Talk:Hurricane Fabian

Missing

No reference to Hurricane Emily (1987), previous holder of the title Bermuda's Worst Storm (hit during morning rush hour after the population was assured that it was going to miss).

Aftermath, particularly the future of the Causeway, is in desperate need of expansion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.68.108.171 (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

This article is about Fabian, not Emily or all other Bermuda hurricanes. From what I've read, Fabian was the worst storm since 1926, even worst than Emily. Also, I removed your addition of the following as it was unsourced. Officials would afterwards look into the possibility of replacing for the Causeway, a process that is still ongoing. This is a featured article, meaning it should be of the highest standards. Unsourced additions shouldn't be in the article. If you believe it is desperately needed, you should add it yourself with an appropriate source. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Information, source, etc. on replacing the causeway is available —where it belongs— on the causeway's (rather meagre) article.23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"This article is about Fabian..." and yet makes reference to two other hurricanes in the opening section. Prior to Fabian, Emily was considered the worst storm that people had been through (1926 being a rather long time ago), for the reasons mentioned above. SharkOil.bm:Historical Storms even mentions Emily as the storm "we all remember", while its wikipedia article claims that it was the "strongest hurricane to hit Bermuda since 1948." Accurate? You would know better than I, as apparently it was you who wrote it.23:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Todo

More impact. Jdorje 21:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good site of some Bermuda information. Hurricanehink 00:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Would a picture in the above site, any picture in this photo gallery, or any of these pictures be qualified as fair use? Hurricanehink 02:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am gonna add one thing to the Todo list-that Storm History is very small.HurricaneCraze32 00:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Deaths

Wouldn't the deaths from the drowning boat be considered direct? NHC always has them be direct, unless some other circumstance caused the crash (for example, in the 2002 Henri report, one person drowned when his boat crashed, but intoxication was evident and the death was considered indirect). Hurricanehink 12:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, those deaths were direct. I added a deaths table to clarify. — jdorje (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice job, but some todo

Good job at revising the article. I think this has excellent potential for a GA (even A or featured) article, but to achieve that better, some things may need to be resolved. For example, some portions may require cleanup, and the article may need to be shortened and cleaned a bit more (though not much). Otherwise, the whole article is perfect as it is, devotes plenty of well-stated detail to all aspects (introduction, storm history, preparations, impact, and trivia), and is well-written. It is also very accurate in most areas. If both of that is accomplished, we may well have a GA, A, or featured article. CapeVerdeWave 22:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You do mean "A or featured", yes? :P – Chacor 03:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Edited my mistake. Sorry for the error! CapeVerdeWave 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool, glad my hours of work paid off. Curious, what sections in particular need cleanup? The main reason I included so much detail is to give a more realistic feel. Only going through the basics (X houses were damaged, some people were injured, etc.) makes it feel like the hurricane almost didn't even happen. However, excessive parts can probably be trimmed. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

If that was the intent, it worked out nicely. Not much really needs to be fixed. The impact section may need to be shortened and made more neat ("clean"), as the long section can induce some portions not sounding smooth when read out loud. The storm history section may also need to be shortened and made neater somewhat. Otherwise, don't remove any details from any portion of the article. Only those portions (storm history and impact) need to be shortened so that the writing flows better, but try to do it without removing any of the details currently in place in those sections. They (those two sections) just need to shortened and organized into smoother writing, and not by much. Other than that, leave the article and the sections as they are, and while shortening and smoothing the flow of the writing in those two sections, don't remove any of the details from them. Just shorten the writing of those two sections and improve the flow of the details in those two sections.

EDIT - Actually, looking over the article once more, the writing does seem to flow smoothly enough, so I don't think any sections need to be shortened now. The article is good as it is. The main reason why I requested two of the sections to be shortened somewhat was that I originally thought, along with smoothing the writing flow, that one of Wikipedia's GA requirements for articles is for them to not be overly long-winded. Actually, however, I like the new style Hurricanehink is adopting for this article. Do not shorten any sections. The article is good as it is. Sorry for the change in my thoughts, but after looking over at the article, I've decided to retract my opinion on shortening two of the sections. Leave the article as it is! CapeVerdeWave 11:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. The only problem right now is the lack of an impact image. This newspaper article or this one has an impact pic, meaning it would usable due to {{tl:newspapercover}}, but they might be so small that it would hardly be seen if the entire page was used. What should be done? Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a good Bermuda link with plenty of (larger) photos before, during, and after Fabian from all over the island in various parts, and plenty of information on where those pictures were taken on Bermuda and what damages they show, as well as what they show before and during the storm. Since these images are copyrighted, is it fine to add some of these to the article as long as credit is given to this person and site? CapeVerdeWave 12:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No, since they're copyrighted we can't use them at all. If we asked them and got their permission, we might be able to, but worst comes to worst the pics in the article are pretty good. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, all true. I knew there would probably issues with the copyrighted images that would prevent them from being added to the article. By the way, what happened to the GA nomination possibility for this article? It seems more than B-class, in my opinion. Are you just doing a peer review before submitting a nomination for GA, A, or FA? Just curious. CapeVerdeWave 13:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea, I'll be doing a peer review, and once that's done, I'll FAC it. GAN takes too long, and will probably be shorter if we do peer review right away. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, FAC time. :) Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the article

•Please compare in the Impact section the length on Bermuda, compared to those on the Caribbean and the United States. Furthermore, here is the articles description of what the storm was: "Hurricane Fabian was a powerful Cape Verde-type hurricane that hit Bermuda...".

•"a someone" is not a correct grammatical construction. Your claim to the contrary is false.

•There are no boy scout troops in Bermuda. This is a simple fact. Your claim to the contrary is a lie.23:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC) (P.S.: done for the day)

• • The impact section isn't the only part of the article. The storm history is in ambiguous territory, but because it is in the jurisdiction of the National Hurricane Center, is uses American spelling. If the article was solely on Bermuda's impact from the hurricane, the British spelling would be warranted, though as it stands, it is the Atlantic basin in general. A someone is grammatically correct, actually. A quick Google search of "a someone" yields 653,000 hits. The term "local" in the Aftermath referred to South Carolina, though I suppose it makes sense without it. Please discuss it further before reverting again. BTW, I restored the section so we can discuss it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am going to assume that your use of google as a grammatical aid is a joke in poor taste. By the way, please try a search of: someone -"a someone", and compare.

The "Storm History" isn't the only part either. How about we look at what there is?

Introduction: Bermuda

Storm History: Ambiguous, with references to Cape Verde, Newfoundland, Greenland and Iceland

Preparation: Bermuda (Exclusive)

Impact: 8/10 Bermuda, 1/10 Caribbean, 1/10 United States (paragraph space)

Aftermath: Bermuda

...ergo it should use American spelling? Another joke, I presume?

Out of nineteen paragraphs, fourteen focus on Bermuda. One focuses on the United States. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.68.109.119 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

As it has been nearly a week, I am reverting the article. 08:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change; further reversions will be seen as going against consensus and could get you blocked. Wait for discussion. – Chacor 08:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Hurricanehink and User:Chacor have both refused to enter into the discussion in the past week, and both have been active in that time. Furthermore, you are now in the process of threatening me; I can only assume that it is with the intent of forcing through your personal POV. 00:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No one is threatening you. We are just letting you know the facts. The Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject has hundreds of articles to deal with, and we prefer to have a similarity among them. If you go for only the spelling, then why not the units? The answer to that is because of uniformity. The WPTC has agreed to keep Atlantic articles in imperial units and, for the most part, American spelling due to the National Hurricane Center's power of authority. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You refused to argue a counter-point for a week. After that time, I made note of this on the talk page and reverted the article, at which point User:Chacor immediately appeared and started to throw the word "block" around. That is a threat. At any rate, you have yet to argue your point. Oh, and please tell me that you and Chacor are indeed different people, thank you. 00:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I am done for the evening, so take your time formulating a full argument, including how "someone" has somehow ceased to be a pronoun. By the way, imperial units are indeed used in Bermuda, and the article remains overwhelmingly focused on Bermuda.

Yes, Chacor and I are indeed different people. I didn't refuse to argue a counter-point, and furthermore this isn't an argument. This is a discussion. There was no consensus, and given that it passed its featured article candidacy without anyone objecting or mentioning this, the way it was should be kept. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Sigh this is silly guys. Firstly, we have never agreed upon using en-us across hurricane articles, we've just defaulted to it for most storms as other English speaking nations are minor relative to US impact (and our editors are mostly en-us). We likewise haven't really discussed the units. It is sensible to use Imperial (SI) for US-affecting storms and we gain a measure of consistency by applying that to all hurricane articles. However, there is no REAL benefit to consistency in which variant of English to use in different articles; for the same reasons as across wiki as a whole. As US impact was minimal from Fabian and most of the damage was done in other English-speaking countries; WP:ENGVAR would suggest using Commonwealth English for Fabian, Juan and other storms who had primary impact in English speaking countries other than the US.

The grammatical "errors" that the anon is referring to are also real: "...within minutes a someone would call..." is not grammatically correct (in en-gb). On the other hand, "...within minutes someone would call..." is grammatically correct in both variants, why revert it - its a strict improvement. There are two further problem sentences in the first para of Aftermath. When Hurricanehink did the last revert, they stick out. "and left islanders without knowledge" is a sentence fragment (maybe left from an earlier vandal), there is nothing wrong with the anon's removal of it. The final sentence seems awkward. From a en-gb perspective "the road was closed at night" is valid whereas "the road was closed at nighttime" seems wrong, and in my understanding of en-us the first is valid: so why revert? To the anon: the Boy Scout Troop was in Carolina and helped pack the supplies. That said the "local" is superfluous and confusing (local to where?). As an aside the whole thing about radio DJs should be removed - its not got a reliable source; a webforum/maillist/whatever it is isn't one of those.

There is no WPTC policy to use en-us in ALL hurricane articles and nor should there be. Articles like 2003AHS should be en-us, but if I chose to write TS Chris (2000) in en-gb there would be nothing wrong with that - the fact the NHC uses US English is irrelevant, I can "translate" its stuff if I want. Personally, I cannot find fault with the anon's edits (and that is not because I am en-gb). And Hink, what the at the Google grammar? You would have made that point a lot better pointing at a specific website showing that it is used in US english...--Nilfanion (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No consensus defaults to status quo. Leave it. – Chacor 03:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, per WP:ENGVAR:

• Stay with established spelling
  • If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes. Fixing inconsistencies in the spelling is always appreciated.

ENGVAR also says "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country." However, this article is not on a topic "specific" to Bermuda. Stay with established spelling, follow the status quo. – Chacor 09:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There may be no consensus, but we should have one (one way or the other I don't care that much, I just formulated the case for the change above). The two relevant parts to WP:ENGVAR are: "If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect" and "Stay with the established spelling". This gives reason (beyond the status quo) to use US English in Katrina, Andrew and Camille; Aus English in Tracy and so on. Individual storms are events in the countries they have an impact, when one country gets an order of magnitude greater effects than any other it is reasonable to say the article has a "strong tie" to that country. In the case of Fabian, Bermuda impact was severe with both US and Canadian impact slight (by comparison). Therefore Fabian has a tie to Bermuda (how strong is debatable).

By the way, para 2 of my initial post lists a serious of things that need addressing, irrespective of the dialect used.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there any point to this discussion?.Storm05 11:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"I didn't refuse to argue a counter-point..." Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Then do you care to show where it is? As between 21:11, 21 February 2007, when I added my reply, and 00:35, 1 March 2007, I see no mention of Hurricanehink.

"...and furthermore this isn't an argument. This is a discussion. " Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

argue, v.

1. to present reasons for or against a thing (dictionary.com)

I. To bring evidence, convict, prove, indicate. (oed.com)

1 : to give reasons for or against something (m-w.com)

1. To put forth reasons for or against; debate (thefreedictionary.com)

an argument is the noun form of this, or in other words, "a statement or fact advanced for the purpose of influencing the mind; a reason urged in support of a proposition;" (oed.com) or "a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade" (m-w.com)

"...it passed its featured article candidacy without anyone objecting or mentioning this, the way it was should be kept." Hurricanehink (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

When this article passed its featured article candidacy, it also claimed (and, in the first example, still does) that there existed "Bermuda citizens", that "tents, dried foods, and blankets" were "vital" and that "citizens purchased large quanities" (emphasis mine). Featured article status does not negate further change.

"The WPTC has agreed to keep Atlantic articles in imperial units and, for the most part, American spelling" Hurricanehink (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Two points. First, what is the authority of a wikiproject over articles? Articles do not belong to wikiprojects, nor anyone else. Second, and I quote, "and, for the most part, American spelling" (emphasis mine). Not only is your sentence rather self-contradictory, but negates your initial argument for using American spelling.

"However, this article is not on a topic "specific" to Bermuda." Chacor 09:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English states is "If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect." It further notes that this policy has higher precedence than does remaining with the established spelling. Next in line is to find common words (for example, in this article using "form" instead of "organise").

Justification for using British spelling has been provided. What justification for using American spelling is there? 21:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You totally ignore what I presented above regarding keeping established spelling. This discussion is over. File a request for comment (History and Geography) to get a wider consensus, or leave it be. – Chacor 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"You totally ignore what I presented above regarding keeping established spelling." Chacor 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How so? You presented a quote from Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, to which I replied above (from "What Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English states..."). In fact, it is nigh impossible to legitimately claim that I ignored what you said, based on the fact that I replied to it. Now, shall I make note of the fact that you seem to have ignored everything written here?

"This discussion is over." Chacor 02:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not.09:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It is over, involving us. There's no consensus for a change. I'll repeat what you chose to ignore: Please, by all means, file a request for comment (History and Geography) to get a wider consensus. Otherwise, please leave it be. It will not be changed by one person alone when there is significant opposition to it. – Chacor 11:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this discussion is clearly entering the realm of WP:LAME and is a waste of talk page space so please put this to rest. Storm05 14:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Technically not, since WP:LAME is for edit wars ;). Although I agree that this discussion is getting old and stale. Let's be frank: neither side will budge, I don't think, so the best way forward is to just leave it alone, or seek wider consensus through an RFC. – Chacor 14:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Summary

Personally, I couldn't care less if this article was written in American or Commonwealth English, so why has there been an edit war at all? If there had been another rv cycle I'd have protected the page to stop it getting any worse. I'd just like to comment: The anon is trying to do the right thing by trying to get a consensus here, remember everyone should agree for a true consensus - so one side would have to concede the point for it to exist ;) As this is a simple one-way-or-the-other decision a straw poll makes more sense than an RFC anyway. I've attempted to summarize the positions here:

1. The majority of the article deals with events in Bermuda. Other regions are covered are covered by the article, with other Commonwealth English-speaking nations, American English (the US and Puerto Rico) and non-English speaking nations mentioned, though with much less significance for these regions. In the article, impact in Bermuda has 8 paragraphs of prose to cover something that killed 4 and caused $300 million. The impact in the US and Puerto Rico is 5 sentences, with one death and $30,000 damage mentioned.
2. The anon says as the vast majority of the articles regional prose relates to Bermuda, Fabian is strongly related to Bermuda. Therefore the "if there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect" clause of WP:ENGVAR (which is high importance) applies, and the spelling should be changed to Commonwealth English.
3. The opposing position is that this article is not entirely about events in Bermuda. In particular, some US impact is detailed; the fact its much less than the impact in Bermuda is an irrelevancy. This means this means there is no local single dialect to use. Therefore we fall through to the "Stay with established spelling" part of ENGVAR which means maintaining the status quo (American English).

Is this an accurate summary of the dispute? If so, it gives a good framework for bringing in outside comment if it cannot be resolved here alone. Please comment beneath this if you feel I am misrepresenting it.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to highlight a compromise solution exists. The contentious words are favo(u)rable, organi(s/z)e (and its derivatives) and neighbo(u)rs; there are also a couple minor grammatical issues. A rephrasing of the sentences in question to use words and grammar common to both dialects should be practical here. If that is done, the article is effectively written in BOTH dialects, so both sides get their preferred option.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this work for everyone? If so this dispute is over :P--Nilfanion (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Though the article still follows American spelling, I am satisfied. My primary grievance was the use of American English when describing Bermudians. Of course, what I am not satisfied with was the reprehensible behaviour of Chacor and Hurricanehink throughout all of this. It may not have been so bad if they had actually provided some justification for Hurricanehink's (their?) viewpoint (or as Chacor ironically described it, "significant opposition" to mine (ours?))..or even tried to, instead of just ignoring the discussion. 17:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hurricane Fabian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061118103034/http://www.cdnn.info:80/travel/t030911/t030911.html to http://www.cdnn.info/travel/t030911/t030911.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Hurricane Fabian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070326130533/http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov:80/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~529823 to http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~529823
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061008135041/http://www.scmaritime.org/news.php?id=7 to http://www.scmaritime.org/news.php?id=7
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070328051303/http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov:80/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~514234 to http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~ShowEvent~514234

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hurricane Fabian. 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.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2003/09/15/32288.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurricane Fabian. 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/20071010064342/http://ftp#fifa.ns1.ensim.hu/ to http://ftp/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010064342/http://ftp#fifa.ns1.ensim.hu/ to http://ftp/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent%7EShowEvent%7E529823
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent%7EShowEvent%7E514234
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.royalgazette.com/siftology.royalgazette/Article/article.jsp?sectionId=49&articleId=7d4369230030012

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

@Hurricanehink: there is no reason for these italics (WP:ITALICS, MOS:BADITALICS): might you fix that in the infobox template? I can't figure out how ...

• Highest winds 1-minute sustained:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: - fixed! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, hink ... will continue reviewing later today if I catch up elsewhere ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hink, your article writing has advanced since these days :) A prose review would be helpful, many of the links are dead, and we need full dates on Royal Gazette publications. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hurricanehink checking back in almost a year later; are you able to finish up items I mentioned on 4 December 2020? Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• @SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm: Quite a bit of missing scholarly lit here. Noah^Talk 18:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Listing at WP:FARGIVEN due to lack of academic coverage. Noah^Talk 21:38, 5 December 2021 (UTC)