Talk:Typhoon Matmo (2014)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sources[edit]

Philippines
Taiwan
China

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Typhoon Matmo (2014). 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 07:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link checked. — Gorthian (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Typhoon Matmo (2014). 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 17:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check of links showed okay. — Gorthian (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 November 2016[edit]

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 for moves (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– Each was the only storm with the name to become a typhoon. 219.79.127.251 (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Support Although it is general wikipedia policy to make the primary article to be the definitive most popular object by that name, I would believe that each should be dealt with on case-by-case basis: A stronger storm isn't necessarily notable, and the deadliest pacific typhoon so far this year (Lionrock) isn't even one of the 5 strongest this year. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question – Is it the custom to "retire" the names of tropical storms once they've become typhoons? — Gorthian (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We only do these if the storms (or typhoons) are notable (eg: Typhoon Haiyan). If a name was not notable, though its name was somehow retired, then do the same (eg: Typhoon Vicente). Though for the list you have given, @219.79.127.251:, no need because those storms were not notable and none of the names have been retired. So therefore, I oppose. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If what Typhoon2013 says is right, then these names can be re-used. Therefore, for the sake of future editors, let's leave them with the year parentheticals in the titles, and they won't have to be moved again the next time a storm has the same name. — Gorthian (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2016 (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.