single disambiguation page. I think a broader policy decision would need to be made first. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉08:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The 2001 storm is still commonly called "Hurricane Allison", even if it technically wasn't one,
[1] and it was the much more prominent storm.--
Cúchullaint/
c19:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Despite being the only storm of the aforementioned name to achieve hurricane intensity, the
2001 cyclone is far more significant. In my honest opinion, moving this article does not make much sense as it might insinuate confusion between this one and its 2001 successor if the move were successful.
Vedanara2 (
talk)
23:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong Support. This was the only Allison incarnate that was a hurricane, therefore I support that it be called "Hurricane Allison" Josiah W. 00:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jw133102 (
talk •
contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move 8 February 2017
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose as nothing has changed since the previous discussion. 2001's Allison is vastly more notable, and while it had a different classification, the potential for confusion is high. – Juliancolton |
Talk04:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Support as "Hurricane Allison" and "Tropical Storm Allison" are clearly different. It doesn't make sense to redirect the hurricane page to a disambiguation about tropical storms.
Laurdecltalk06:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
It's been my experience throughout the years that many readers are not inherently familiar with the distinction between a tropical storm and a hurricane. After all, they're the exact same phenomena, just assigned to a different part of an arbitrary classification scale. The difference between "Tropical Storm" Allison and "Hurricane" Allison was a mere 15 miles per hour. Given that both of these storms affected the same region, the US Gulf Coast, in the same general era, I really do think TS Allison is the primary topic. – Juliancolton |
Talk13:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose storms seem to be one of those areas like WikiProject ships where the shortest title is not always the most beneficial to readers. The fact that all these articles have been sitting happily with (year) attached suggests that there was consensus on WikiProject Weather at an earlier time to do so. What changed?
In ictu oculi (
talk)
11:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Hurricane Allison (1995). 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified one external link on
Hurricane Allison (1995). 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: 5 June 2024).
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.