Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of the 2002 Pacific hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listTimeline of the 2002 Pacific hurricane season is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 9, 2009Featured list candidateNot promoted
June 19, 2024Featured list candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 20, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 2002 Pacific hurricane season and the 1994 Pacific hurricane season are currently tied for the number of Category 5 hurricanes in the same season with three each?
Current status: Featured list

Too do

[edit]
  1. Dont forget to close your brackets
  2. Also make sure some of the things highlighted in my last FLC are done
  3. 0000 - Hurricane Huko weakens into a tropical storm.[20] - the time needs to be corrected.
  4. remove the double bullet point at the end of the article

Jason Rees (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fixed most of them, will do the FLC fixes, but what are they ? --Yue of the North 21:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

# Dont link evrey PST

  1. Add a link to UTC
  2. Theirs a couple of times that do not have PST
  3. Each entry needs to state the local date as well as time

I think thats it Jason Rees (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I see some pretty basic problems, which means the article needs a copyedit.

  • 485 (900 km) miles - this makes no sense as it is. Please fix all instances of this problem.
  • 0600 UTC - Hurricane Alma (there is no local time mentioned)
  • 150 (278 km) miles - same problem as the first one, but the km number isn't rounded. The general rule is rounding the converted unit when the first one. Be sure to fix all around.
  • Remove the Wikilinks to articles that don't exist: Hurricane Alma (2002), Tropical Storm Boris (2002), etc. There's no need.
  • 305 miles (565 m) south-southeast of Puerto Escondido, Mexico - really? 565 meters from the coast? Please be more careful.
  • For Fausto, you should mention when it moved into the CPAC, and be sure to do the same for other basin-crossers.
  • Tropical Storm Ele strengthen - watch out for noun/verb agreement. Also, there is an article for Ele.
  • Hurricane Ele moves out of the Central Pacific Hurricane Center's Area of Responsibility. - pretty minor, but you should clarify who picked up warnings.
  • Tropical Depression Fausto regenerates. - it's really important where it regenerated.
  • You should mention when Kenna became the strongest storm of the season, and how strong it was.

♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

I added the {{primarysources}} tag because this article needs to cite something other than the hurricane-monitering agencies (National Hurricane Center, etc.). If this was truly such an extraordinary hurricane season, surely there must be some third-party writing about the season? cmadler (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is, but they are not the best sources to use as the NHC is offical. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision of the article

[edit]

I really don't see why it should be necessary to discuss this here, but in a measure of good faith, I'll attempt to get some consensus. TropicalAnalystwx13 wants to get this article up to FL status, which is great; however, he's doing it by erasing the whole timeline and then going back and adding information month-by-month without referencing it. Instead of doing this, which guts the article so that it's unsourced and missing chunks of time, he should be doing one of two things:

  1. There's no reason to blank the whole timeline unless you're going to add everything back at once, so if he's going to do that, that's either very time consuming, and he risks losing everything, or he should use a sandbox (I've set one up here: User:Inks.LWC/Sandbox4).
  2. Probably the better option is to go through month-by-month (or even day-by-day) and do this if he doesn't have time to do the whole thing at once. Again, Ideally this could be done in a sandbox, but if it's done here, it doesn't require blanking of the whole timeline.

So are there any objections to keeping the current timeline intact and having TAW do this in a sandbox? Inks.LWC (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox destroyed the page histories, so I'd recommend deleting it. Really though, does it matter? It's not like anybody views timelines. Let him do what he wants. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a terrible argument. Nobody reads it so who cares if it's unsourced and missing information? In that case, let's just delete it. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was halfway kidding. Anyhow, I still think you should wait a few more days before re-reverting. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But why? The old version is 1) Complete; 2) Sourced. The current version is 1) Incomplete; 2) Unsourced. Wouldn't the proper method to go through and delete information as he adds to it, not remove everything and add it back at a liesurely pace? It's been over a week since the start, so for over a week, we have had incomplete and unsourced material when we could just as easily have complete and sourced material. I'm not understanding how this gut and re-build method could be the best thing for this page. It's not like the old version was a bad or inaccurate version. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The old version was not perfect either. Hence, why it failed FLC. YE Pacific Hurricane 05:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm not saying that it was perfect and better than what the end result of TAW's edits will be. His end goal is fantastic, but its his means of getting there (especially when done over 8+ days) that are the problem. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Inks.LWC. There is no reason for the article to be incomplete. If TAWX wanted to work on this article, he should either go section by section, improving it and maintaining those references. Given how well-referenced it was before, it should've just been improved in the main article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's now been TWELVE days since the revision started, and it's not complete. It's ridiculous to have an incomplete article up for 12 days, especially when he hasn't worked on it at all in the past 6 days. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

[edit]

Looks like TAWX won't finish this, so, I am putting this up to be merged (though I don't necessarily agree with a merge). YE Pacific Hurricane 17:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What is there additional in this article that isn't in the main article? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this gets merged, I was thinking of something like the 2010 Pacific hurricane season. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That'd work too. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So do we need a formal merge discussion for this? Inks.LWC (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it just fell through the wayside. YE Pacific Hurricane 14:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can do this week. Inks.LWC (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get rid of this already? It's existence is really annoying, I feel like it's blocking WP:EPAC's development in a way. YE Pacific Hurricane 18:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead then. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_the_2002_Pacific_hurricane_season&oldid=1230003659"