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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Georgia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) articles
Well, the flooding was from Tammy, STD 22, and a cold front. The Mameyes disaster was only from Isabel. The information can be split up, but I see no reason to keep this.
Hurricanehink21:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm not really sure. There's no real point to a Tropical Storm Tammy article. Much of what you said was already on the season page, and there arleady is an article on the Northeast flooding. Its effects in the southeast were relatively minor.
Hurricanehink21:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
When writing future articles, here are some things you can do to maximize an article's quality. Always have at least 2 paragraphs for storm history. For impact, try and have at least 2 paragraphs, so sometimes that can be hard. All around, try to not have so many short sentences. It can get a little annoying, and they're a little boring to read. Don't be afraid to combine sentences, be it using a conjunction or an appositive. Be sure to keep all related events together within one paragraph. For example, if you're talking about flooing, you should put everything about flooding from the storm in that one area. Don't switch from flooding to winds, to surge, to flooding. Impact photos are always nice, though can be hard to get for unimportant storms. The #1 thing you have to remember when writing an article is why you are writing the article. First, look at the storm's stats. Did it cause under 10 deaths or under $100 million in damage? If it did, you should reconsider, because it would be hard to get good information, and it might be more worthwhile to add more content the storm history section. If it is above it, try taking a look around at sites that can help. Don't go head first into an article. Try and find relavent information that is interesting and important. If the storm cancelled a parade or a block party, there's no need to mention it, but if it cancelled schools or cancelled an important national event (important meaning it already has an article), that would be good to add in. When actually writing the article, double check and triple check your writing. The preview button is your friend, and you can find simple errors that you might not find while writing in the edit window. If you don't like doing that, copy the article over to Microsoft Word and use the spell check to see your errors. Finally, when it's all together, add links to wherever appropriate- season page, other storms that affected the area (like if a hurricane hit Florida, then the storm you're writing about did as well, you could make a mention that your storm article also hit the state later in the season), and on disambiguation pages. I hope this helps. I, for one, don't like seeing articles get merged, but some storms simply can't have an article based on lack of information. If there's any doubt, ask! There are numerous places to ask, and by proposing the article, you can get pointers for things to add, like if there are any existing images. One more thing. Most of the important Atlantic storms have articles already... at least since 1950. Most others that don't either don't have enough information or aren't notable enough. For this reason, it might be hard to write a new, good article, on an Atlantic storm. Hopefully you can use these pointers when writing in the future.
Hurricanehink21:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
ok...I uploaded an impact picture and know im stuck on how to put in the article and i've read how to do it but i dont get it????????????--
HurricaneRo21:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)reply
My opinion on the 2005 articles is the same as it's been for a while now: either we should have an article for every storm, or we need to follow the criteria that every other Atlantic storm uses. Based on those criteria, Tammy definitely does not deserve an article and should be merged. And it seems the consensus is against having a storm for every article (rather we can just make the list article longer and longer). Also BTW, the article is misnamed: it should be
Tropical Storm Tammy (2005). CrazyC83 already wrote articles for every 2005 storm (which were merged without discussion), his version was better (though now out of date) and can be found
here. —
jdorje (
talk)
03:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Strongly agree with a merge. It may have been part of the reason for the flooding in the Northeast, but on its own, it isn't very notable. --
Coredesat11:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)reply
My article is better than the other one! I have way more things for the impact section...You can't really tell what happened with Tammy in that article--
65.9.62.18900:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Re-merge. This storm isn't notable by itself. Merge it either with
List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms or
Northeast U.S. flooding of October 2005. As Tammy, this storm did little but drench the Georgia coast. And, Jdorje, the merging of the induvidual storm articles was chewed over endlessly. Many of us expressed our dissent of splitting up the article. We were ignored. Many of us opposed the creation of articles for every storm. We were again ignored. It was discussed. Us opponents however didn't just sit down and shut up like you guys wanted us to. --
§HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive00:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I believe every hurricane should have an article of itself, if someone wants to create one... theres no point in having one big page with all the storms with little info, when u can have one page with lots of information and detail about a particular storm. People want inforamtion and detail, they dont care about the signifigance, Tammy still deserves her respect and I perosnally created a Tammy page becuase I wnated to know all bout her for awhile, since no one else created one, I did... there are probably some people who do care about this storm and want to know about it.--
HurricaneRo03:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Ooh, that's a big issue. We agreed a while back that not every storm would have an article, due to better organization on the storm summary and lack of information.
Hurricanehink03:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)reply
GIANT RE-MERGE. This is stupid. 3 months ago we decided on getting rid of all uneeded articles.Although I need to talk to Crazy to move his Irene one into the LNSB.The only 2005 storms that allow an article would be:
Cindy-get rid of 2005 (320 million is enough i believe to get rid of the 2005 mark)
Tammy should go. Maria, Vince, Epsilon, and Zeta were even less notable and should also go. Or we should revive all of CrazyC83s 2005 storm articles and get rid of the list article. —
jdorje (
talk)
23:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Hmm, never thought of that. I'm actually not opposed now to reviving all of CrazyC83's storm articles. The list article is pointless, and I can see the usefulness of having every storm have their own article. Eric, I am really sorry, but this time it could work. We now have all of the post-season reports, and it is 2005. If the Simpsons can have every episode in a season, what's wrong with having an article for each storm? Some might be small, but well-written stubs are not the end of the world.
Hurricanehink01:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I have always been a strong supporter of an article for each storm, but I never really mentioned it. Also, I really think that we can get TD tracking maps. I don't see why we can't.
Icelandic Hurricane #1201:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I am very reluctant to make tracking maps of the TDs from hand-made data because these will not be included in future best track datasets, and thus will never be re-assessed. However I encourage you to pester the NHC to add depressions to the best track dataset. —
jdorje (
talk)
01:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Hink, I don't think we have Beta's report yet. Also, we don't have the report-that-might-not-be of that unnamed storm in October. Jdorje, wouldn't it be best to give what information we DO have, the hand-made data tracks, even if it'll never be re-assessed again? What if casual viewers want to see the TD track, without going to another site or looking in the reports themselves? --
RattleMan02:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Whoops, forgot about Beta and the unnamed storm. Yea Jdorje, what's the harm in posting a track map for the depressions? You do it for WPAC and Indian cyclones.
Hurricanehink02:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I agree to reviving Crazy's Articles, BUT we should make a seperate page for them.Also it seems like that Gamma, Delta and Alpha deserve an article compared to Beta.43,41 and 7 deaths & 161 Million+ Damage is pretty more worthwile.
HurricaneCraze3212:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)reply
This is just the recurring storm article debate being played out on an individual storm isn't it? Isn't it more appropriate to hold a central discussion - presumably on the project page and try and find a solution to this once and for all? It is highly likely that the 2006 season will have the same issues as the 2005 one, with just average activity that is probable given the much larger number of editors now. Maybe the solution should be every storm from EVERY season is deemed worthy of an article, and if someone writes it up to a minimum standard it stays. --
Nilfanion14:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Though the TCR says Tammy was below the $25 million threshold, I found
this FEMA site that says Tammy caused around $29 million in paid losses. While that does not mean damages, the amount paid from FEMA is part of the damage total, and I am going to add it in.
Hurricanehink21:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)reply
How's THIS for damage: my beautiful outdoor wedding facing the Chesapeake Bay had to be moved inside due to this storm. My bride's name... TAMMY. I am not making this up... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
149.101.1.116 (
talk)
12:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes. All storms not retired, those that are significantly notable that deserve the main page, and some older storms should have the main name. All others should have the year identifier.
Hurricanehink15:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)reply
I've tried moving it to include (2005), but that page already exists, so it won't let me do it. But if I was an administrator (I wish I was, plz nominate me! :)), I could do it.
Icelandic Hurricane #1219:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)reply
Did you happen to read my suggestion?Why not include the infobox of STD22 with Tammy.They are the Teamwork Storms of 2005. They'd go well toghether.Tell me if you want to add this.
HurricaneCraze3221:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)reply
You're right. Article should be kept if all other articles are restored (which IMO should be done), but otherwise (unlike Maria or Delta) it isn't notable enough if we are going by notability. Several other storms (i.e. Arlene, Irene, Jose) that had articles merged were more notable. My vote is Conditional keep.
CrazyC8323:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)reply
For some reason, when the other least-notable storms were merged, this one was kept. I'm re-merging it for now, although if all the pages are returned, the information will be there...
CrazyC8316:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)reply
"Tropical Storm Tammy was a moderate strength but short lived tropical storm during..." –The wording could be a little better, but otherwise no other things I can see.
Last edited at 03:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 09:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
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 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.
Damage total?
Where does the $30 million damage total come from? It's certainly not from the TCR, which says less than $25M.
David Longshore says "some $30M"], but implies that's just for Georgia. I wonder if the damage total was for the New England floods that Tammy contributed to. I'm getting a few other sources saying $30M, but most seem to be mirrors of Wikipedia, or they likely cited Wikipedia. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
15:57, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply