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 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§archive14:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Removed "third-strongest" sentence
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.
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
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
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
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
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: 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.
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
Support Epsilon 2005 was not especially notable, formation date isn't grounds for an article, if it was then every pre-season and post-season storm would get an article. If Epsilon this year doesn't deserve an article than neither does 2005.
AveryTheComrade (
talk)
05:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Neutral There are good arguments for either side. The storm didn't affect land or do any damage, but also was a rare long-lived December hurricane. I'll let thias play out - neutral. ~'Destroyeraa🌀18:16, 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.
YEPacificHurricane22:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)reply
It is somewhat notable, but not notable enough for Wikipedia. Or else this year's Epsilon would have an article. Every storm is notable in it's own way. Even Tropical Storm Wilfred, as it was the second time we got to 'W'.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
WesternAtlanticCentral (
talk •
contribs)
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- 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)
Not sure whether a long-lived December hurricane is notable enough to have an article, but obviously not as notable as Zeta. At this point, I said weak support. --
218.250.155.169 (
talk)
04:05, 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
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
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
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.
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.
🐔ChicdatBawk 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
@
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
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
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.
Gumballs678talk13:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment-These are the only reasons people are opposing
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?
Gumballs678talk13:47, 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
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?
Gumballs678talk14:18, 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 textbookWP: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.
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. JavaHurricane15:03, 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
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.
Sdslayer100talk06:57, 4 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
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). SMB99thxmy edits01:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)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.