An automated process has detected that when you recently editedHurricane Frances, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageHillsborough River.
Do you mind taking a look at the draft to see whether it is ripe for a GAN once moved into its own article? If so, then please feel free to merge it with the1945 Outer Banks hurricane, perhaps while changing the latter's title to1945 Florida–Outer Banks hurricane.CapeVerdeWave (talk)11:10, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Thank you! On another note, I find that going through others' work and making minor edits (i.e., reworking prose a bit, finding errors, and so on, as I did in the Frances/Jeanne articles) almost helps me more than starting on my own from scratch. I appreciate the others' work, while the process of refinement—so long as I leave the core of others' work intact—allows me to perceive issues of my own that I might otherwise have overlooked. Also, right now I am considering movingthe 1878 draft into its own article, so please feel free to review it and point out any issues you see; I want it to be GAN-worthy as soon as I upload it. As always, I appreciate your aid!CapeVerdeWave (talk)19:31, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Good catch re: Canada! I have amended that portion to read one death in Galt and three in Brampton, but the Canada total still comes out to 10 when added up. Also, a paragraph in the Haiti section mentions 16 deaths: 11 in a church plus five bodies elsewhere. Does the death toll look better now?CapeVerdeWave (talk)20:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from2016 Sri Lankan floods into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere),Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).
When copying within Wikipedia, at a minimum, give attribution in anedit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying andlinking to the copied page, e.g.,copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted{{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination.
Please add attribution if no one has done so yet. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons atWikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.Obi2canibe (talk)22:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1984 Pacific typhoon season has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)14:03, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, already have a question! I noticed when cleaning upCyclone Fani that both UTC and IST were being used, I changed the IST time to be less complex (i.e. saying "in the morning of..."), but kept the UTC. I know the UTC is being used because that is what the sources and warnings use, butMOS:TIME says I should use IST, which I would do, accept that other cyclones are using UTC in those contexts, which one should I use in these cases, or should I do something completely different? For reference, most of the UTC occurrences are inCyclone Fani#Meteorological_history. Thanks,–LuniZunie(talk)13:06, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, seeList of Philippine typhoons, i remember the question you asked me which ishave you made an edit in an article that you were proud of, that did not involve the lead of an article? If you had atleast one, then maybe i was wrong. And yes, on the “List of Philippine typhoons” article, i had numerous edits on THAT article. So basically, you are wrong.Mickomicks (talk)07:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on becoming "Instagram famous" with your adorable post about editing for the 25th anniversary of Wikipedia. Best wishes for your career and new partner.Bearian (talk)11:20, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any advice for finding sources with material that I can use to expandCyclone Hudhud? As I said on the WPTC page I want to get it to FA but it still is a bit short for a storm that caused that much damage.HurricaneZetaC18:27, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, some further questions, I think I've fleshed out the elsewhere section and expanded some of the other sections too based on your suggestions.
I looked atCyclone Chapala and the met hist is significantly more fleshed out. I understand the jargon but I'm unsure on how to properly (para)phrase it while also complying withWP:CLOP, so it's currently very barebones.
@HurricaneZeta: - As for Chapala and the fleshing out the article, you need to ask questions like you're a journalist. Who/What/When/Where/Why/How. Who is affected, what happened, when did it happen, and where... that's all easy. It's the why/how with tropical cyclones that is really tricky unless you have a good understanding of how storms work. For starters, how did Hudhud form? Right now, you mention that it was a low pressure area. You should cite it to the prelim report, including all advisories where the info is already in the prelim report. However, there is a bit more info out there. You say that the JTWC began tracking the system on the 8th, buton the 6th they first mentioned the system in the STWO (significant tropical weather outlook). [out the advisories on this page]. As for no close paraphrasing, that's a good thing to keep in mind, because the advisories and reports are often complex. However, you can still mention stuff, such as the meteorological conditions that favored Hudhud forming in the first place. That would be low-to-moderate wind shear, good outflow, building deep convection, and warm waters. Those are pretty common ingredients for intense tropical cyclones, but it's important to mention. Also, why did it move the way it did? That would be the ridge to its north (per the first JTWC advisory). Be sure to use the rest of the JTWC advisories to expand the met history, as that's probably the single biggest thing you're not doing enough of right now.
The lead section as well isn't the same quality as the other parts, any suggestions?
@HurricaneZeta: - As for the lead, don't worry about that until you expand the article. It's very much on the short side. It doesn't feel like a $11 billion storm, not with how few examples of damage there are. Are you finished your search for information for impact?Did you see this source? It has more about effects in India. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)00:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not completely finished with the damages. About these reports, I don't know how I can phrase them in prose without it seeming like a numbers dump, since the impacts in the reports are sometimes just raw numbers. Any examples or suggestions for how to do that properly?HurricaneZetaC02:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Find ways to include information together when it makes sense, but not so it's a numbers dump. Something like:
"Across Andhra Pradesh, Hudhud caused a variety of damaging impacts. The storm damaged more than 27,000 power poles and 8,006 km (4,975 mi) worth of transmission lines. The outages left 73 villages unable to communicate for up to two days. The cyclone also damaged 40 drinking wells, including 7 that were destroyed, with 39.4 km (24.5 mi) of water lines damaged."
Alright, I expanded the Andhra Pradesh section, how does it look now? I couldn't find much more information to add beyond expanding from the existing sources, so I think that section close to meeting the comprehensiveness criterion. Additionally, does it go into unnecessary detail about the damage to the university and the zoo now, and is there any close paraphrasing? I encountered some phrases that I couldn't paraphrase further (likethe roofs of all 16 canteens were stripped, and the walls of six structures gave way. vs.Walls of six buildings collapsed and the roof of all the 16 messes on the campus were blown away. in the source). I might be overthinking that, but it is also required to be free of it for FAC, so better to double checkHurricaneZetaC00:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How do I discern what goes in Impact and what goes in Aftermath, and how can I expand on the latter?
Nothing in aftermath is misplaced, so that's good. The only thing in impact that seems out of place is mentioning that flights were suspended beforehand. That's preparations (note the "beforehand"). ♫Hurricanehink (talk)00:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How long should the Nepal section be - does the current length with the main article link suffice, or does it need to be a bit longer to adequately cover what happened?2014 Nepal snowstorm disaster isn't in the best shape so it might not be a good place to point readers for more information unless I improve that article.
I thought on multiple times that the avalanche article should get merged (see Hudhud's talk page). I would focus on non-avalanche Nepal impacts first. Right now, you have:
"On 14 October, the remnants of Hudhud caused severe avalanches and blizzards following a merger with an upper-level trough"
That jumps right into avalanches, but first, you should talk about how a tropical cyclone led to snowfall. How much snow, what was the peak, that sort of stuff. Were airports closed because of the snow/freeze? Was there any rainfall from Hudhud in Nepal. Also, the info you have now isn't the most useful. You have "By 18 October, 384 trekkers had been rescued from Mount Annapurna" and "with close to 400 having been rescued." Be specific when you can. You don't need to update everything for the reader. It's been over 10 years since the event, so it should feel like everything is cataloged and organized. I hope this helps! ♫Hurricanehink (talk)00:26, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageHurricane Frances, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Abare URL andmissing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)
Hey Hink, just wondering if you can resolve a dispute between @FourNoddlers and I. They've been mass adding the clear template to storm articles, supposedly to prevent text sandwiching. However, many of these articles have already been featured - so it seems that text sandwiching was clearly not an important issue in the first place. Their edits introduce a large amount of whitespace which negatively affects the flow of the article. I've tried to talk to them, but they haven't been listening.SolarisPenguin (talk)22:53, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that Camille got up to GA and you nominated it for FAC. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be asking this on the FAC page since I don't know if it's part of the specific criteria for it so I'm just gonna put these here. I have a few questions that I think should maybe be resolved, sorry if this is a bad place for them.
The third sentence in the lede says "The third named storm of the 1969 Atlantic hurricane season, Camille" etc. I've seen some dust-up about similar sentences in other articles not having any source later on, is that in the article later on? Do we need to add it somewhere?
In the Mississippi section there's a sentence "About four hours after landfall, an anemometer in Columbia recorded sustained winds of 114 mph (183 km/h)." The observation wasn't technically sustained winds of 114 mph, it was a "fastest-mile" of around 120 mph which was then converted to a 1-minute sustained wind estimate of 114 mph. Do you think we can leave that as is? I don't know how to explain all that in a concise manner for a sentence in the article right now.
Hello Hurricanehink, I am Mastercane, but in my new alt, SPCMastercaneAlt2, I lost my account's password, but I have to retire from Wikipedia for 2-5 years, I am sorry, but I have to.SPCMastercaneAlt2 (talk)13:36, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink I am working on getting the 1926 Miami storm up to GA status or better; it would be a fitting FA sequel to Camille, obviously. But I see that the Florida section is a bit lengthy. Do you think it should be pared down or split into a Florida draft? The page as it stands, though unfinished (I am still working on the "rest of Florida", with more to go), is already longer than the 1928 and 1944 FAs, for instance. I think the article is a bit overly detailed at this stage, so maybe some sources or prose can be trimmed, and if need be moved into another draft. Another issue is that I could not find images for the Bahamas, so I had to use photos from Florida instead. Also, I had some trouble subdividing details into paragraphs, given the amount of unique information (i.e., about death tolls, unpreparedness, socioeconomic angles, the land boom, and so on). Maybe the "warnings and preparations" can be merged with the Florida section. Feel free to give the draft a quick look as time allows.CapeVerdeWave (talk)13:33, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Thank you for the feedback; I have already made some edits. Do you think the Florida (or other) section(s) can be less 'descriptive' and more quantitative? In other words, should it give more statistics rather than go into depth about singular impacts? For example, instead of giving damage examples, should it say more about the number of buildings destroyed, rainfall totals, etc. than it currently does? Or is a balance fairly well maintained as of now? How should I proceed?CapeVerdeWave (talk)
@Hurricanehink: Is there anything else I can do to rewrite the draft, notably in the Florida section? Perhaps I still stress narration too much (i.e., fluff such as boat or tree damage, or a few blurbs), rather than statistics. When I focus on the latter, however, I tend to neglect prose, so the article sounds dull. Also, some depiction is needed to illustrate the scope and nature of the damage outlined by numbers. So I am in a bit of a bind without further feedback.CapeVerdeWave (talk)10:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you foryour contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from2016 Sri Lankan floods into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere),Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s).
under review. Seethe review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf of12george1 --12george1 (talk)07:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
passed; congratulations! Seethe review page for more information. If the article iseligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you cannominate it within the next seven days.Message delivered byChristieBot, on behalf of12george1 --12george1 (talk)06:08, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageHurricane Frances, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: