Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cyclone Freddy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
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.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has declared Tropical Cyclone Freddy to be the longest-lasting tropical cyclone on record, lasting 36 days. The WMO Evaluation Committee did not consider ACE when making its decision. Additionally, Freddy was also the second-farthest traveling tropical cyclone in both the Indian Ocean and globally, with a distance traveled of 12,785 km (7,945 mi).PRESS RELEASEHurricaneEdgar02:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contradiction... Since Freddy is second globally in terms of longest distance traveled, in the Indian Ocean he must be the champion. Vệ Thần - Talk22:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's needed to get this to a good/featured article
Shorten the meteorological history to as short as necessary. There already is a sub-article. This would allow there to be more room for other aspects of the article.
Rewrite the parts of the impact section so it's more about what the storm did, and less about who reported what. Examples include:
"Locals reported seeing roofs torn off houses, broken windows, and streets flooded in Quelimane."
. The nation's UNICEF chief of advocacy, communications, and partnerships, Guy Taylor, stated that there was "lots of destruction", and that Freddy was "potentially a disaster of large magnitude". Taylor also noted that rural areas were completely destroyed. "
"State TV reported that hundreds were displaced in Freddy's wake. "
"Locals said localized flooding was an issue even before landfall"
"Dozens of houses were reported being washed away in floodwaters in Chilobwe."
"It was stated that 14 districts suffered impacts from Freddy, equating to over half the country. Chakwera also said that 36 roads were broken, nine bridges washed away, and there were still many villages inaccessible by 20 March"
Organize information together where possible, with the most important information first, progressing to the least important information by the end. Typically, the first paragraph of an impact section includes direct meteorological observations, where possible.
An example for the above: right now there is a mention of the cholera outbreak in two separate paragraphs right now.
Aftermath and rebuilding in the year (and now longer) since Freddy.
This is all a misunderstanding. I was not edit-warring. I only made two reverts spanning seven days. I wasn't going to revert you because I wanted to give you a chance to explain why you reverted the merge. If it helps my case, I'll explain the events leading up to now.
When I merged the two articles, @MakaylaHippo1998 reverted me because there was no talk page discussion. She wasn't objecting to the procedure of the merge, not the merge itself. She didn't know that not every merge needs a talk page discussion if the reason for the merge is obvious.
I thought that was the case, but I explained in depth anyway as I reverted their revert. However, @Hurricane Noah reverted me because my bold merge was reverted, even though MakaylaHippo1998 was not opposing the merge itself.
I waited at least seven days until determining consensus because it's the minimum time a discussion should stay open per WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Since there were no objections, I merged the articles. You came, reverted my merge, and protected Humanitarian response to Cyclone Freddy, which I believe was overkill. Why would someone protect a page because I merged an article?
While reading the merge procedure, I realized I forgot to tag the articles. No one would have been aware of this discussion unless they went to this page. I believe that's why you assumed I was edit-warring. If you can, please unprotect Humanitarian response to Cyclone Freddy because I wasn't edit-warring and I have no intention of doing so. FourNoddlers (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both this main article and the Humanitarian response need expansion. The latter article is out of date by almost 1.5 years and there's plenty of additional English news sources detailing recovery efforts after the initial article was drafted which would expand that significantly. There's also scholarly literature on the recovery efforts as well. I would assume that there would also be plenty of local French sources since that's a major language of Mozambique. There's plenty of material available to use to expand it, so I wouldn't recommend a merger.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
.jpg)
