Jump to content

Talk:2005 Azores subtropical storm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured article2005 Azores subtropical storm is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 4, 2017.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 2, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 18, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 5, 2006.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that if the 2005 Azores subtropical storm (pictured), identified by the NHC in post-season reanalysis, had been named then Hurricane Wilma would have been named "Hurricane Alpha"?
Current status: Featured article

Assesment

[edit]

Well, this is certainly different, but what's with the name? Shouldn't it just be Unnamed Subtropical Storm (2005)?Mitchazenia V5.0

I was using the 1991 Halloween Nor'easter for precedence. That should be a redirect. I didn't capitalize "subtropical storm" as it is not part of any official name. CrazyC83 21:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well Hur8 of 1991 was an "unnamed but historically significant". Where does this storm fall under the section?Mitchazenia V5.0 21:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't as it wasn't historically significant. It is treated like Subtropical Storm One (1982) and Tropical Depression Nine (2003) - both of those are official names. It has links to the season pages, but is definitely a low-importance page. CrazyC83 21:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I upped it to be class. As mitchazenia said, it is certainly different, and good job for such a storm. The only other thing I can think of adding would be to mention that the NHC checks every year if there were any storms they missed, and that it was the first time since a storm in October of 2000 that was added in post-analysis. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly wasn't easy to find the information as the sources were limited for something that wasn't even known until 6 months after the fact... CrazyC83 03:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nameable storm" should not be linked to tropical cyclone; depressions are TCs too. As a technicality, subtropical storms aren't tropical cyclones, either. As for the name, officially it's 23L.NONAME, so Subtropical Storm Twenty-three (2005) should, at the very least, redirect here (even though TD23 was operationally Vince). – Chacor 15:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is officially 21L.NONAME (23 was operationally SD22). CrazyC83 16:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd retargeted that to Lists of tropical cyclone names. However, it should really point to an article on this topic at tropical cyclone naming, which I think would be useful.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the blog references those are inappropriate. The fact it would have been named Tammy is obvious (the dates show that) and a proper source can be found for the reanalysis stuff.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Oh and on Earth has noone DYK'ed this article? *grumbles*--Nilfanion (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

[edit]

I thought we agreed that this storm wouldn't get an article? There's very little information about it - three sources are cited, and two of them are practically the same thing. There is also zero operational information, and next to zero impact. --Coredesat 19:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Sure, there's only three sources, but it's a pretty good article. I don't see the harm in keeping it. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same thing. But i decided to not bring it up because i didn't know the results well.MitchazeniaBob Barker's Retiring... 21:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to this being a GA (but will not fail it, I'll let someone else make that decision). The comparison bar for 2005 storms, I believe, has been set at Tropical Storm Lee (2005). This one is nowhere close, because there is not enough operational information to cite. There aren't enough citations (WP:RS clearly states blogs cannot be used as reliable sources), and as per above we agreed this storm should not have had an article. I even doubt that this is B-class. – Chacor 13:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and lowered it to start, with the additional pruning of references. Basically, this is an article written off the TCR. No additional info is here that isn't in the TCR. More stuff not in the TCR is needed for us to consider this a B. – Chacor 15:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are TWO's and TWD's archived? I was looking for them... CrazyC83 17:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember the NHC did not pay any attention to this system operationally and it was never an INVEST.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the TWDs did mention them... FTP archive of October Atlantic TWDs from 2005. – Chacor 09:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No mention in any of the TWDs. Perhaps this should be merged, in that case? --Coredesat 14:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, the article is pretty good. Sure, for the most part it only cites the TCR, but I don't see the harm in that. I know, I know, we could just give them a link to the TCR, but if we're building a tropical cyclone encyclopedia (and we are), it is a good thing worth keeping, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a re-write of the TCR. That isn't our job. – Chacor 01:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, our job is to provide a thorough tropical cyclone encyclopedia. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To-do?

[edit]

To support my 2005 season project I would like to get it to GA, and I can't think of anything else to add. I am going to mull it over for another couple days and then add it to the GA nominations. Plasticup T/C 22:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty good overall. I'd say flesh out the lead some, and maybe add a couple more refs to the last paragraph of the Impact and records section, and it should easily be GAN-able. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The GAN is up, but the backlog there is so long that it is often quicker to polish an article and push it through FA than it is to wait for a GA reviewer. I guess I shouldn't complain though, because I have only reviewed a couple GAs in my time. Plasticup T/C 15:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the GAN backlog is gradually yet progressively improving. If you look back to march, the number of GANs hit 295. Now we're down to 189. In any event, when this does pass GA, are you planning on taking it to FAC? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be a bit nervous about putting it up to FAC with only eight citations from two organizations. But yes, if I can find some news sources that give me confidence in this article being comprehensive then I would like to. Plasticup T/C 16:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Map is ambiguous

[edit]

The map on this page labelled "storm path" is ambiguous in the sense that the storm's beginning and end points cannot be determined. Which is which? A simple directional arrow somewhere along the path would clarify this nicely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.77.79.33 (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2005 Azores subtropical storm. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2005 Azores subtropical storm. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

[edit]

This article no longer meets featured article criteria, I believe. There is no reason why it is notable anymore except for breaking a couple of records. That isn't a reason to have the article. It didn't make landfall, and it wasn't a super-intense storm (why else does Cyclone Kyarr have an article?). The whole "Tammy would be named Vince, Vince would be named Wilma, Wilma would be named alpha" I removed because people can infer that in their heads. This is like Hurricane Pablo (Talk:2019 Atlantic hurricane season/Archive 1#Hurricane Pablo). Broke a few records, but can all be covered in one little season section. WP:TMI for this article. 🐔Chicdat ChickenDatabase 12:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence has nothing to do with the rest of your argument, which is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which I think is applicable in non-conventional ways here). From my prospective, I don't see the upside to taking someone's article down just for the sake of it, and there hasn't been an urge to do it by the season article contributors either. Therefore, I think the status quo of a spinoff remains adequate. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see anything here indicating that the article doesnt meet the featured article criteria. Everything in the season article would be covered in more detail in a subarticle anyways. It seems that you are just upset that the result of the merge discussion was no consensus/towards keep on two separate occasions during the past few months. I reverted your reopening of an archived merge discussion for a reason. While this article is on the shorter side, keep in mind how large the article is that you want to merge this into. It already needs to grow a bit more to cover major aspects of the retired storms. I think this should be closed. NoahTalk 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the FAR nomination because it has got messy with the instructions not being followed and the discussion being incorrectly split across pages. Please follow the instructions at WP:FAR. DrKay (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]
Re-closing this since it has been open for almost a month now. After further discussion, the result is no consensus. NoahTalk 22:09, 11 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.

A few reasons why I believe this article should be merged

  1. Caused no damage or deaths
  2. Just because it was undiscovered doesn't mean its notable (see 2011 Atlantic hurricane season#Unnamed tropical storm)
  3. Just because it was subtropical and it formed near the azores doesn't mean its notable. There have been dozens of storms like this - Pablo, Rebekah, Paulette, Alpha, Alex, etc.
  4. FAs can be merged

An overall dull storm that's only notable for not being "discovered"

~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on a similar note, it should not be in the named storm lists as it was not named. Felicia (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was a supporter of the merge seven months ago and I still don't see a need for this article. Can easily be merged into the main article without making it very bloated. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's not a stub. It's a featured article. If you haven't read the part of WikiProject: Tropical Cyclone's that says it can have an article if it isn't a stub, here: "Hurricanes, typhoons etc should only receive a separate article if they are long enough not to be considered a stub. If there isn't enough to write about, the text can go inside the article for the hurricane season." This article is long enouugh, well referenced, and should be kept. Hurricanehuron33 (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does it fail notability guidelines? It set a record, affected land, and triggered the development of another tropical cyclone that affected Europe. I honestly think what is in the article better explains (a) how it was missed, (b) its origins, and (c) why the subsequent storms after this one were one name off. That's why I think that merging would just bloat an already large article. Also, the WP:OSE argument is irrelevant here because two of the four reasons that were used to for the merge argument are based on other articles that have been merged. Plus, it being an FA added no weight to my decision, anyway.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:09, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "This reanalysis revealed that the storm became a subtropical storm on October 4, making it the earliest forming 19th Atlantic tropical or subtropical storm on record" How is this a notable record and what reliable sources are calling it out as such? Looking at raw data and coming to your own conclusion that x might be a record is WP:OR. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No...this was the source. Additionally, to my knowledge, none of records from the 2020 season is WP:OR; they are all sourced. This one is no different. And the reason why it is a notable record is in the sentence itself.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, no offense, but I'm starting to feel singled out here. I'm not the only one who opposes the merge you know.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to single you out... but there is nothing in that source which specifically states a record. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"This makes Tropical Storm Teddy the earliest 19th named storm, besting the unnamed tropical storm on October 4, 2005."ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay according to whom and why is this important? Can you provide some third party sources that are calling it a record? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was literally in the source I just provided. Also, last I checked, there is no such thing as "record notability".ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I've stated my peace. Still oppose and not changing my mind.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ChessEric: I don't mean to single you out; I apologize if I made you feel that way. The only reason Knowledgekid87 and I are pinging you is because Nova Crystallis just doesn't want to argue and Yellow Evan feels the same way. I do want to point out that being the earliest xth named storm isn't notable, as Edouard, Gonzalo, Josephine, Kyle, Omar, etc. don't have articles. Also, a storm participating in the formation of a more famous storm doesn't make the participating storm notable, such as Tropical Depression Ten (2005). Many storms have affected land in one way or another, like Kyle and Omar. Also, @Knowledgekid87: I know I might be acting like a hypocrite, starting merge discussions while opposing merges at the same time, but I have my reasons. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No you aren't acting like a hypocrite because each article and situation is different. As for this article... if there were a third party specifically calling this a record then I would see that as a more compelling case. Take for example.. Edward Niño Hernández, we have a reliable source specifically stating that he is the world's shortest living man. [1] In this instance the NHC is not coming out with something like that. Data is being linked to and as far as I can tell " earliest forming 19th Atlantic tropical or subtropical storm on record" came from the mouths of Wikipedia editors (WP:OR). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Knowledgekid87: In the discussion linked above the NHC says that "This makes Tropical Storm Teddy the earliest 19th named storm, besting the unnamed tropical storm on October 4, 2005." However, i made the point last week isn't the 19th named storm in the Atlantic of 2005, as a result of FU Berlin naming areas of high and low pressure, which is backed by the German Weather Service amongst others. That is why they have switched to using the "earliest forming 19th Atlantic tropical or subtropical storm on record". However, I personally feel that is getting too trivial and defintley should not be used to justify an article.Jason Rees (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No hard feelings. @Destroyeraa: You aren't being hypocritical. These discussions are needed. Glad you start them so we can all talk about it.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support This unnamed storm didn't really do anything, it just hovered over sea without ever touching land, so a merge is certainly appropriate. 9March2019 (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge I honestly think that like many other storms that don't have any impacts, this one should be merged as it was just a transient system, that did not cause any sort of impacts, nor did it get very powerful. The only real notable thing besides it being discovered post analysis, is the fact that it helped form Hurricane Vince a few days later. 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (talk). 20:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose i dont think it needs a merge this was already discussed and 2205 article is already too big. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazum24 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mazum24: There are season articles (like the current one) way larger than the 2005 season article. Much of the info in this article is already covered by the season article. This was discussed months ago, in which a stale discussion occurred - thus it can be nominated again. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support On basis understanding of notability has changed over time, storm produced no damage, would fit nicely into the 2005 article, it is important to have some record of course, we are an encyclopedia, but it is also rather ephemeral as an event. There is in my mind no reason sufficiently encyclopedic coverage can not be facilitated by the 2005 article, but I am happy to have my mind changed. ThePelicanThing (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak support As I understand how WPTC merging works, merging doesn't matter that much. SMB99thx my edits 08:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

  • Can someone get me up to speed on why this was closed and in the way it was? Discussion here seemed fairly split, though there was more support than dissent, Wikipedia is not a vote. I should also note the rationale here used to rebut my argument in closing was "The arguments expressed that FAs and established articles shouldn't be merged are moot as anything can be merged regardless of how long it has existed or what its status is." which doesn't make much sense to me. Of course any article can be merged but should it and is it worth having a potentially long discussion over it? I'll certainly concede that my argument is more rooted in pragmatism than anything else. Back in the day, merge discussions in this project were done when they had no or little dissent, but said discussions only had 3-4 commentators. This has 14. Also isn't 8-9 days relatively short time for a merge discussion? AFD is usually 5 days, plus an additional 5 if no consensus was reached in this period (unless that's changed the last few years). If I'm wrong here, please correct me but I'll just say that this series of events in the WPTC of 2014 or so would not have played out for better or worse. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The usual time frame for a merge discussion is a week or sometimes a bit more than that. What that statement you mentioned means is that the timeframe an article has existed for and its quality status is not a valid argument against merging or deleting. The real issue here is just notability. If something isn't notable or needs notability established, we should be having a discussion on it. The notability of this storm was challenged by multiple people. They stated that a storm that was previously undiscovered and set a naming record isn't notable enough for an article. I don't believe an article would have been created today for a storm like this. That sentiment is expressed in the fact that Epsilon (a storm that set a naming record and brought a similar impact to Bermuda) was MfDed and had a clear consensus for a delete. People did express concerns about the 2005 article becoming bloated, but that got refuted by the people supporting the merger. The section has white space in it as well. That's why there was consensus to merge. I also knew people would contest the closure as well no matter how long it took or what the outcome was. That's why I have not proceeded with merging the article. If more people challenge this, we can reopen it and continue the discussion. NoahTalk 02:19, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has been contested off-wiki by multiple people so the closure is void. That means the discussion should continue for another 7-14 days and be closed by someone outside the TC realm. NoahTalk 03:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Yellow Evan: I'm fine with it sitting for another week, though if there is no change in consensus, it should be merged. The only reasons I could see for the dissent is that it will bloat up the season article (partially true), it's a FA (FAs can be merged, so that argument is moot), and that I like merging articles (moot-comment on the content, not the user). ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current season article is twice as large as 2005, also this Azores storm did not have lasting coverage. For a couple of days in April 2006 it had coverage. Then when Teddy formed, it was in the news. But otherwise, nothing. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 10:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • when Teddy formed, it was in the news that, by definition, is lasting coverage, since it's being mentioned 15 years later. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Going by Wikipedia's definition of notability, this has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources, even as recently as two days ago. Thus, it should not be in question whether this system is notable or not. In that vein, I would assert that the arguments supporting a merge by claiming this system is not notable at all are barking up the wrong tree, and should focus on establishing insufficient notability to warrant a split from the season article.
To assess whether the article is suitable for merger, I'd apply the merge test, which asks two simple questions: will the merge cause the main article to exceed article size guidelines, and will it result in the removal of encyclopedic content? The former can't be helped by nature of the season article having to cover 30 systems, so I'd weight it less, but would accept as justification against merging. To answer the second question, I'd have to see if the existing detail it can be appropriately summarized in the season article, but with five paragraphs of information in the body I'll say that is unlikely. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - As an inactive member of WPTC, I admit that I have not participated in a merge discussion before. Please let me know if I am doing something incorrectly. However, seeing that there are three merge proposals related to the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article (one of my favorite tropical cyclone articles on Wikipedia), I would like to participate in all of the discussions.
Regarding the 2005 Azores subtropical storm, there have been several merge proposals in the past. The arguments against merging that I have seen appear to be that A.) doing so will overwhelm the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season (AHS) page, B.) this storm was operationally undetected, and C.) this storm broke a formation record.
Here are my counterarguments: A.) This article has only seven paragraphs. Four of them are basically about the fact that the 2005 Azores subtropical storm was not considered subtropical until the spring of 2006. Moreover, only one paragraph talks about land "impacts", which are essentially two wind observations from the Azores. It should not be that difficult to condense everything. B.) This fact could easily be mentioned in just a sentence or two or the main 2005 AHS article. C.) The claim to fame that the Azores subtropical storm had as the earliest 19th named storm in an Atlantic hurricane season has been broken by Hurricane Teddy this year, and this also can be mentioned in simply a sentence or two in the 2005 AHS page.
In short, I do not understand the purpose of this article on the 2005 Azores subtropical storm existing. I urge my fellow editors to merge this page to the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article as soon as possible. Hurricane Andrew (444) 05:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are merits to both sides of this argument, and I am leaning slightly towards merge, but I would like to at least see a potential merged article before making my decision. If it can be accommodated to include the notable aspects of the storm and not be bloated, I would be willing to support a merge. NotYourFriend 420 (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose due to the notability of the system as an oddball and having flown under the radar in a record season. Length isn't there and I may be a bit biased as one who is fascinated by storms like this, but I think it should stay if for notability alone. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DarkSide830: What about Pablo 2019? That was an oddball too. If something is notable just for its news coverage, then it can be covered in the season article like Hurricane Epsilon 2020 is now. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm pretty sure that this oddball of a storm would be considered as unique back then on 2006. Time is way gone since then, however back then it is much more notable than it is today. SMB99thx my edits 02:02, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_Azores_subtropical_storm&oldid=1218279121"