Talk:Hurricane Adolph

message: Longer intro and any more possible impact. Start-Low.Mitchazenia 13:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Touched the article up where specified. Also added sourcing for the intro (and mentioned that this was on record when recording began) and added more info to the article and finally did a spell checking. Jake52 My talk 21:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: (Concerning the picture)What would be a decent addition? Right now, the available pictures are mostly satellite images of the storm. Aside from those, the only other image Google brings up is a rainfall distribution 3D image like the current one, but with only half the storm's rainfall showing. As far as the tone and the cite-web go, I've got those covered. Jake52 My talk 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another MODIS satellite pic would be good. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That one's cut off, but there are a couple of them at commons already. Good kitty 02:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I did a copyedit, and some things could use more explaining. What conditions were favorable for development? Why did it turn to the north? Why did it intensify so rapidly? More lede would be good, as well. Try adding more from NHC discussions. All in all, pretty close to B class. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: All those questions answered on the next edition of Hurricane Adolph (2001)! Jake52 My talk 03:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: How much more info does this article need before it reaches B-Class? I think I'm milked nearly all available information relevant from the discussions. Jake52 My talk 07:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good enough for B. The best thing to add now would be Spanish sources containing actual impact. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be the hardest part. Nearly all stories pertaining to Adolph (CNN, Yahoo, etc.) were purged with age. The only Spanish article I found on Adolph is the one being sourced. I'm not sure if this article is even close to meeting the GA Criteria, but I'll try to dig up something (anything) on impact. Jake52 My talk 10:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried newspaper sources, such as the hurricane archive? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Most of those articles say the same thing. Jake52 My talk 10:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Should this be renamed Hurricane Adolph. It was retired was in it. --Yellow Evan (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand your last sentence, but I agree about the name. It was retired, so it should, bu convention, be moved. However, one could argue that it was retired for political reasons rather than damages, and thus does not justify the main article. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in the opinion that the storm was not retired, since the name was just removed. IMO, someone searching for Hurricane Adolph should be pointed to the dab, not to here. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The WMO Operational Plan does list it among the retired names.Potapych (talk) 22:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

text: FTR, it's page 89 although it is hard to ascribe the retirement to this Adolph. It just happened to be the first time someone noticed and took offense to it.Potapych (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is technically pointed to this storm, so I don't know... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason why someone took offence in 2001 is obvious enough: The occurrence of "Israel" later in the list. Retired storms get the primary name, due to their impact, not because the name was retired. Names here mirror the WMO's decisions on retirement, because "should this storm be retired?" and "should this storm get the main article?" depend on the same information (the impact of the storm). However, that is not the case with this storm. Of the 4 Adolphs: 1983's had some effect on land, 1989's was a do-nothing tropical storm, 1995's posed a serious threat to land at one point and the same was true in 2001. The 2001 storm is the most notable of the 4 IMO (minor land effects plus records), but it is not significantly more important than either the '83 or '95 storm. Given that its probably best to keep the dab at Hurricane Adolph, whether it was technically retired or not.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Hmm? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just searched up on Hazel, Knut (and Adele and Iva, although they weren't mentioned). I didn't find anything about retirement for them. I did find that Hazel killed a few fishers in Mexico, Adele had no hits, I found nothing for Knut, and the context of the only relevant Iva hit made it clear that it was a mispelling of Hurricane Iwa. I wasn't able to draw any conclusions about why they were retired. However, it does seem that EPac hurricane naming history is just plain knuts. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 05:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Adolph. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2001/05/29/adolph010529.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206051005/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/B3.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/B3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified