Talk:1850 Atlantic hurricane season

1850 Atlantic hurricane season is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 6, 2015.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 8, 2014	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic Low‑importance

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

Merge?

I realize this was just created, but I feel it should be addressed sooner rather than later. I personally don't think the pre-HURDAT seasons should have individual articles, especially when there were only a few storms such as this year. The information is very unreliable and speculative, and therefore I believe it should be merged with 1840–49 Atlantic hurricane seasons (and then retitle it). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. I think we touched on this before without coming to a conclusion - it's going to be an 'odd one out' either way. By all means, please go ahead. 14GTR (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for the merge. The storm sections are rather small, and much of the article is in the lead, basically talking about how 1850 falls out of the range of HURDAT and what HURDAT is. I'd put it back with that decadal article. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 21:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New version completed... assessment and comments welcome. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the source

Just a suggestion: There's five sources' author are David McWilliams Ludlum, so I feel maybe notes 4, 6, 10, 19 and 33 should clearify they're stand for Ludlum, David McWilliams (1963). Early American hurricanes, 1492–1870. American Meteorological Society.(right?)--Jarodalien (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my English is not very well. I mean notes 4, 6, 10, 19 and 33 are all "Ludlum, p.xx", I guess they all mean Ludlum, David McWilliams (1963). Early American hurricanes, 1492–1870. American Meteorological Society., page xx. Meantime, they're 4 other sources:

Ludlum, David M. "The September Storm of 1850 - Sept. 8" (PDF). Historical Hurricane Information Tool. Florida State University. Retrieved July 25, 2014.
Ludlum, David M. "The July Storm of 1850 - Jul. 18". Historical Hurricane Information Tool. Florida State University. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)
Ludlum, David M. "Severe Storm at Apalachicola - August 1850 - Pt 1" (PDF). Historical Hurricane Information Tool. Florida State University. Retrieved July 23, 2014.
Ludlum, David M. "Severe Storm at Apalachicola - August 1850 - Pt 2" (PDF). Historical Hurricane Information Tool. Florida State University. Retrieved July 23, 2014.

They all had same author with Ludlum, David McWilliams (1963). Early American hurricanes, 1492–1870. American Meteorological Society., or least had same last name. So I think is the best to clearify notes 4, 6, 10, 19 and 33 is meant for which one, which "Ludlum".

One more thing, Ludlum, David M. "The July Storm of 1850 - Jul. 18". Historical Hurricane Information Tool. Florida State University. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help) and some other sources' url were removed already (guess is becuase 404), so should they still using cite web?--Jarodalien (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean. I don't think it's a huge issue but you do have a point, so I've changed "Ludlum, p. x" to "Ludlum (1963), p. x" in the offending citations. As for the webpages: the urls weren't removed, but simply replaced with working versions, so all the other info should be the same, I think. Thanks for the suggestions. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 1850 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: 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) 21:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]