Talk:Hurricane Dolly (2008)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honduras deaths[edit]

A different citation is needed to link Dolly to the Honduras deaths. The source mentions Dolly once-

El Instituto Nacional de Sismología, Vulcanología, Meteorología e Hidrología (Insivumeh) informa que el estado lluvioso continuará hoy y mañana, debido a la influencia de la tormenta tropical Dolly, la cual se formó en la parte sur del Golfo de México, pero que viaja con dirección noroeste, alejándose del territorio guatemalteco.

Which means

The National Institute of Seismology, Volcanology, Meteorology and Hydrology (Insivumeh) reports that the rainy state will continue today and tomorrow, due to the influence of the tropical storm Dolly, which was formed in the south part of the Gulf of Mexico, but that travels with northwest direction, being moved away of the Guatemalan territory.

It doesn't really confirm too well that Dolly was responsible. Can someone find a better source? If not, I am going to remove that statement. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Category[edit]

The storm is still a category 1 until the next advisory says so. So, I reverted the category information on the main page. Hurricaneguy (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, it should be marked at 80 kt until such upgrade happens. If no upgrade takes place (i.e. Dolly weakens), then 80 kt (90 mph) should go down as the peak intensity to make clear that it was a Cat 1. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Importance[edit]

What is the criteria for giving an article "Mid" importance? I thought we reserved that for Cat4/5, retired, or particularly devastating storms, like Hurricane Dean. This storm looks more like a "Low" importance storm to me. Hurricane Claudette (2003) is almost identical to Hurricane Dolly (2008), and even as a Featured Article it still only has Low importance. Unless something unexpected and truly catastrophic happens, I don't understand why this storm is rated up there with household names like Hurricane Fran and Hurricane Georges, or a basin-crosser like Hurricane Cesar-Douglas. Plasticup T/C 13:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's yet to be seen. I've looked at the 24 hour rainfall totals and they're astounding. Some areas have received almost three feet of rain in about a day, the flooding must be incredible with that kind of rain, not to mention it's still falling. Dolly may also be mentionable because it is the strongest storm to impact the U.S. since hurricane Wilma. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Claudette (2003) caused less than $200 million, while there are estimates that Dolly could cause over $1 billion. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The strongest storm to hit a particular country in 3 years? Sure, that satisfies WP:N, but it is nowhere close to warranting Mid-Importance. As for the damage estimates, we should wait until the actual figures come in before making judgments on that. Right now this is just a minor Category 2 storm, no more notable that 50% of the hurricanes out there. Plasticup T/C 14:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Cat 4-5 fish is low-importance. We need to wait for better numbers at this point, but there isn't anything to suggest more than Low-importance at this point. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agricultural damage will play a big role in the final number. If there isn't much, then the total cost should run around $200-500M, which is not exactly retirement-worthy for a US storm. The initial estimate of $1.5B assumes significant flood damage. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just wait a week to see what the damages are. Right now it's no use to discuss such a trivial matter to death. To me, any hurricane that makes landfall is inherently mid-importance. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to start a discussion on WP:WPTC and maybe we can get some guidelines drawn up. Plasticup T/C 17:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But does it really affect the article so much as to not leave it be for a while and determine the severity of the damages? In any event, I'll chime in on that discussion when I get time. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I am not touching the rating in this article until we identify a consensus. Plasticup T/C 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-posted from WT:WPTC Last time I checked, it was like this:
  1. {{Top-Importance}} - decided on a case-by-case basis
  2. {{High-Importance}} - property damage exceeds $10 billion, or the storm caused more than 100 deaths
  3. {{Mid-Importance}} - property damage exceeds $500 million, or the storm more than 30 deaths
  4. {{Low-Importance}} - everything else
So under those criteria, Dolly would be Mid-Importance. But I agree that it should be written somewhere more accessible than Archive 6. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If those are the guidelines, shouldn't Hanna be given high importance? Derek Ortt (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations source[edit]

Don't know if you have all this info, but I found it while researching Dean. Very concise list http://www.themonitor.com/news/hurricane_14952___article.html/valley_category.html Plasticup T/C 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement[edit]

Well, with $1.5 billion in damage, it looks like Dolly will be a likely retirement candidate. Should we move the page to Hurricane Dolly? There have been far less damaging storms that have been retired. Almost every tropical cyclone that causes over $1 billion in damage is retired. I know the U.S. has to request its retirement, which is something the U.S. very rarely passes on. ANDROS1337 03:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think we should. Don't forget, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Yes, Dolly could get retired, but it also may not be retired. Keep in mind the $1 billion is just an estimate. On Wiki, there was a fair flurry in 05-06 about Ophelia's chances of retirement at a time when it had a $1.6 billion estimate, which in the TCR was reduced to $70 million, essentially ending any discussion about the retirement prospects (this was in the long-since deleted Speculation talk page for the 05 season). Humberto last year was the same. It had an estimate of half a billion, which was later knacked down to $50 million. While it's true that Dolly did more than Ophelia and Humberto likely did, it isn't retired yet. I vote for keeping the page the same as a typical non-retired hurricane (yearly identifier) and the main page (Hurricane Dolly) set aside for use later as a disambig page. However, until the reports slow or stop, keep Hurricane Dolly as a redirect here. Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, it is also quite possible that the current damage estimates are low, as was the case for Dean of last year. However, I guess you are right, and we should keep it as it is right now with Hurricane Dolly redirecting here. ANDROS1337 12:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Dean, we even kept that at Hurricane Dean (2007) until it was retired (same with Felix and Noel - although we were fairly unsure about Noel). That had considerable debate though. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hurricane Angel Saki, we can't redirect the article until we are fully sure that the hurricane will be retired.Hurricaneguy (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well; this is at this point nothing more than speculation, so the move would be inappropriate. As such, the set index page should be moved back from Hurricane Dolly (disambiguation) to Hurricane Dolly. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say no if this was Katrina. I would vote to keep it at Hurricane Katrina (2005) until its retired. So its a definate no with Dolly who is very unlikely to get retired. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 06:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Dolly (disambiguation) should be at Hurricane Dolly. This is not an obvious case for retirement. Plasticup T/C 12:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the previous Hurricane Dolly's 2008s isn't even that much more powerful than the previous strongest Dolly (1996?) and the death counts are similar. It's probably a bit early for property damage comparison, but it does look to me like an obvious case for NON-retirement. Jon (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Plasticup T/C 13:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the storm name will be retired. The old rule of thumb was that category 3 hurricanes produced enough damage for retirement. If the government of Mexico thinks it should be retired, it would be. Either way, we won't know for sure until next spring. I'd keep the article right where it is. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there is no such requirement for a tropical cyclone having to be at least a Category 3 hurricane to warrant retirement based on damage. There were 9 retired tropical cyclones in the Atlantic that didn't reach cat. 3, including 1 tropical storm (Allison), 5 category 1 hurricanes, and 3 category 2 hurricanes. Take a look at Tropical Storm Allison, for example. It caused $6.7 billion (2008 USD) in damage. While it did cause over 40 deaths, its damage was the primary reason for its retirement. Tropical Storm Olga of 2007 caused 40 deaths, but was not retired as its damage wasn't severe. ANDROS1337 16:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean where it was. User:Andros_1337 already moved the set index page away from Hurricane Dolly, and made Hurricane Dolly redirect to this page. Plasticup T/C 15:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for Dean, we redirected Hurricane Dean to Hurricane Dean (2007) until its official retirement was announced. ANDROS1337 16:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Dean was the third most intense landfalling hurricane in recorded history. It wiped out a town during it's Category 5 landfall. Dolly wasn't even a major hurricane, let alone at landfall. Comparisons between the two storms are simply absurd. The standard for these minor storms is that they do NOT get the main article. Furthermore, even with a Cat 5 landfall, Hurricane Dean (2007) was not moved to Hurricane Dean until it was retired in May 2008. Plasticup T/C 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But although it caused an estimated 1.5 billion in damage, it has been more than 2 months since it hit, and the damage totals remain set at that. Was 1.5 billion in damage an accurate guess? If so, then should it should be moved to just Hurricane Dolly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.163.233 (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No! It is very unlikely that Dolly will be retired. Are you going to ask this about every 2008 storm? Plasticup T/C 00:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You still can't roll out the possibility of it's retirement; the WMO will retire or not retire the name. It depends on what they decide will be retired, not you! And no; Arthur, Bertha, Cristobal, Edouard, Josephine, Kyle, Laura, and Marco certainly won't be retired, so I won't ask this question for every 2008 storm. Even so, the names Gustav and Ike, 2 completly different hurricanes in 2008, might not be retired. TC 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, which is why we should wait until the WMO makes its announcement. Plasticup T/C 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the TCR has came out today, damages are downgraded to 1.35 billion, although that could still be enough to retire the name, one direct death was in Texas,it was downgraded to an 85 mph storm at it's landfall, and it's pressure is now 963 milibars. 76.235.170.181 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max wind/rain ?[edit]

Can the highest recorded (actually recorded, not estimated) wind speeds and gusts and rainfall totals be added? I haven't seen them anywhere. Ferd Blivid (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rainfall totals are on the HPC tropical cyclone public advisories, which are even linked to from the NHC website. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rainfall totals on the HPC site only show the major cities/towns. Rural areas have received almost three times as much as the one they have as the greatest. 24 hour rainfall total that map shows a localized area with 34.1 inches of rain from dolly in a very short time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't like the idea of blog usage for this. The Brownsville WFO has a map that takes into account radar estimates in data sparse areas. It keeps amounts under 20 inches. BTW...most of those locations are not major cities, though they are reasonably close to cities. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Running best track[edit]

The running best track for Dolly, like Fausto, downgraded it to a Category One with peak winds of 80 kt. This may be because of the 3 hour difference in advisory times but we'll have to wait until the TCR comes out to verify that I guess. -Ramisses (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operationally, it was described as a Cat 2 landfall, so we'll have to wait. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

errors in Hurricane Dolly article[edit]

Some errors I have noticed in the Hurricane Dolly article


1. The storm caused no deaths in Texas, but still caused $1.5 billion dollars in damage, making it the most destructive Texas hurricane since 1983's Alicia. Dolly is not the most destructive Texas hurricane since Alica. Hurricane Rita impacted Texas in 2005 and caused 11 billion in damage, much of that was in Texas (Knabb et al., 2006 available online at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL182005_Rita.pdf)

Oops. I meant to say Dolly was the most destructive hurricane to make landfall in Texas since Alicia.

2. Dolly's landfall as a category 2. The working best track has category 1 at 80KT. This is not category 2 (available online at ftp://ftp.tpc.ncep.noaa.gov/atcf/btk/bal042008.dat). This does not mean in the final best track will not reflect category 2, but it does not currently reflect cat 2

3. The Yucatan is not a part of Guatemala. Why is the Yucatan damage under the Guatemala section?

4. The damage should be reflected as estimated. Ophelia in 2005 had a preliminary estimate of 1.6 billion (available online at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/tws/MIATWSAT_nov.shtml?) only to be reduced to 70 million (Beven, 2006 available online at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL162005_Ophelia.pdf)

Dortt (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I was actually nuking that, I don't know who added it, but it's wrong, as you pointed out.
  2. Operationally, it was described as Cat 2, so we'll have to wait until the TCR comes out to correct it either way.
  3. "Guatemala, Cuba and Yucatán" is not as catchy a section name, I guess. The sections were just added this morning, so the naming scheme is not final by any means, and any suggestions are helpful.
  4. The main prose indicates it is an estimate, but the coding in {{Infobox Hurricane}} makes it hard to add "estimated" to the infobox.(never mind, fixed it Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)) Also, as noted above, damages can also be increased in the TCR, so we have to go with what we have right now. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of errors, Reuters is reporting that Dolly is the first hurricane of the 2008 Atlantic storm season. Plasticup T/C 18:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not described as a 2 operationally. In the TC Discussion from 2100 UTC July 23 (Avila, 2008 available online at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2008/al04/al042008.discus.014.shtml?) it was stated that the winds were between 80-85KT. At the very least, it should say strong 1 or a weak 2

Dortt (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 19:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolly Rainfall Graphic[edit]

I'll produce it on Monday or Tuesday next week, as long as Dolly's remnant disturbance (upper level circulation, not remnant low) dissipates by then. Hopefully, Brownsville will conduct a survey, or receive a report over 12 inches between now and then. As you know, I don't use rainfall estimates in the maps, only rain guage reports. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. I'm glad I waited...Brownsville updated their post storm report yesterday with a higher rainfall maximum. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the remenant[edit]

yay its at kansas, and here yay--Jakezing (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Yesterday's squall line took care of Dolly. What you're receiving today is courtesy of an upper low which moved through the intermountain west. Expect the rainfall graphics to be produced Thursday. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Omaha WFO continues to refer to it as the remnants of Dolly in the AFD. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 21:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
eh...--Jakezing (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed a couple offices do. However, I seriously doubt NHC will. But that's getting too far from what should be discussed on this talk page. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meh, all we're doing is talking about where the remnants are so we can improve the article by expanding the SH. :) Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanna ask, why is their a remenant so far from where it ended/--Jakezing (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Until the 28th, there was no vertical wind shear over the system, so its circulation (aloft) remained intact into southeast Colorado. Without vertical wind shear, former tropical cyclones can remain over land for days as long as convection can fire near its center fairly regularly, maintaining their warm core. By that evening, Dolly's mid-level circulation stretched out ahead of an upper low (the one which caused recurvature) due to the wind shear, and became absorbed into the upper low moving in from the west. On radar imagery, a squall line forming east of the encroaching upper level low also appeared to destroy Dolly's former circulation during the 28th. Thegreatdr (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Information from NHC July monthly summary[edit]

The NHC July monthly summary is reporting a damage figure of 750 million to 1 Billion and only 1 death (Avila et al., 2008 available online at http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2008/tws/MIATWSAT_jul.shtml?).

The deaths in Honduras must not have been attributed to the storm, but instead to normal rainfall in the area, possibly from daytime heating (just this meteorologist's interpretation, of course) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dortt (talk • contribs) 04:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HPC rainfall page for Dolly now online. Because of surface analyses generated during the event, it does differ with NHC's towards the end of its life cycle. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's weird. At least two deaths in Mexico was attributed to Dolly (the electrocution in Matamoros and the drowning in Yucatan), so it makes me wonder if they didn't see those... they only consider the death in Florida (the indirect death) as attributable to the storm. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 16:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe deaths due to rip currents are considered to be direct deaths, since they are directly caused by the effects of the storm, while electrocutions are considered to be indirect, since that is likely due to the aftermath Derek Ortt (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the NHC rainfall graphic? And why aren't the deaths in New Mexico counted as relevant to the event? Ferd Blivid (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heres the rainfall map from the HPC. [1] --CWY2190(talk • contributions) 17:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, I see it. But it's mentioned above that the HPC's info differs from NHC's towards the end of the life cycle... what I want to know is where can I see the NHC's info, so I can compare it to the HPC's and see how they differ.Ferd Blivid (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surface analyses contained within the TPC surface analysis archive generally explain the difference towards the end of the life cycle of Dolly. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade[edit]

I'm thinking this could be close to GA status. Someone nominate it Itfc+canes=me (talk) 09:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'd agree, the last time I did that to a storm article people opposed it and delisted it, citing that the post storm report would have a great deal more information (Alma). Thegreatdr (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article's looking good, but before we think about GAN, an aftermath section needs to be written. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats going to be hard seeing as we have another TS bearing down there.... we need to mention that several weeks later another tropical cyclone hit Texas Itfc+canes=me (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we? It's so far from the area Dolly impacted. Thegreatdr (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The TS in question is moving towards it... Itfc+canes=me (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks more parallel to Dolly's track at this point by a few hundred miles. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I see a lot of problems with this article. The end of the storm history section really starts to ramble and talk about its impact. Preparations are divided by "landfall" rather than by region, a meaningless distinction as Guatemala for instance wasn't affected by the landfall, while mainland Texas was affected by the third landfall (after the 2nd landfall on the barrier islands). Similarly the impact is divided by landfall then talks about specific regions. And yeah, aftermath is needed eventually. — jdorje (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point I'm trying to make there is that "landfall" is a strictly meteorological (technical) term, and should not be used as a major distinction outside of that context. — jdorje (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article is a GA article and would like someone to submit it. Itfc+canes=me (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itfc+canes=me (talk • contribs) [reply]
Well there are still obvious problems, and unless you are to submit it, I doubt GAN for this article is in the immediate future—at least until the TCR comes out. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 12:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To do[edit]

Aftermath.
Copyedit, especially for passive voice.
I don't understand how the Impact section works. First landfall, then second landfall, then United States, then Mexico? I suggest the following: 

===Mexico===
===First landfall===
===Second landfall===

===United States===

Plasticup T/C 00:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NCDC report[edit]

[2] –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Hurricane Dolly (2008). 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hurricane Dolly (2008)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Fix broken AP links, and add information about the precursor low from TWOs or the TCR, whenever it comes out. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hurricane Dolly (2008). 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hurricane Dolly (2008). 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:

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) 01:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Dolly_(2008)&oldid=1210963680"