Talk:2015 Atlantic hurricane season

2015 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. Review: April 12, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as Mid-importance). 2010s Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Consensus was reached yesterday to use convert templates to ensure accuracy and ease updating, but I see Dustin V. S. has decided to go against that consensus and change them back claiming they don't round the same, but when I look at the before section and after section, I see no change except for the distance from Wilmington (where I live ) so there was no need to change them all was there? Also @Cyclonebiskit: since he set them up yesterday. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really getting tired of you talking to me that way. It's just rude, and I was unaware of this discussion you refer to. What do you mean when you say "Consensus was reached yesterday"? I've seen plenty of other people try to change to templates in previous seasons as well, but the same problems always seem to arise, and I am not just "claiming" that they don't round correctly. Dustin (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 105 mph should round to 165 km (if it were to match the NHC), but the template rounds it to 170 instead. Here is {{convert|105|mi|km|abbr=on|round=5}}: 105 mi (170 km) - That's just one example to prove the fallibility of the templates. Dustin (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, on the section that currently says "Tropical storm-force winds extend outward up to 125 mi (205 km) from the center of Ana.", if I were to use a template instead ({{{convert|125|mi|km|round=5}}), it would say 125 miles (200 km), with the kilometers wrong.

@EoRdE6 and Cyclonebiskit: The same can happen with almost every other situation (if not all), but I just tried to remove the templates which aren't working this time, although the others which I left may have the same problems at some point in the future so may need to be replaced with straight wikitext. Dustin (talk) 15:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dustin V. S.: It's not the templates that aren't working, it's inaccuracies at NHC actually. 105 miles is 168.981 km which rounds to 170 (convert is right, NWS is wrong), 125 miles is 201.168 km which rounds to 200 (not 2015). Maybe the NHC are the people to contact because something is wrong here (and it isn't the convert templates.) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like to think that they try to find the most precise value possible: say they find the most precise number to be 103 mi, but because there is always a certain amount of error, they then round that to the nearest 5 and display 105 mi on their website. They convert 103 mi to km, and they get 165.762, then they round that to 165 km. At least, that was always my theory, or something like that. Dustin (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that these discrepancies were due to the fact that the original measurements taken are in knots and nautical miles, rather than ordinary miles and miles per hour.TornadoLGS (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's right, which is why at least I've deterred away from using convert templates in the past. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok we don't have to use any convert templates then, but can we please keep these numbers in the same format. If we use knots first for one windspeed, why is the next one in MPH? And when in parentheses we should use (123 xyz; 456 abc) no slashes. Also, why does the article use knots when the sources are in Mph? Honest question because all the conversion is kinda annoying... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@EoRdE6: Well, I think the infoboxes are usually more like the NHC's Forecast Advisories and the Current storm information sections tend to be more like Public Advisories. That's how I've always thought of it, anyway. At one point, it looked like Legobot could have been made to do the task of updating the storm information, but it was forgotten about or something, but that could have gotten rid of a lot of trouble. That's all I've really got to say at the moment, though. Dustin (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While at this time, having a section is fine, I figured it would be a good time to raise the question of whether Ana will deserve its own article, given this reversion. Giving Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 30#Moratorium of current storm articles a quick read, it passes #1 easily, and it could pass #3. My rationale for that is that it is one of the earliest tropical storms in a considerable amount of time (Tropical Storm Ana (2003)), and an even longer time since one this early has made significant landfall, not just circling round the ocean... What do you guys think? EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody will no doubt write it before long. Seeing as it's not particularly urgent, though, it'd be wise to craft a thorough and well-sourced article before publishing. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait another day or two so that the full extent of whatever effects Ana has delivered to The Carolinas is known. At the current time, I don't think there's too much information that we need to make a standalone article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's probably inevitable, I've started a sandbox here. Anybody is welcome to help add preps/impact/historical context... if not, I'll finish it in the next day or so. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't have a notable impact then I would say it isn't needed. Its not like these storms are uncommon in this part of the world. You also have to take into account WP:ROUTINE for these type of storms. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the boat of believing that not every little weak landfalling storm needs an article. If these storms get articles JUST because they make landfall, then we need to look into that. However, if there is substantial impact and documented information, then I would support an article. But, I don't see that with this storm at this time. United States Man (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with Knowledgekid87 and United States Man. At the moment, this doesn't look like anything super-historic that needs an article immediately, so in my opinion, we should wait for the next few days then assess the impacts of the storm. At least in mainspace, any additions would be best placed in the Tropical Storm Ana section for now. Dustin (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you all helped write the article instead of pontificating, we'd have an FA on our hands by now. ;) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again its a tropical storm, they routinely hit the Carolinas and are routinely reported on. Has the storm killed anyone? Has there been widespread damage and destruction? Were there any records set? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was the earliest US landfalling system IIRC. If you can write a reasonably sized article on Ana, go ahead. If not, then it's not article worthy. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1952 Groundhog Day tropical storm was earlier but if you can find a better source than okay I agree. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...so one surfing death or one trivial HURDAT record would make the whole difference? (BTW, it's the earliest named landfalling Atlantic system.) It's a pre-season US-landfalling TC—no more, no less. I'm by no means positive that there's even enough info to support a halfway decent article, but if there is, it'd be silly to oppose its creation. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that was pre-satellite era, but that's for another day. Only reason why I brought up it being the earlier name landfalling US system is since it was asked if the storm set any records. Anyhow, back on subject. The matter is simple. If you can write a reasonably sized article on Ana, go ahead. If not, then no article. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we always having these type of discussions? Just be bold and do it yourself. Nothing to lose if the article is merged.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 00:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have already requested an admin to move the draft to the mainspace so it gets more attention, and if you guys have that much of a problem, feel free to attempt an AfD. It follows the ideas of being bold, nothing gets done in the userspace anyway. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of defeats the whole purpose of building a complete and deliberate article prior to publication. I had no idea I'd be causing this much trouble... I thought we could all wait a bit and see how things play out before making final decisions. Seemed reasonable at the time. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My logic always has been that if it passes CSD, is remotely notable, and is formatted correctly then it should be in the mainspace. To much time working at AfC tells me nothing ever is improved in the drafting, but once it's public people find it and come to help out. I also had a DYK in mind for when it is move if that's ok. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 01:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that and would do it Julian's way. When you rush to create articles people place them up for AfD which causes a long drawn out process. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No point in moving it to the mainspace. All of our veteran editors presumably know of the sandbox. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems not to agree on Bill's windspeed and minimum pressure. D3RP4L3RT (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The template that's currently up in the storm section reflects the current values. The ones in the main infobox and season summary table reflect the storm's peak intensity. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit Earlier, the season summary table showed that it had 1005 mbar and the infobox had 997 mbar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DERPALERT (talk • contribs) 23:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4 hrs ago, reports about the system stalling, since then not much movement, wobbling around, in parts over Bay waters. http://news.yahoo.com/video/tropical-storm-bill-stalls-offshore-163248329.html prokaryotes (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the following reference tag.A size comparison.

--71.66.245.204 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to compare two systems with differently scaled satellite images. But either way, as of the latest NHC advisory Danny has a gale diameter of 150 miles, as compared to Tracy's 60 mile gale diameter. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we start preparing a Danny article, as he probably will make landfall soon? Izmik (talk) 08:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to prepare. The storm isn't likely to be very damaging. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion we should wait until the storm fizzles out. Some possibilities yet for the storm is that it might trigger mudslides, there are areas in the Caribbean that are currently experiencing a drought. Rain water rather than soaking in bounces/slides off of really dry soil. Will Danny need an article? I am leaning towards a No unless it breaks a record for being tiny in size, anyone research this bit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best to wait until later, and if it turns out that the storm does in fact meet the notability threshold, then an article can be created. At the moment, that doesn't appear likely to occur, so I don't think preparations for an article are necessary. Dustin (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Danny has dissipated, but there's no reports of casualties or damage. In fact, Danny actually helped to bring beneficial rains to the Lesser Antilles. So, we don't really need an article for Danny (because there's nothing much that's notable enough to put in anyway). --KN2731 (talk) 10:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the maps that I think are from NOAA include the subnational divisional borders for the US and for Canada, but not for other countries such as Mexico. Is there anything we can do about that?Naraht (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't really use the maps provided by the NHC aside from with active storms so I'm not sure what the concern is. The WPTC track maps are used for just about everything except some of the older seasons where we're too lazy to throw together the data to make them. This is more of an issue to be directed at the NHC and not Wiki since they're in control of those maps. Maybe send them an email if you think it's worth bringing to their attention? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so for the most part for current Hurricane season, the only things that have political (and even sub-political) borders are the forecast maps which will eventually get replaced anyway. I'll drop a note to the NHC. Canada may get special treatment for the non-US countries because its first level divisions (provinces) are larger than most of the other members of WMO Region IV. :)Naraht (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Montserrat listed underneath "French West Indies"?123.2.78.5 (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why myself. Moved it under British West Indies. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird! 2602:30A:2E1D:A250:997A:EAA9:96F7:1EBC (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while since I've tried this, but how do you add the NHC track forecast for TD 7? Rye998 (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rye998: I was gonna ask the same thing, I tried to edit that. Izmik (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rye998: @Izmik: Do you guys want to know how to upload images? Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: Yes. Izmik (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Izmik: In your talk page. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Went away for a day, but I saw Izmik's talk page, thanks for the steps. Rye998 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sort of records kept on whether Ida speed over the last few days/next couple of days is significant? I've never seen a Hurricane get *stuck* the way that Ida is.Naraht (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin I think is a good example of diverging weather models and even if it never it mainland it's a good discussion on the merits of the different models. Most models as of 1200 GMT Sept 30 show Joaquin making landfall. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of the models have Joaquin hitting either in New Jersey or south of there [1] the other models remain all over the place though. That said, I feel at this time you should go ahead and start the article in user-space. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is looking more certain that Joaquin will hit the United States, but a lot of things need to fall into place for that to happen, I would at the very least wait until the storm makes the turn north/north-westward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say anywhere online that it is a category 3. It only says category 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.102.127 (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try refreshing the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow your fast.

Is there a way to have the info-box mirror the one used in the Hurricane Joaquin article? I like how it has October 8th as the end date but says the storm is still active as an ex. tropical storm. It is misleading to say that the storm was over on October 8th which is what the duration implies without any kind of foot-note attached. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The season infoboxes are not designed to account for extratropical phases like the articles are. They become cluttered otherwise. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used the same thing that was done for the Pacific season where it says (Hurricane entered/exited basin). I do not see how it makes sense to the reader to have it say the duration of the storm ended on October 8th while the article says otherwise. All I am suggesting is to add a footnote for the storm's infobox, everything else would remain the same. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A basin change is different from a phase change. We essentially reiterate what is shown by the NHC; the duration listed in the TCR is only for the (sub)tropical phases. A basin change warrants mention on Wiki (within the season section infobox) for the convenience of readers since the information is continued on another article. The extratropical transition is easily gleamed by reading prose (assuming the section is properly updated). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The prose approach does make sense, okay I will just go with that then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly changed the name Henri to Henry since, as far as I know, this is the way we usually spell this name. To deliberately misspell a name is absurd. WikkiManiack (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WikkiManiack: WP:BOLD to "correct" spellings does not apply in cases of formal names or designations. Henri is the spelling for the name used by the NHC (see full list of names) and thus the way we use it here. "Henri" is of French origin as opposed to "Henry" which has Germanic ties. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

while it's natural to follow the source, if the source gets it wrong there nothing wrong with fixing the mistake 97.47.66.54 (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it's time we resolve this once and for all 14:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This is downright pathetic. "Henri" is a French name pronounced differently than "Henry". To correct something that isn't a mistake is absurd--12george1 (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's pronounced Ahn-ree, not Hen-ree. Mitch32^{(Scenery is fine — but human nature is finer.)} 18:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because things are coming to an end for 2015, I am preparing a summary for this article at the top like other Atlantic hurricane season articles. But I just need one question: Is this season a below, slightly-below or average season? IMO it's a slightly-below average season... because yes, it is an average season by 12 named storms, however I say it's a bit below due to the amount of hurricanes (4, instead of an average of 6)... but I'm just not sure. What do you guys think? Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would say overall below average, the closest to average it comes to is 2 for major hurricanes but if you are rounding it would fall short of the 3. There were also 11 named storms, not 12 as you cant count the 1 depression. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh whoops, sorry. Makes sense now... I remembered that there was one TD. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, anyways I am not surprised as the below average season was predicted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:2015 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink mobile (talk · contribs) 17:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Ana caused minor flooding and wind damage in the Carolinas, with the latter causing one death in North Carolina. - I don't think you need to specify that the winds from Ana caused one death, and that rip currents caused another one. As tragic as deaths are, people know they are a likely outcome in severe weather articles, so don't go into too much detail about deaths. You can just say "Carolinas, causing two deaths in NC".

• Done--12george1 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Cut down on info for Fred in the lead (merge Africa impact sentences), and maybe say how Grace, Henri, and Ida were a sequence of three weak storms that generally did not affect land. I'd rather see mentions of the other named storms than more info on Fred, and/or emphasizing Joaquin's intensity (strongest storm to develop from non-tropical origins). Joaquin is far more important than Ana and Fred

• Better?--12george1 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "The ACE index was also reduced to 44 units" - specify this was a forecast

Fixed--12george1 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Tropical Storm Erika also caused fatalities, though it did not strike land." - very misleading. It brushed right near Dominica, and if the island was bigger, it would've been an official strike. I don't think you should be emphasizing landfalls in the season summary

• I've done that in many of the recent season articles, including the FA 2013 AHS. But I will oblige.--12george1 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bill remained a tropical cyclone until late on June 18" - where was it at this time?

• Eastern Oklahoma--12george1 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• "About 823 homes suffered damage" - awfully exact for "about"

• Would you rather I said "roughly"? :P Jk. Fixed--12george1 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You should emphasize earlier in Fred's section that it developed immediately off the west coast of Africa. Some geographically literate people might be conflustered over Guinea/Guyana.

• Better?--12george1 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Damage total for Joaquin? You say $120 million in the effects table, but you don't say it in writing.

• Fixed--12george1 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Also for Joaquin, I'd mention the hurricane watches for US and the potential for an east coast landfall. That was one of the more notable aspects of the storm. It doesn't matter if there is too much info for the section - Joaquin was arguably the most notable storm of the season

• There were no hurricane watches for the US or any TC watches or warnings for that matter. Should I add about how it threatened the East Coast and the model uncertainty about it curving out to sea?--12george1 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All in all a good article. None of this should be too difficult. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I would comment that the seasonal forecast section is missing a couple of forecasts and that Kate did not impact the UK.Jason Rees (talk) 19:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2015 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151003162737/http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/choosedates.jsp?statefips=-999%2CALL to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/choosedates.jsp?statefips=-999%2CALL
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140329014406/http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/comparison_table.html to http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/comparison_table.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151003162737/http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/choosedates.jsp?statefips=-999%2CALL to http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/choosedates.jsp?statefips=-999%2CALL

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2015 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://wvtm.membercenter.worldnow.com/story/29003823/forecasters-post-high-surf-rip-current-advisories-for-sc
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=NWS&product=PNS&issuedby=ILM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117071144/http://www.weatherscientific.co.uk/2015/11/13/post-tropical-kate-to-bring-flood-risk-gales-this-weekend/ to http://www.weatherscientific.co.uk/2015/11/13/post-tropical-kate-to-bring-flood-risk-gales-this-weekend/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151121161453/http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/flooding-fallen-trees-block-roads-10452294 to http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/flooding-fallen-trees-block-roads-10452294

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001101846/http://www.inforpress.publ.cv/index.php/PT/ambiente/116689-furacao-fred-governo-vai-precisar-de-30-mil-contos-para-intervencao-em-sao-nicolau to http://www.inforpress.publ.cv/index.php/PT/ambiente/116689-furacao-fred-governo-vai-precisar-de-30-mil-contos-para-intervencao-em-sao-nicolau
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151228115107/http://fr.starafrica.com/actualites/senegal-200-maisons-detruites-par-la-houle-a-dakar.html to http://fr.starafrica.com/actualites/senegal-200-maisons-detruites-par-la-houle-a-dakar.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]