# Talk:Fujiwhara effect

I think the examples are wrong.  They used to be definitely wrong but I changed them to at least be passably possible. Jdorje 02:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In the 1994 article, Pat and Ruth are listed as typhoon/hurricane names, but there is no commentary on the storms themselves. Is this an error, or an omission? I was looking to read their stories but there was nothing. If the storms are roughly equal and they merge and continue at tropical storm strength, which name is used? Is there a rule, or is a new name (e.g. Sam or Tessa) applied as it is essentially a new entity? GBC 16:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

For now, I've deleted the references to the Wiki articles on Fruits Basket and Kyo Sohma, as neither the anime nor the character have anything to do with the subject matter. Jake52 My talk 16:42, 16 June 2006 (EST)

This couldn't be the correct transliteration, could it?  There's no "wh" in typical transliterations of Japanese words.  Fujiwara would make sense. -- Rei 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It is transliterated as Fujiwhara in the sources I used to start the article forever ago. It seems NOAA is inconsistent about which they use, where the rest of the world overwhelmingly prefers Fujiwara. I suppose it could be changed. Let's just hope nobody decides to make an issue out of one unimportant character. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
With a news story on the main page directly linking to this article, I wouldn't be surprised if every other user who knows enough Japanese to find the name "Fujiwhara" to be almost Japanese popped in here like I just did and started asking questions.  I'm familiar with some historical conventions of Japanese Romanization, including your [modern "e"] > [archaic "ye"] and [modern "ka"] > [archaic "kwa"], but [modern "wa"] > [archaic "wha"] is a new one for me.  I'm sure there was a reason for this spelling, but I'd just like to know what it was.  Tsunomaru (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
If the rest of the world overwhelmingly prefers "Fujiwara," then I recommend changing the spelling to "Fujiwara."  As was previously noted, Fujiwara is also the standard spelling in other instances of the name.  --64.142.82.30 (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
One voice from Berlin, Germany (cf. ...rest of the world...). The h in Fujiwara is IMHO nonsense, never heard of any transliteration like that. (And it looks very funny as well.) By the way, the dutch seem to have translated the article and now they have an fujiwhara-effect, too. Best regards. de:Benutzer:C-hankel  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.154.137 (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I did a search on the NOAA site and got 66 hits for "Fujiwhara effect," but 94 hits for "Fujiwara effect," so even NOAA seems to prefer Fujiwara.  "Fujiwhara" seems to be a misspelling that started at NOAA and took on a life of its own, like Lieutenant Kije. Jmkleeberg (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
This is absolutely CORRECT spelling Fujiwhara. Sakuhei once explained why he chose the "wha" instead of "wa". It was recorded in a certain book published by NHK.
Everybody must be aware that Japanese pronunciation is rather complicated and it is not possible to mechanically translate. In the case of Fujiwhara, Sakuhei tried his best to spell as much closer to the genuine pronunciation in his dialect. The point is; the pronunciation cannot be represented by using japanese so-called 50 sounds. If we manage to apply to 50 sounds, the pronunciation could be just between "fujihara" and "fujiwara". You can easily confirm this fact by visiting his town, where you will see so many "Fujihara" sign. I understand that many of you feel strange seeing the spell "Fujiwhara", but I hope many of you would understand the intention of Sakuhei who wanted to cherish the culture of his town like preserving the sound of his dialect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fujiwhara (talk • contribs) 11:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 

I would disagree about the spelling being complicated.  The Japanese language entry spells the name in katakana as ふじわら and the わ is always transliterated as "wa".  If there are town signs transliterating the name as "Fujihara" that is clearly incorrect as that would be ふじはら.  If Sakusei was attempting to approximate a sound in a regional dialect, that would be a different discussion, but nobody has provided any sources supporting that claim. - BanyanTree 17:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to get the reference book from 2nd-hand shop. (I commented here because I heard this story from a member of The Family.) Anyway, at that time, spelling of the name was at the owner's proposal. (Same can be said when registering the name to JP government in Japanese. It is not necessary to comply with the common rule because the owner of the name is The Family; not the government nor the public.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fujiwhara (talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
For those who can read Japanese, an external link (http://www.civic.ninohe.iwate.jp/100W/04/040/index.htm) provided on the Japanese wikipedia version of Sakuhei Fujiwara lists his name as "Sakuhei Fujihara," and claims that Fujiwara himself preferred the spelling "Fujiwhara." To complicate things further, there is now a note inserted by an Anon in the Japanese article specifically stating that "Fujiwara" is incorrect, and that "Fujiwhara" is the correct spelling [1]. Fox (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
As I wrote above, I got the book entitled "お天気博士　藤原咲平" (ISBN 4-14-001426-1), and the subject part appears at P47.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fujiwhara (talk • contribs) 13:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Upon looking over the links from the Japanese Wikipedia entry, I am mostly convinced that the original spelling is in fact "Fujihara", which was subsequently changed by Fujihara himself to "Fujiwhara" to capture a regional dialect, and then changed to "Fujiwara" by unsuspecting writers.  I would think that the proper course of action would be to propose a move of the article Sakuhei Fujiwara to Sakuhei Fujihara, and then a move of this article for consistency.  Moving this article first is counterintuitive.  I would like some more comments though since the Japanese sources themselves alternate between ふじわら and ふじはら. Comments? - BanyanTree 14:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oy.  In other articles where the semantics of naming have come into question, common sense should be used.  If a certain spelling of a name for something, such as fujiwara/fujiwhara/fujihara, then check online for the most common spelling.  For the effect, the one without the h should be the most common.  As for the guy's name, the most common spelling I've seen in literature is with a wh.  Thegreatdr (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You never transliterate わ as "wha".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itteyoshi (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 

What do other people think?  I understand this person's point, words are transliterated incorrectly from cyrilic languages into English frequently.  What spelling would be preferable for wikipedia purposes?  Thegreatdr (talk) 00:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I should clarify my meaning for Itteyoshi.  Of the three working links from the Japanese article that provide hiragana for 藤原咲平, www.civic.ninohe.iwate.jp states that it is "ふじはら", www6.plala.or.jp uses "ふじわら" and www.city.suwa.nagano.jp uses "ふじはら".  The Iwate and Nagano sites appear more credible than the plala.or.jp site, so the weight of evidence is that the name is actually spelled with は.  Fujiwhara is an odd transliteration apparently preferred by Mr. Fujihara/whara/wara himself.  "Fujiwara" is clearly just wrong.  My inclination is to move this page, and the bio page, to Fujiwhara.  Any objections? - BanyanTree 01:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I object. —Nightstallion 22:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
<sigh>  OK, I only got involved because I saw it on the Main Page and wondered what was up with the name.  After two page moves, I'm way past the point of being interested.  Do as you will. - BanyanTree 10:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Let a person spell his name the way he likes. If he'd prefered "Huziwara", that'd be what we should follow. JIMp talk·cont 01:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Super Typhoons Ivan and Joan may be of interest to this article. JTWC archive. KyuuA4 16:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of the examples given of the Fujiwhara/Fujiwara effect end with the two storms merging, so can we still say that it is "uncommon" for the two storms to merge?Jmkleeberg (talk) 19:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

didnt these storm Fujiwhara effected, althought was breif,
Boris Cristina, Omar 16, Ike Josephine, Marie Norbert Odile, Eric Fanele. HurricaneSpin (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No for all of them, the NHC did not say so. --Anhamirak  20:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:ParmaMelor AMO TMO 2009279 lrg.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 22, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-09-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng  {chat} 16:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC) 

This image should be usefol in the Ron-Susan example:
http://www.mindspring.com/~jbeven/rsk0504.gif
And this image is better than the one that is being used in the Ivan-Joan example:
http://www.mindspring.com/~jbeven/ivjo1722.gif
ABC paulista (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Both of the images don't show the systems clearly, but thank you very much for your suggestion, it is very interesting, but in bad quality..-- ✯Earth100✯◕‿◕  Talk  Contribs  02:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Can someone add a section describing the underlying mechanics? It would be interesting to know why this happens. Cheers, --Dan Bolser (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Aren't all of the examples a little excessive? I don't wanna be bold and remove all of them, as this isn't that rare of an occurrence. IDK, any thoughts? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  19:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's better to mantain the most notable examples (like 1 or 2, properly referenced). Examples make something easier to understand. ABC paulista (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't get rid of examples, that's nonsense! Viewers would really want to see the examples in history, nomater how notable, from a mere touch, to a total merge.-- ✯Earth100✯◕‿◕  Talk  Contribs  02:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Since they are the most famous twins Tropical Cyclones ever recorded, and by far the most notable interaciton ever recorded in the Western Pacific Basin, their image is a must have. There's no other recorded interaction between Cat. 5 (Saffir-Simpson scale) Tropical Cyclones (Ron and Susan were bot Cat. 5 at the same time too, but I don't remember if they started interacting at that time, or they were weakening).
Besides, their interaction is way more notable than the interaction between a depression and a disturbance(not even a name these storms have!). ABC paulista (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The TDs merged, but the two cat 5s didn't even affected each other very notably, it's just two category 5 twins, mistaken for an interaction.-- ✯Earth100✯◕‿◕  Talk  Contribs  02:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, according to JTWC and JMA, because of the Fujiwhara Interaction bteween both, Ivan was steered to the West, thus landfalling on Philliphines, while Joan recurved to the North. Much like happened with Typhoons Parma and Melor.
Besides, that image is more understandable than many images out here (like that one of Lionrock and Namtheun, which is a freaking mess of clouds). ABC paulista (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm planning on start a cleanup in this article, because there are too much examples and images in here, most of them unreferenced, non-notable interactions. So, I understand that is necessary to get rid of some irrelevant examples and images. First, the unsourced ones. After it, we see what are the best examples to keep in the article.
But, I wanna know your opinion before taking some action. ABC paulista (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, thank you for you comment, but no cleanup is needed, the article is perfect right now, and that image of the 2 cat 5s weren't interacting at that time, and their interaction, wasn't very notable, which could mean no interaction could have happened at all.-- ✯Earth100✯◕‿◕  Talk  Contribs  02:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Cleanup would be strongly recommended for this article.  Right now, it is a glorified list of examples, with some not even explained or expounded upon.  It does not conform to wikipedia article standards.  If ABC would like help, I'd be glad to help out.  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
No cleanup is needed, as the page looks excellent right now.-- ✯Earth100✯◕‿◕  Talk  Contribs  07:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
There's too much examples and images in this aticle, and almost no content. Nothing here explains how this phenomenon works, just giving a bunch of aleatory examples. Sometimes, this articles confuses more than clarifies.
Moreover, this article has a major fault: Almost no references. The only references here were applied on some examples, leaving the most important section (Description section, of course) unsourced. Even the Examples section is much unreferenced, given the fact that the majority of examples shown has no sources backing them up. That's an error that must (I repeat: that MUST!) be fixed. ABC paulista (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
An excellent start would be to combine the examples into one paragraph, if that.  This doesn't resemble an encyclopedia article, which is the simplest way the judge whether or not a wikipedia article is in good shape or not.  Thegreatdr (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to fix it when i have time but for now, leave at it is.-- ✯Earth100✯◕‿◕  Talk  Contribs  05:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be two examples from each of the 7 main basins and thats it.Jason Rees (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, WHY not show a gallery of interactions? That why, it would be organized, less side images, and expanded! Besides, viewers would see  examples in images, which show more than just words. I suggest a little gallery for every basin section(bottom), that means seven gallery. With a gallery, images that aren't really in high quality like ABC's suggested image will be accepted more! We are talking about an variable event, which means there's a need for a gallery! -- ✯Earth100✯◕‿◕  Talk  Contribs  14:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

IDK, Wikipedia isn't an image gallery. None of the images really look like the storms are interacting (save maybe for Francesca and Gretchen). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  15:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
As stated above what this article really needs is less pictures and more details on what the process entails. For example what is the Fujiwhara effect, is it a direct interaction of systems or do non-direct interactions count. Also what about extratropical cyclones do they go through the same process?. These details need to be added in before we even start thinking about adding in more pictures or providing any examples.Jason Rees (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Very true. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  16:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
What Hurricanehink said. YE  Pacific Hurricane 17:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
On why do things just aren't as good as they were?-- ✯Earth100✯◕‿◕  Talk  Contribs  02:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  02:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I know what's the deal with Earth100. In his actions and talk page, is visible that he loves images, wanna se images everywhere and measures article quality. Well, that's not how Wikipedia works.
Earth100, have in mind that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an 9gag, 4chan and other imageboards that let all explanation on images. In wikipedia, as on all encyclopedias, the description of an subjetc is written and referenced, with few images illustrating what's being said. It's much more preferable to have an article well written with all details perfectly explained but with no images, than having an article full of images placed everywhere on it's space but with poor explanation and no details.
Specifically in this article, those images are redundant and shows no physical sign of fujiwhara interactions. They are just occupying space, wasting bytes and leaving this page ugly and disorganized (like that 1997's Typhoon Joan's article).  Without more explanation, people with few or no knowledge on this penomenon will read this article, see the images and will leave wikipedia thinking: "Fujiwhara effect is a Tropical Cyclone that stays besides another one". That's why we need to focus our efforts on text, not on images. ABC paulista (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The goal is to either expand the content of the main article so that the example section doesn't take a disproportionate amount of the overall content, or to reduce the example section further.  Otherwise, it's not representative of an encyclopedia article.  Thegreatdr (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


### Wake Up!
It does not makes sense, every high quality image shows the phenomenon, and NOW IT"S JUST BEING REMOVED, LEAVING only a grey, shaky, blured picture of an non-notable effect! Look, i am desperate to FIND a reference! Now, the page looks more uglier than ever! Fujiwhara effect is something that is short term, not common, and needs images! It's was once so organized, and now it's just a mess! Look, just think about it.-- ✯Earth100✯◕‿◕  Talk  Contribs  02:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it looks well-organized now. The two images are fine, there isn't a need for any more. If there is a technical image (not an actual image, but something like this), that'd be fine too add, but we don't need more examples of two storms that are close to each other. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  02:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
As has been stated to you more than one time, by more than one user, Wikipedia is not a collection of images. The articles within the site are expected to be professional with a great deal of easy-to-read text, and only a few images demonstrating whatever the article is talking about. Two is fine. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
It would actually be better to have one of those .gif loops showing either a cyclone merger or systems orbiting each other once than a whole gallery of images.  Since Earth100 is apparently good with images, this would be a good way for them to contribute to the article, if they're up for it.  Thegreatdr (talk) 03:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I can make GIF image loops, however they don't animate unless you click into it! That's the problem! Just look at the megi article, i've made a satellite loop showing the storm's life from formation to death but it won't animate!  -- ✯Earth100✯◕⌢◕  Talk  Contribs  05:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not that big of a deal to hit play to animate the loop.  I've included one for an extratropical cyclone example.  Thegreatdr (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That isn't a good video, as it is too disorganize, and viewers won't be able to see clearly on what's going on, so i don't think it should be included in the video.-- ✯Earth100✯◕⌢◕  Talk  Contribs  05:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to get extratropical cyclones much better organized.  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Their are, in fact, many of this ex lows which underwent an well defined interaction. I'll have to find it.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉  Talk  Contribs  11:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If you can find a better ET example, go for it.  I used what was already on hand through the Commons.  Thegreatdr (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey champz, I found two interesting satellite images about the Fujiwhara interaction between Yule and 16W, but they were shot by the Geostationary Meteorological Satellite, which is Japanese. So, I don't know if they can be uploaded, or it goes against copyright laws. ABC paulista (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, feel free to show the link, and i'll identify it.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉  Talk  Contribs  02:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
If it is from the JMA, and is taken by the MTSAT satellite probably it is copyrighted. -- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉  Talk  Contribs  02:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
What if it's supplied by NCDC?  So far, within the tropical cyclone project, we've been fine with imagery from other countries IF it was digitized by NCDC, which would then constitute it's fair to use.  Thegreatdr (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, the first one show the two cyclones interacting. And this one show them merging. The site where I found them claims that both images were made by a GMS Satellite, and I have no idea if thew were supplied by NCDC. ABC paulista (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I like that second image. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  20:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind. Now I know that these images can be used. I found them on page 97 fo the JTWC's annual cyclone reports. ABC paulista (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Could this simple Diagram be added into the article? -- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉  Talk  Contribs  11:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it looks good.  It would be nice to get more feedback.  Thegreatdr (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The link doesn't work on the page for the source. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  16:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Here is the page (right here). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know... On one hand, this montage is kinda not-professional and not-technical, so I don't know if it meets an encyclopedia criteria. But, on the other hand, it's simpler and easier to understand than a standart fujiwhara diagram. So, by now, I'm neutral about it's use. ABC paulista (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I think either the plain image, or the black and white one, work fine, but the text over this don't work well IMO. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  20:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, i think this image is a lot simpler to understand for viewer's unlike ABC's complicated image.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉  Talk  Contribs  00:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Which one? The diagram or the satellite image? I think both work very well for this topic. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  01:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't made that one. It's a standart diagram used by the meteorogical agencies to show fujiwhara interactions. The one that I found was used by JTWC to explain the interaction between Yule and 16W. ABC paulista (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

The illustration made by Earth100 is very good at all, but it has some issues:
1- The original image was heavily edited, so it's not under NOAA's licensing anymore. There's some copyright problems.
2- There's no reliable reference that claims that Ione and Kirsten made part of a Fujiwhara Effect.
3- The illustration claims that Hurricane Kirsten shoud have taken a SW direction, and Ione a NE direction. But, at that time, Kirsten 
went to the SE, while Ione went to the NW.
So, until these issues haven't been solved, I'll revert back to the standart diagram.ABC paulista (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Due to the uncertainty of whether or not 2 cyclones have interacted, a diagram showing no real life interaction, should be needed in this article.
This image, i've created is similar to this image, which could be very useful. Any comments suggestions? -- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉  Talk  Contribs  08:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Despite not having been very well drawn, it's a very good diagram indeed. But, I think that some improvements can be made:
- A meter scale, to show the distance between the cyclones would be useful.
- Some editings on Photoshop (or Paint, maybe), to give this image a better shape.
- A compass rose, or something to show the directions.
There are more, but are almost insignificant. I think that if you make these improvements, then it will be better to use in the article than the JTWC's one. ABC paulista (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

All your suggestions was welcome, ABC, however i did a lot of hard work, and sacrifice a lot of time, and i did a lot of measures to make it a good as possible, so i would like to have more comments from other users, before making any further move. Thank You for your reply.-- ✯Earth100✯ ☉‿☉  Talk  Contribs  04:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

ABC paulista's image should be used for now.  I don't mean to offend you, as I realize you spent a lot of time on it, but your image looks like it was quickly made in Paint or a similar program.  ABC paulista's image may be simpler, but your image looks too unprofessional. Inks.LWC (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for a gallery on this page.  We have enough pictures that illustrate the topic already.  Furthermore, any meteorological claims (other than basic observations) in captions need to be supported. Inks.LWC (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Alpha was absorbed by Wilma as shown here:http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2005/h2005_alpha.html
The result was true.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 14:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Point to me where on that page it mentions "Fujiwhara" or "orbit" or "interact" or anything remotely close to supporting that the Fujiwhara effect was present there.  Absorption ≠ Fujiwhara effect. Inks.LWC (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Absorption = Fujiwhara effect, as it is an interaction. If the law has to go with yours, why does the article has a few examples of systems merging or absorbing? This is ridiculous! 
Besides, a sentence sates it here in the article that Alpha was absorbed by Wilma, and why can't we show a picture of it for viewers to get more information like, a view of there own? You should wake up from your sleep.--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 02:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Because we do not need or want several picture examples of a tropical cyclone going through a fujiwhara interaction unless we are prepared to add a similar amount of non tropical events. Also adding a gallery would be wrong as i dont think it would allow people to understand what a Fujiwhara is which is whats required by WP:Gallery.Jason Rees (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fujiwhara effect. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607055116/http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-ph/RSS/jtwc/atcr/1994atcr/pdf/wnp/29w.pdf to http://www.usno.navy.mil/NOOC/nmfc-ph/RSS/jtwc/atcr/1994atcr/pdf/wnp/29w.pdf
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) 17:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Should the current image with Parma and Melor be replaced with Imelda and Humberto as that was a more recent pair of Hurricanes that were subject to the Fujiwara effect? [2] Wobs100 (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2025 (UTC)