Jump to content

Talk:1994 Pacific hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article1994 Pacific hurricane season 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 star1994 Pacific hurricane season is the main article in the 1994 Pacific hurricane season 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
October 26, 2008Good article nomineeListed
November 7, 2008Good topic candidatePromoted
November 7, 2008Good topic removal candidateKept
Current status: Good article

Gilma the Strongest?

[edit]

John had higher winds but Gilma had lower pressure. Hmmm, who takes the cake here? -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 18:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure is everything. Except I highly doubt Gilma had lower pressure; the pressure readings on John are incomplete. So I'd go with John and just don't mention pressure in the infobox. Jdorje 21:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Info

[edit]

Could we at least provide info on which storms were hurricanes? Weatherman90 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! Its a stub.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

[edit]

It needs at least a one sentence description of every storm to be a start.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Looks around...crickets chirp*... ... Alright I'll do it. →Cyclone1→ 03:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I put up the "Inuse" tag, added on infobox, and quit. Do not panic, it's just 11:00 here in Florida, and I'm going to sleep. I'll pick it up again tomorrow, I promise. →Cyclone1→ 03:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Halfway there, will finish later. →Cyclone1→ 15:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please {{subst: your {{clear}}s, thanks. – Chacor 02:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, sorry. →Cyclone1→ 00:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todo2

[edit]

Inline sourcing and more info. A one paragraph description for storm history (6-8 lines average, more if longer track) should be there, along with a paragraph for impact (if any). Hurricanehink (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to reference format. Thegreatdr 04:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I have done all that. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoffs

[edit]

Should there be an Olivia spinoff article? As I intend to make this season into a GA, it is a question that must be asked. Olivia is the only one of the ten most intense Pacific hurricanes not to have an article. ({{Most intense Pacific hurricanes}} skips Gilma for some reason, but I'll soon correct that. Making an article would potentially, along with getting Hurricane Juliette (2001) up to speed another possible featured/good topic. However, that, and sharing with Juliette the distinction of being the most intense Pacific hurricane not to reach Category 5 intensity is the only thing Olivia has going for it. I am not sure it is appropriate to make an article solely for that reason. In addition, an Olivia article made for that reason will eventually become obsolete. Sooner or later there will be two Pacific hurricanes deeper than 923 mb, whilc will knock Olivia off the template. (It must be two hurricanes because a single hurricane would knock Olivia and Juliette into tenth place, resulting in the template being a "Top 11", but we can just arbitrarily eliminate Olivia or Juliette, and a Top 9 is a silly number to make a template for; two systems are needed to knock Olivia and Juliette out of the top 10). Hence, I am starting a discussion on whether or not we should make an Olivia article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. I'm personally in favor of giving every named storm an article, and a Category 4 certainly deserves one if we have this. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd might was well put Rosa and Li on the potential spinoff table too. But for Rosa, almost all articles at the Newspaper Archive were basically copies of the one I have already cited for the 400 evacuees. However, the 700 million in damage which Rosa was a factor in (but of course not the sole cause of) is quite high for a Pacific hurricane. Whatever decision ultimately comes of this, spinoffs will have to wait until this article is up to GA status. And if we decide to end the spinoffs with what we already have, we'll have a GT. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Li had no impact, so I see no need for that article. I don't think an Olivia article is needed (especially if it's only to make that topic). Given its damage figure, as well as hurricane-force landfall, I'd like to see an article for Rosa, and IMO that is the one that is needed the most. However, it's all up to how much work one person wants to do. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hink, you basically gave out my reasons for not wanting to do an Olivia article (I didn't say it out front so as not to unduely influence the discussion). The only reason I suggested Li wasn because it had a long section. I am in more agreement about Rosa. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am making Rosa article. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes for 0liva. Leave Message orYellow Evan home or User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 02:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Central Pacific ACE

[edit]

Should there be something mentioning that the Central Pacific ACE is higher than the East Pacific ACE? 71.147.56.125 (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the central Pacific ACE was a record this year, or if it is notable. If it is, then I guess so. 76.235.214.247 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2008 (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) 02:35, 8 June 2011 (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) 02:35, 8 June 2011 (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) 20:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 1994 Pacific hurricane season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1994 Pacific hurricane season. 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) 05:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1994_Pacific_hurricane_season&oldid=1196285904"