Talk:Typhoon Haikui (2012)
A news item involving Typhoon Haikui (2012) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 August 2012. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
ITN nom
This article has been nomination for
Article title
The article has now been moved a few times between "Typhoon Haikui" and "Typhoon Haikui (2012)". The latter disambiguator is unnecessary, as Wikipedia has no other Typhoon Haikui pages. Should another typhoon be named this a decade in the future, the pages can be disambiguated then; in the meantime,
JTWC prognostic reasonings──Haikui
- 01 // 02 // 03 // 04 // 05 // 06 // 07 // 08 // 09 // 10
- 11 // 12 // 13 // 14 // 15 // 16 // 17 // 18 // 19 // 20
--✯Earth100✯ (talk✉) 05:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
2012 Philippine floods
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WWJP25-RJTD_201208011200.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://weather.noaa.gov/pub/data/raw/wt/wtpn21.pgtw..txt
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WTPN33-PGTW_201208022100.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WTPQ22-RJTD_201208030000.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WTPN33-PGTW_201208040300.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/advisories/WTPQ22-RJTD_201208051200.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/shanghai-east-china-braces-typhoon-haikui-16945073
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
{{source check
- 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.—
Requested move 23 October 2016
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Requester was CheckUser blocked (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 04:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose It's the only usage of the storm. Pacific Hurricane 13:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)]
- Oppose It's the only usage of the storm.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Requested move 13 November 2016
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved(non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, that's not how it works. It was the only storm of the name, so it doesn't need a year identifier. It doesn't matter if it is the primary topic or not. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Strong oppose There was an RfC about this very issue, which argues in favor of the current title. Pppery 18:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.