Talk:2009 Atlantic hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good article2009 Atlantic hurricane season has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 6, 2010Good article nomineeListed

September[edit]

  • 08L.NONAME - Tropical Depression
Best status from NHC: 30kt 1008mb
96L.INVEST first appeared 2009-09-25, 1200z @ 14.2ºN 29.0ºW.
Tropical Depression Eight from NHC 2009-09-25, 2100z @ 16.4ºN 31.6ºW.

NHC TWOs

2009-09-24, 1200z // 1800z
2009-09-25, 0000z // 0600z // 1200z // 1800z (Refer to Tropical Cyclone Advisories)

NHC Tropical Cyclone Advisories

Tropical Depression Eight

Tropical Cyclone Reports[edit]

One[edit]

Released today. No changes in intensity. -Weatherlover819 (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ana[edit]

Why are people not adding a sub title to the issuance of TCRs? -116.41.19.54 (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill[edit]

Bill held peak intensity of 115 kts (no change) for 30 hours --Anhamirak 21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eight[edit]

Released Friday, three days ago! Nothing changed. --Anhamirak 23:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred[edit]

It was released eight days ago! It lasted a week after degenerating into an remnant low. --Anhamirak 23:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to have taken the report down... hmm. icelandic hurricane #12(talk) 23:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link above still works though.Jason Rees (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has been back up again for a few days. --Anhamirak 02:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Erika[edit]

Released October 29, no changes in intensity. --12george1 (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ida[edit]

Released yesterday, some changes needed in the article. -123.215.14.182 (talk) 13:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text erasing[edit]

What was the point of the text being cleared off most of the Tropical Cyclone related articles yesterday? I really would like to know because it was almost every acticle related to Tropical Cyclones. --12george1 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? Jason Rees (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a known bug I think, some articles have been randomly vanishing. Check WP:VPT. --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bug was fixed last night. It caused articles to randomly disappear (some completely, others before/after specific templates) -- RattleMan 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eight article[edit]

Should I start on this? Eight caused nearly half inches of rain for parts of Cape Verde. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 19:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you having a wind up? There is no need for an article on TD 8 as it is a fishspinner.Jason Rees (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No article is necessary for this storm, a half inch of rain isn't notable at all. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TS Grace[edit]

Is Grace notable in any way, in the fact that it's formation location is further north than Vince's from 2005? If it is, I could add it to Grace's section on the main page. Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 16:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Alberto (1988) formed higher by about .3 degrees than Grace. Maybe add it to here Darren23Edits|Mail 16:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dont - wait for the TCR before adding it.Jason Rees (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the best track from here Grace is no longer the northeastern forming tropical cyclone on record, as it formed at only 38.9N. Weatherlover819 (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for a potential article, it DID have land effects in the Azores and stands to affect the British Isles (could we see history with it making landfall in Ireland?) CrazyC83 (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no need for an article, it didnt have that much of an effect on the Azores and is a general fishspinner since it never made landfall.Jason Rees (talk) 08:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would give it an article as it did affect the Azores with 50 MPH winds. Also this statement "ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE REMNANTS OF GRACE CAN BE FOUND IN HIGH SEAS FORECASTS ISSUED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE UNDER WMO HEADER WONT54 EGRR" It still can have affects on the UK (indirect). - Knowledgekid87 7:29, 6 October 2009 (AT)

No. The storm hasn't even dissipated yet, and once that happens, the storm can be open. We also don't need articles for everything, Atlantic basin or not.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 11:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I forgot about the absorbing part, but wait till the front is gone.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 11:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first things first. If someone is really thinking about giving this storm an article, you have to provide sufficient information on impact and what was notable about the storm. Do not use the "northeastern forming" record as it is no longer held by Grace per the Operational Best Track. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I'm writing this, Grace has more or less passed through the front already, still maintaining a warm core and closed convection over SST's of 16-18C, and UKMO is forecasting it to make landfall near Cardiff in their latest run. As far as I know, this is a fairly unique situation, and I find it somewhat puzzling that the NHC has called her demise. The NHC maybe doesn't consider anything east of 10W a "tropical" system? Clint.hotvedt (talk) 16:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its out of their AOR now but to cover themselves they are calling it ET. Jason Rees (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extratropical my a**e... Just have a wee look at these images; [1] , [2] IMHO, Grace did not cease to be a tropical system until after it made landfall a bit west of Swansea, and whether it was a TS, TD, STS or STD should be decided when wind reports from October 6th come in... When it passed south of Cork however, SW 40 mph winds were measured at Seven Stones, and NE 41 at Marathon, so my best guess is that it stayed a (S)TS until it moved into the Irish Sea... Clint.hotvedt (talk) 07:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying that an article was needed, I just wanted to know if Grace was unique in any way. Hurricanekiller1994 (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclonebiskit, Jason Rees etc, do you know where to find the location of Grace after the deactivation? Thanks. (here, it says that the 0000 UTC position is 55.5N 1.0W. ) -HurricaneRulzMath (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I generally use the NRL site here which has all the storms as monitored by the JTWC/NHC though the NHC has a verson on their site. Both seem to have said Goodbye Grace @ 0000z though (Just in case - On NRL it goes Basin-Storm-Trackfile) Jason Rees (talk) 09:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred effects[edit]

Was Fred's remnant low actually the main cause of the southeast floods? I seem to remember that there was moisture already in the area while Fred was still off the Florida/Georgia coast, but I can't say I'm sure. The citation doesn't show anything about Fred, and I think it was separate from the flood, but I'd like someone to tell me if I'm right or wrong before changing anything on the article. --99.162.229.22 (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also am having my doubts on this, I am hearing that it was due to IN PART because of Fred, to say that the remains of Fred alone caused the flooding is not right. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. As I understand it, the flooding began five days before Fred's remnants even reached the region. I think Thegreatdr (talk · contribs) would probably be able to provide some insight into this issue. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may need to be brought up at the Hurricane Fred article as well since it also claims the same thing, there's a source citing Fred as the main cause now but the dates of the flooding and when Fred made it to the coast just don't seem to line up. --76.250.143.125 (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check the surface analysis series when I get to work on Tuesday. I know Fred's remnant surface trough led to rains, but I'm not sure about the Atlanta flooding. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what were the results? I am still convinced it was not Fred alone that caused the floods. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At most, Fred's remnants were a small contributing factor. The Peachtree City WFO report doesn't even mention Fred. Thegreatdr (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well before making a damage amount change to Fred again (To Minimal as it just affected the Cape Verde Islands) I will wait to see if anyone has feedback on the matter. I could be Bold but I already made some clear edits that involve the damage totals on the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henri to be named at 5pm Eastern[edit]

Per http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATWOAT+shtml/061922.shtml. Not sure what consensus is for confirmed storms before their initial advisory, so I'm leaving off the page for now. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 19:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine to go in as the NHC have said they are intiating advisories if needs be use the RBT data.Jason Rees (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First use of Fred[edit]

It says in the season names section that Fred was used for the first time in 2009. The full name - Frederic - was previously used - and retired - in 1979. Should this be mentioned in the article somewhere there? 76.29.112.198 (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not really notable and important. Darren23Edits|Mail 23:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intensity[edit]

Some weeks ago the article's made clear in its lead that the season is below average. Actually, it was well below average those days. I havent followed this closely, but, has the situation varied over time in a way that it has become now an average season? If not, I think it should be stated again, same as the above average seasons state that in their lead.

Besides, according to this source (which on the face of it seems scholarly and interesting) "Global Tropical Cyclone ACE is the lowest since 1979". Probably some of the research in this web should be quoted as well.

I hope the gloom lovers are not whitewashing (or, actually, darkening) the whole thing... MOUNTOLIVE fedeli alla linea 01:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a below average season, unless we get a couple more tropical cyclones which reach hurricane intensity for long periods of time. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this season is well below average. But, the link above doesn't seem to work. I think you wanted this.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not a good source to use for the Global ACE BTW, as it uses unoffical data from the JTWC for all basins bar the NHC AOR.Jason Rees (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far this season ties for record low activity[edit]

Article currently says: "So far this season ties for record low activity with 1982 for lowest number of hurricanes forming in a season."

Isn't this crystal ball gazing?

If it is allowed, what else are we going to get? A record high of 100% of hurricanes being major hurricanes, no non major hurricanes ..... crandles (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is prefixed with the phrase "so far", I don't think they're peering into the future. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would say that 'so far', it has had a higher rate of hurricanes. (2 in 0.9 of a season is a higher rate than 2 in 1 season) so it doesn't tie ;) To get a tie you do have to do some peering into future. ;) crandles (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far wie have hurricanes three, so this issue is settled. ;-) --Matthiasb (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know people love to read about records for a season, but I think it would be best to wait to see what happens and once the season is over make the Records and statistics section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be wise. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Ida[edit]

I was wondering if it is or isn't too early to create an article about Hurricane Ida. First, it is a land impacting storm and second we can use the Public Advisories to create the meteorological history. I also have a report about some impacts from Ida [3].

Thank you in advanced for your comments, --12george1 (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want. I don't think we have any real hard and fast rules here. The system was a hurricane and made landfall, so I don't think anyone will oppose it. Just make sure it is a bit more expanded than the version that's in the season article, and well referenced, and all should be good. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say go for it, just check out the format of other hurricane articles before you commence. -Marcusmax(speak) 14:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just created it! --12george1 (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Landfall[edit]

According to the NHC (600 AM CST): "DATA FROM NOAA DOPPLER RADAR AND SURFACE OBSERVATIONS INDICATE THAT THE CENTER OF TROPICAL STORM IDA MADE ITS FIRST LANDFALL AROUND 540 AM CST...1140 UTC...ON DAUPHIN ISLAND ALABAMA...WITH MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS OF 45 MPH...75 KM/HR.", I have also found the 2nd for "JUST TO THE NORTHWEST OF BON SECOUR ALABAMA", are there any sources though for the other indirect landfall in "Venice, Louisiana" ??? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the eye directly passed over Venice, Louisiana then both the track file and the trackmap when its updated should be able to back you up.Jason Rees (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El Salvador flooding from Ida[edit]

Okay so I know the CNN source is saying that 54 people have died in flooding caused by Ida, however two other sources are saying it (the flooding) was casued by another low pressure system off the pacific coast and that ida mearly helped steer the low pressure system. Is there any right or wrong source here?

BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8349333.stm "However, Ida, which passed to the east of El Salvador three days ago, is not thought to have caused the severe rains.

The BBC's weather centre said El Salvador's rains were caused by a separate, low pressure system."

CBC - http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/08/hurricane-ida.html "Dave Roberts of the U.S. National Hurricane Center in Miami said while the presence of Hurricane Ida in the Caribbean may have played some indirect role in helping steer the system, the deaths are not directly linked to the hurricane" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As i see it there is 3 options - 1) Call them direct deaths 2)Call them indirect deaths or 3) Ignore them as they were caused by the Invest in the EPAC. From what ive seen/heard i would call them indirect.Jason Rees (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Call them indirect as steered by Ida and linked to Ida, but directly related to the EPAC invest. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Government of El Salvador is directly linking them to Ida and saying that the low (EPac invest) made it worse. So, both systems are directly related to the flooding. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CNN is now calling it a seperate low pressure system that caused the deaths "But a low-pressure system out of the Pacific -- not Hurricane Ida -- triggered the disaster, forecaster Robby Berg of the National Hurricane Center said Sunday" Im not trying to say it didnt happen but I do not think the cause was Ida based on at least 3 news sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

imnvho it is a ridiculous thing to deny. i assume the salvadorians know better then we wether the weather was worst in the east or the west. (basically i think we see a case of downplaying a serious threat in 'certain' (western) media). alJazeera does not even mention a pacific disturbance.i think they used salvadorese resources(11-9;).24.132.171.225 (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You assume incorrectly.216.80.110.88 (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there was an EPAC disturbance during the last week. Jason Rees (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was. And its development had little, if any, to do with Ida. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some changes that still need to be made on this issue. First, the article mentions the possibility that the Pacific low pressure system was steered by the Fujiwhara effect. There is no citation for this, and in fact the only places on the entire Internet saying this are this Wikipedia page and duplicates of it. Even if it's true, which I think is dubious, it is either speculative or the dreaded "independent research". Second, the "deaths" column in the table shows "1(124)" for Ida. These 124 deaths are not attributed to Hurricane Ida at this time and even considering them indirectly caused by the storm is a real stretch. Finally the reference at the end points to a CNN International article under the title "Ida kills 54 in El Salvador, heads for U.S. Gulf Coast" which was withdrawn just a few hours after initial publication of the story. The title of the article after the reports of deaths in El Salvador being caused by the hurricane were retracted is "Hurricane Ida moves into U.S. Gulf Coast".216.80.110.88 (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re above: Someone else changed the "deaths" column for Ida dropping the "(124)". As for the other items, I have linked another article from the New York Times stating specifically that 'Ida had nothing to do with it' and I fixed the article title for the previously linked CNN article. That should just about do it.216.80.110.88 (talk) 11:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British storm last week?[edit]

An editor with good intentions added a storm with hurricane-force winds as a tropical system within the main page. I reverted it. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closing the season[edit]

Would it be appropriate to replace the infobox and called this season over? --12george1 (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait another day when the season actually ends. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damages[edit]

Instead of randomly tossing around huge numbers, would someone please provide a cite for damages? The bottom of the page lists a little over 2 million in total damages, most of that coming from Ida. Sticking 173 million in the infobox at top is completely inconsistent with that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Just havign a quick look through the articles for this season - it seems that the 173mill is correctly sourced in Idas article.Jason Rees (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can teh renmants from Ida that formed into a new storm be counted as damage from Ida? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about Ida's east coast impact, it was the same storm except Ida became extratropical.--Priyanka 03:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this will be sorted out by the post storm report. I'm fairly sure the damage along the coast of the Carolinas and Virginia won't be counted as directly related to Ida. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TCR for Best Track[edit]

Claudette is out; the Best Track ACE for the storm can now replace the Operational ACE. 173.57.117.239 (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remake and create List of Storm in the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season article[edit]

This is a major change to the current 2009 AHS article. I want to see if anyone else wants the article to be similar to 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, where there is just a summary of the storms and then another article for a list of storms. If you don't get want I mean look this userpage and this one. --12george1 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - i really dont like the new format as you can not tell what the windspeeds of a perticular storm in an instant or the pressure. You have to go digging through. Also this artice is meant to be a summuary of all the storms and works really well IMO.Jason Rees (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The list of storms should have just gone with the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season as it was an all time high for number of storms and putting the stormnames, season summary, ect.. on one page was just too much. 2009 however can not be compared to that. 2008 was the same way and has a shoter but all coverage season summary. The 2006 Atlantic hurricane season personally in my opinion wasa mistake to put in that format as there were only 10 total storms. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I've already completely the new version of the article and moved the older one to List of storms in the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this staright, consensus was polled with two people opposing this, and it was gone ahead and done with anyways? I do not feel this was needed as there were not as many storms as there were in 2005, but w/e. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I wanted this done, I am kinda thinking now that it was a stupid idea, and pretty good amount of wasted of time. Since the 2009 AHS is GA now, I don't think he can remove this new format, and I also agree that it shouldn't have been replaced with two opposing, even though I was in favor of it. But soon I will push this format for 1995, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2010, since they were much more active than the other seasons with the new format, and 2004 seems like an island in the middle of all of the new format AHS articles.--12george1 (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional post-analysis storms[edit]

Umm, I was wondering if there are any candidates for reclassification into a tropical cyclone in post-season analysis. --Weatherlover819 (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While there are candidates (May/June Grace look-alike north of the Azores, the May Gulf Gale with central convection, the September nor'easter near the Mid-Atlantic coast), the NOAA hurricane conference revealed that none were immediately going to be added after-the-fact to the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I find a link to the NOAA hurricane conference? Weatherlover819 (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement (or lack thereof)[edit]

The WMO conference has come and gone, it appears there was no press release so no names were retired? I'm trying to confirm that though. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can get an email of the NHC or someone offical we have to wait until the updated TCOP or the final report of the meeting comes out. Its only been a couple of days though since the meeting ended. Anyone using the NHC naming website should see this note i made after Graces fac Jason Rees (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging two season articles[edit]

So this article and List of storms in the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season are just about the same. They are two different articles with the same information, just presented differently. The project recently came into an agreement that we should avoid that. Just sayin'. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Although I'd rather see this effort put elsewhere, this article could be used to show how the new combined season article format would look like. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2009 Atlantic hurricane season. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2009 Atlantic hurricane season. 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) 10:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Hurricane Fred (2009) into 2009 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

The result is merge due to lack of impact of the hurricane and lack of opposition to the merge. starship.paint (RUN) 11:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fails WP:NWX since there was minimal land impact and no meteorological reason for the article to exist. This could be easily summarized in the season article. Noah, AATalk 14:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel too strongly about this but fwiw Fred's existence was argued on meteorological reasons at the time. I'd probably only act if the seasonal article wasn't GA and that section needed improvement. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I feel that the season article would benefit from a more thorough account of Fred, seeing as it was one of only two major hurricanes during the season. Right now it's on the short side because there is a sub-article, but I believe all of the content would fit easily without putting too much of a focus on Fred. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Tropical Storm Danny (2009) into 2009 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

While this storm is a bit notable, the season section is very small and I believe this could be easily summarized there. Noah, AATalk 14:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak oppose - I think the impacts are widespread and varied enough, and the met history could even be fleshed out a bit more (with the remnants), that I think it could be kept. I tried copying everything into the season section, and it just seemed like a bit too much for my liking to merge it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support The season section is tiny and could benefit from the content here. 2009 was a very quiet and tame hurricane season so bloating the article isn’t of too much concern. And not all of the information is needed anyway. 71.190.208.91 (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1213666450"