Talk:1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 12, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
March 7, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept
December 22, 2011	Good topic candidate	Promoted
March 4, 2024	Good article reassessment	Delisted
April 2, 2024	Good topic removal candidate	Demoted
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 15, 2007. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that an unnamed hurricane* in 1975 attained hurricane status further north than any other Pacific hurricane before dissipating near Alaska?*
Current status: Delisted good article

Weather: Tropical / Eastern Pacific Low‑importance

	Weather portal This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This redirect is supported by the Pacific hurricane work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Name[edit]

Shouldn't this be at 1975 North Pacific Hurricane or 1975 Central North Pacific Hurricane?--Pharos 08:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The follows the previous format we've used, such as Unnamed Tropical Storm (1987) and Unnamed Tropical Storm (2006). Unless both of those get the basin identifier, this one shouldn't, as it was the only unnamed hurricane in 1975 worldwide. Hurricanehink (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to go against the guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#Tropical_cyclone_article_naming, doesn't it?--Pharos 19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. First, the guidelines are pretty flimsy, and there have been a few failed proposals to change them. Secondly, it doesn't even seem to go against any of them. It's long enough not to be considered a stub, the name is unique (the only unnamed hurricane in 1975), and it is distinguished by type and year (location isn't a problem, as it follows the third example given). Hurricanehink (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name is a little vague, but your explanation makes sense, and the article is good enough for B-class. --Core desat 00:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones#.22Unnamed.22_storms; the other storms you refer to needed to be renamed IMO. This one is more borderline but I really don't like the "Unnamed" for a name. — jdorje (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you name it? It doesn't have a landfall point or an operational number.Potapych (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, now it sounds like it moved across Colorado... –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we explained in the second sentence what its name means. Not to mention, it wasn't that far off from moving across Colorado! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The handling of the ship is poor: "A vessel with the name of Transcolorado"? The SS Transcolorado is the former-USS Marine Adder (the redlink is included in List of United States Navy ships, M), so I expect its article-worthy in its own right. That phrasing is as bad as if Hurricane Luis mentioned a "vessel of the name Queen Elizabeth 2".--Nilf anion (talk) 18:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We changed the title, per an agreement on (GASP) IRC. I made a copy of the log in a subpage - Talk:1975 Pacific Northwest hurricane/Log. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, that's in the mainspace, in case you haven't noticed. :P –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Or, you could've just fixed that yourself, rather than calling me out :P ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True... –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's name should be Hurricane Twelve (1975) or 1975 Pacific Northeast hurricane. HurricaneSpin Talk My contributions 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We agreed not to have generic number titles like that, and the location refers to the Pacific Northwest, a region of North America. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nomination[edit]

This article has been promoted to GA per my review. I made a few changes myself, but see nothing that disqualifies it from GA. Possibly there may be some areas where jargon could be further explained for readers who are not familiar with such terms. Otherwise, good work. Regards, LaraLove ^T/_C 06:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after it passed in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to update the access dates of the website sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]