I've worked on this for the last month or two, and I think the above related articles are now collectively good enough to be Featured Topic status. One is an FA, four are GA's, and the last two have been nominated for GA. Support as nominator.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I was waiting for this, both because so many hurricane articles have been featured already and because you have this way of writing proper daughter articles instead of the junkyards we often see. Conditional support, the condition being that those GA candidates make GA.--
Rmky8718:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support A featured list plus solid articles makes a great featured topic. Should give more encouragement to bring hurricane artic_les to featured article status.
Jay3218323:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Object.
Fico and
Fefa are included in the current list. However, its not certain whether these names were retired for being damaging the same way Iniki and Pauline were, or if they were were retired because they offended someone. For a brief discussion, see
here. If the confusion over why these names is retired, or if they are stricken (for now) from the topic series, I'll reconsider.
Miss Madeline |
Talk to Madeline00:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Does it matter why they were retired? I thought the topic was Pacific hurricane names that were retired. The two names are retired even if it was for a different reason than the others.
Jay3218300:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)reply
(edit conflict) They are included because of the uncertainty. David Roth said he didn't know but thought it was due to offensive naming. However, we don't know. They are listed in several places as being a retired Pacific hurricane, such as the WMO. Retirement is generally considered the removal of a hurricane name, though not always for damage. See
List of retired Pacific hurricanes - Fico and Fefa are the only two names that were removed that caused more than minor effects to land. The rest don't have articles. Omitting Fico and Fefa would be original research.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't consider that an obvious gap. It depends on the usage of the term retirement. Some consider it only to be from damage, some consider it to be names that were merely removed. There is currently no consensus on that. I included Fico and Fefa because they caused damage. Of all of the other names that were removed, none, including Adolph, caused any damage. None of the others whose names were removed have articles, as well.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
03:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I guess if "retired" is usually used differently than "removed" the current name is okay. How about if in the intro section of the main article you add a line about the difference between removed and retired names? --
Arctic Gnome22:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)reply
I've put a bit more thought into this and I'll have to hold back my support for a little bit longer. It looks like the only two other storms that have had their names retired are 2001 Adolph and 1987 Kunt. Both are not notable, so if there are no articles about them I don't see it as a gap. However, they should both be mentioned by name in the main article for the sake of completeness; and if Fico and Fifa are included in the tables despite being small, I think Adolph and Kunt should be too. --
Arctic Gnome05:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)reply
The thing is, Adolph and Knut (not Kunt ;) ) didn't affect land at all, meaning they were simply removed. The same goes with Hazel and Adele. That means they were not retired in the sense that they were removed because of damage, which is the general rule of thumbs of what retirement means. Fico and Fefa both caused damage, and thus we, nor the
the officials know if they were removed for retirement or something else. They are included because of the uncertainty, while the others are not included because we know, with certainty, they were removed for reasons other than damage.
Hurricanehink (
talk)
14:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)reply
Support with the conception that "retired" is different than "removed", which it is. Speaking of removed, Hurricane Israel was the same year as Adolph, and was "removed" as well. --
PresN02:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)reply