User talk:ChocolateTrain

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chocolate Train, Can you stop bogging down articles with so many  's? The so called non breaking spaces are only really needed between words and numbers and not in every single space. Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Hi Jason. The only reason I was inserting the "&nbsp" things in the Season Effects section was because, in my opinion, I think the table is more aesthetically pleasing when there are no large gaps of unused space due to two lines being used as the text is a few characters too long. Also, following the reversion of my original edit, there are a number of terms which have been split into two lines that I think should be displayed as a linear string of text on one line only. These are 'New Zealand' and 'Category (number from 3 to 5) severe tropical cyclone'. Also, all of the systems whose minimum central pressures were no lower than 1000 hPa have been split into two lines simply because the inches of mercury conversion is one character too long to fit. Consequently, there is a great deal of redundant space in the table, and I think it looks a little poorly formatted. That's just my view on the matter, anyway. I won't reinsert the "&nbsp" things without your agreement. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I havent had a look at the SE chart look for a while but from your comments I know exactly what the problem is. The problem is that Ella and Donna affectes multiple impact nations at once. Look at what areas have been affected by both systems and insert a line break
wherever appropiate. That should solve the problem. :) Jason Rees (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...when editing or updating the season timeline, please follow UTC time. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that I have made a mistake on the designation thing, but why do you have to make a new image? You know that you can just simply rename the image right? Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChocolateTrain! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 08:55, Tuesday, June 27, 2017 (

Please stop using the trackfile as you did to Hurricane Eugene, where they had it at cat2, though its real advisory only has it at cat1 at the moment. This is already vandalism and I already discussed this with someone. Next time do not use the trackfile and I may report this to someone, instead wait for the official advisory to come out. Thank you. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NOTVAND - not every incorrect edit is vandalism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

July 2017

Thank you for responding from my edit summary mentioning about "cropping" for Eugene's image. Though the image you updated is not clear. As I said previously, please follow the NASA Gallery version (unless there's something wrong, eg lines etc). I have now requested a cropping for that image to someone who I know who is decent at doing this. If you cannot upload or update images clearly, then you shouldn't upload. This is just a warning for the future. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: What do you mean it isn't clear? ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: Also, what do you mean by "follow the gallery image"? If you mean use the gallery image, that's exactly what I did. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: Additionally, please dictate to me exactly how you would like the images cropped and presented, with distinct guidelines on what you tolerate in terms of pixel resolution, colour/hue richness, brightness, contrast, etc. And do not simply say "follow the gallery image", because that is impossible. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: I really think you need to read ChocolateTrain's response and comments more throughly. However, I would personally say that the image showing Baja Califonia is better as it allows you to locate the system.Jason Rees (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Sorry but I do not know if you upload images too, but that's what I got warned when I first uploaded images here. Also are you talking about the Dora image? Because that image is a better version and does show the Baja California in the picture, which you were talking about. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only upload images of TC's when i need to for historical purposes @Typhoon2013:, otherwise I generally leave others too do it. I would also be careful if i were you about I say about others on other peoples talk pages.Jason Rees (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NOTVAND, and not refer to other users as "new" unless it is very clear that is the case (e.g. less than 30 edits here).--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to let you know before we have a mini-edit war, let me explain my rationale here. I linked eye on its first usage in accordance with

Hi @Yellow Evan. Firstly, sorry for delinking cyclone eye—that wasn't intentional. And yes, I agree with the Pacific Ocean thing. However, central dense overcast does have a Wikipedia page. It is here. Thanks for clearing this up, and for talking about it rather than us warring. I appreciate it. ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing nine years and I did not know CDO had a wikipedia article which apparently was created in 2012. Wow, thanks for pointing that out.

^{Pacific Hurricane} 02:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Yellow Evan: Ha ha ha! No worries. I'm happy I was able to help. ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to this, it is worth noting that Eugene generated swells to California.

^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Yellow Evan: I suppose so, but is a swell really a notable effect? I mean, Mexico would have received greater swells as the hurricane was Category 3 when it was closest to Mexico, compared to a storm or less for California, but Mexico hasn't been included. If we were to record high seas as effects for every storm, there would be heaps of places for every single cyclone. ChocolateTrain (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given it's enough to warrant inclusion in the season section, I think we should be conssitent and include such in the season effect charts. Baja California Peninsula is included but we don't have confirmation of swells along the rest of the Mexican coast. Also worth noting that not every storm has confirmation of high seas effects, and even if it did, let there be "heaps of places for every single cyclone".

^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, and the suggestion is simple: Take a look at the images uploaded by other people. This may help you prevent some minor issues. 🐱💬 05:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per the previous message from Meow as well, I would like to give you some suggestions and tips again. I would actually recommend to discover how people edit and how the page/article is set up. Like please do not make your own versions where everyone doesn't know about it, or if you think it may become a disaster, which I'm happy there's none of that yet. Also the PHS and PTS articles have different layouts, just to point it out. For images, again, if I were you, I would rather cut down the images you upload for a while and just discover how people make the images. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

bikeshedding and should stop.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Typhoon2013: OK, I'm actually sick and tired of this now. I am not an idiot, I do, contrary to popular belief, know what I'm doing, I'm extremely logical, and mostly everything I do, with the exception of a few errors of judgement here and there, is what I deem to be correct. I do not appreciate the condescending, patronising nature of the comments from you and other contributors. You make it out as if you are somehow superior to me, and that my contributions are inherently flawed and not even worth uploading in the first place (which you have unkindly said before). In fact, I would argue that the your ideas in terms of layout and other such things are backward and incorrect, not mine. I don't care if it's what 'everyone' else does. That doesn't mean it's correct, does it? Absolutely not. If you are an intelligent person, which I am sure you are, you should be able to see this and accept it. Just because it's different to what you have done before doesn't mean it's wrong. If everyone thought like that, we would still think the Earth is flat, that the celestial bodies in our solar system are in geocentric orbits, and other ridiculous things like that. It took people such as Galileo Galilei to show the people set in their ways that they were wrong.

Edits of mine are reverted oftentimes simply because it is me who has uploaded them. This was highlighted recently when @MarioProtIV reverted the gallery image and the most recent image, which you then followed suit on. This directly contradicts your own arguments for using the gallery or most recent image, which shows that either those arguments have no substance, or that you and others simply have your own agendas. My edit summaries and talk page comments, which I spend a long time and a lot of effort writing, are regularly ignored either in part or in full, and edits are consequently changed with complete disregard to the points I raised. When I provide a logical argument that is completely watertight, it is ignored in the reply to escape the truth, or answered with a completely irrelevant, unrelated, or otherwise inadequate statement. This was shown when the Paracel Islands were removed from the affected areas of Talas because they are a disputed territory of Vietnam and China. Who gives a crap if they are disputed!? They exist, don't they!? They are still islands with land above sea level, no matter who says they own them! You say you are a regular contributor on West Pacific articles, and as such you say you 'know how things are done'. Well, you are quite happy to have four island groups such as the Paracels in the 2016 article, without reverting them (this is just another proof of the fact that my edits are reverted just because they are my edits). In fact, there is an affected area called Midway Atoll which is an enormous 6.2 square kilometres, is officially defined as an "unorganised, unincorporated territory", is about 2000 km from the nearest landmass (Hawaii), and has a grand total of zero people living there. I'd say that's not a state or country, wouldn't you think!? But it's still included. Additionally, Typhoon Ioke in 2006 affected Wake Island. This just so happens to be a disputed territory, but that's fine, isn't it, because I didn't put it there. Someone else, 'superior' and 'more professional' than me, put it there. If it was me who had have put California as an affected area of Hurricane Eugene, it would have been removed faster than you could even say 'California'. But it's still there, because someone better than me uploaded it (I'm not worried about this particular California point now, as I have discussed it with a logical and reasonable person in @Yellow Evan). Another thing, please check who uploads things before you demonise the wrong people. You have done that to me heaps of times now.

A Wikipedia policy is to discuss in edit summaries exactly why you revert a change. You are not allowed to use abbreviations. You violate this all the time with my edits, and you obviously regard me as of too little importance to waste your brainpower typing an edit summary. But there may be a reason for that. It's because, most of the time, my edit was actually a good one, so there is nothing to write in the revert summary, because you shouldn't be reverting it. Today, you also edited the 2017 Pacific hurricane season article with an edit summary of "ok, sure (??)". What does that even mean? How is that summarising your edit? That's manipulating the system to give you higher percentages for edit summaries by including random strings of words and characters. Additionally, Wikipedia also says that (for example, a picture) if you change the original, then it gets reverted, do not continually revert without talking. You and other contributors did exactly the opposite with the Dora image. Additionally, it does not look good at all that you were being backed up in the Dora image by a sock puppet whose name I had never even seen before. A convicted, indefinitely blocked (on Wikipedia) sock puppet just 'somehow' happened to locate our very dispute and back your opinion. Hmm. Interesting. And then you go to his talk page, where his appeal for block removal has been denied eight times, and call him a 'new user'. Furthermore, you denigrate and spite me on his talk page. This does not look good for you, if I'm honest. Also, I spent 7 hours writing more than 2000 words showing why my Dora image was better, and neither you nor MarioProtIV, both of whom I pinged, made any effort to reply... but the image was still changed in the article a number of times. Unacceptable.

You also ignore the comments of people such as @Jason Rees and @Jasper Deng, who have been very kind to come to my aid and stand up for me, telling you to read my comments properly and thoroughly. You say that you know what to do because you have been in the WikiProject for a long time, but you are contradicting your own argument of 'respect for superiority' by ignoring senior editors like Jason and Jasper. You are digging a hole for yourself, and the sides are getting steeper and the hole's getting deeper—be careful that you can get back out again. Also, please be more eloquent and clear in your comments on talk pages. I sometimes have difficulty understanding parts of what you're saying.

With the 'JTWC BT' thing, how can you not know what that means? I've seen you write that in edit summaries heaps of times. Additionally, I'm sure you know very well that JTWC's advisories come out at least 3, sometimes even 4 hours late. Using their vector statements for the cyclone's location is completely inaccurate. For example, Severe Tropical Storm Nanmadol was moving at over 50 km/h at one stage. That would put the vector out by possibly 150 km in the time it takes for them to release the advisory! You cannot use that.

Another thing which I have discussed but was ignored in part was why you can't use 'South China' to describe Hainan and a tiny portion of Guangdong. It doesn't matter that Talas has affected two of the provinces in South China. It is the actual area that matters. If Talas made landfall in China and went a bit northward, like Nanmadol, then absolutely use South China, because it would have affected a significant portion of the region. Currently, Talas has affected about 8% of the very conservative definition of South China. That's equivalent to saying that a cyclone affecting only the region from about Volusia County in Florida to about Liberty County in Georgia affected the "East Coast of the United States". You would no way say that. You would just say "Florida and Georgia". That is a conservative equivalent, and a helpful comparison.

There are other things I could have said, but I'm going to leave it there for now. I just want to reiterate that I don't appreciate being looked upon and treated as an insignificant fool on Wikipedia, and as if I don't know anything. I would also like you to understand that it is not good for so many 'norms' to exist so concretely and stagnate the articles. I completely understand that some things must be maintained for continuity of course. There are other things, however, like the images, where I feel I deserve more respect and input. I make sure what I upload is good quality, as I am a high-achiever and a perfectionist, and I hate poor standards and results. You may possibly think I'm being rude or unkind in this long essay thing, but I am not. I am simply being assertive and truthful, and a long articulation such as this has been needed for a long time now. I truly hope you and the other editors will start to see me in a new light from now on. Kind regards, ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WT:WPTC so everyone can chime in?--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Just first, I am really sure, after some years of editing here, I have never used the term "idiot" to anyone because that is like crossing the line. For the JTWC Bt thing, I do mention that in my edit summaries but not in the case that I've talked to you about. I only put "JTWC BT" if the JTWC has released their Best Track Data for the storm. But again as I said "trackfile" is the other word I use. The rest, I and a couple of users like JR have discussed it in the other talk page. @Jasper Deng: Maybe, not just us, but to people who frequently edit within the project, especially to users who are new, maybe we should clarify what is best, or to have some 'changes' in layouts or terms etc. I mean, you already know for sure, I have been in 'chaos' few years ago discussing with other users about dealing with some people with images and changing layouts or false info etc. Also JD, atm you are the only user here who is disrespectful to me in the past year aside people like JR, Meow and Hurricanehink; I really do not trust you that much than way before, but now I do not know. Also ChocolateTrain I am not attacking you or anything, but don't worry I was just in your situation when I was new here so yes we are in the same boat and have been through what you are going through now. If this gets sorted then I would love to work with you in the near future because I do have loads of helps in some articles. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

bite

them either. Like I said, you probably did not mean to call ChocolateTrain an "idiot", but to him, it seemed to be implied, hence why he appears to be upset in the comment above. If you are unable to avoid writing in a condescending manner, then again, please avoid writing comments like the above one here.

It is also very normal for experienced users to give other experienced users advice. Except, I have been both frustrated and disappointed that you have chosen to disregard my advice. Please do not confuse constructive criticism with incivility. You have a userbox stating intention to become an admin here, but unless and until you think critically about your edits (rather than simply saying "everyone else is doing it"), you will get nowhere near there. The same goes with using edit summaries, and knowing your limits: while we encourage editors to be bold, once you have established that a certain action is beyond your limits (in this case, giving "warnings" or "advice" to other editors), please heed that.

I'll make it pretty simple. You can either take this advice to heart and become a better editor, and possibly an admin candidate, or you can ignore it, in which case

WP:CIR, along with warnings for you, likely will come into play.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Typhoon2013: Firstly, I looked through the last 14 months or so of your discussions with @Jasper Deng on your talk page, and not once did I see him being disrespectful towards you. What he did was fix errors here and there, and draw attention to certain things which needed improving.

I apologise for using JTWC BT. That was misinformation on my part. I will make sure to use 'trackfile' from now on so as to avoid confusion, and also to use the correct term. Also, I'm just wondering, what exactly is wrong with this image? @MarioProtIV (who has so far ignored most or all of my pings, comments and edit summaries for a while) reverted it when I uploaded it on the Pacific hurricane season article. He said that the eye is not as clearly defined in my image—that much is true. However, he also said that Fernanda was about to drop to Category 3, which isn't true (it was 5-6 hours away). In fact, the image he reverted to has 115 knot winds (same as mine), and was only taken within 1 hour of becoming category 4. The NHC also said that, although the system is a little less organised than yesterday, it has recently developed a large and symmetric area of outer convective banding (this was not at all present in the image reverted back to). As the system has been developing these new features, shouldn't they be included in the peak intensity image? Another thing... you and MarioProtIV are always telling me to use/follow the NASA gallery image. When I did this yesterday, my edit was reverted without even a summary. Why? ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All goods about the JTWC BT and no need to apologize. I'm sure that there's some sort of confusion there between us because when you "update (current) storms with JTWC BT", I did not really get that because the JTWC BT for the 2017 systems will not be released until next year, but let's end that conversation there because I don't want any more confusion with that. For the MarioProtIV image thing, as of making this comment, I have not yet seen what's been going on between you two and haven't seen the image just yet. But I do know that he does not start a topic about it/a discussion about it, which is really odd, because ofc for sure when something like that happen continuously I start a discussion. I think @MarioProtIV: should start a discussion about it next time, explaining his reasons why or his opinions etc. Images seem fine, however, though I am not the person who is more of an "image person" here in Wikipedia, even if I do constantly update and upload images, but the perfect person for images is Meow. She is great in images and you should talk to her for tips and suggestions. I am a user, but more to the updating information side. Anything more you want to sort things out or discussions or anything in particular before we have some chaos again? :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: "we have some chaos again" - please don't think of it this way. Also, I fixed your indentation as it seems clear you're replying to ChocolateTrain's comment above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: It's just a joke. That's why I have the indentation around the phrase. Especially how I put a ":)" at the end would describe it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChocolateTrain, regarding about the image you and MarioProtIV have been fighting about, both images are pretty decent to be used for the infobox, but I'm sorry but I personally think the other image is best to be used because the image is closer to its peak. Though again if I may request to have a slightly zoomed in image of that, as you did to the Eugene image. But then again, MarioProtIV needs to start a discussion instead of continuously reverting you with or without an edit summary with their explanation of some sort. I've been told and it has been the 'ritual' where the image used for the infobox has to be closer to its peak. Unless something happens like what happened before with Beatriz, if there is no image available (maybe due to lines or low-quality ones etc), then we go to the available one, if that makes sense. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am just trying to have the image in the infobox at peak. Not so sure what's wrong with that. The current one is at least 18 hours after peak, when it was undergoing an ERC, and in turn that has the eye less defined then it was at peak. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and first of all sorry if I am spamming your talk pages because I kind of have a problem with that. But for the Talas image you made, it looks amazing and does suit for its infobox. Though the only thing I spotted and find a little concerning is that there is a very thin black border around it. May I please request to take it out, and then if done, rv me edit. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: Firstly, I'm absolutely delighted that you think my image is good! I think the black border comes from Worldview when you download images. The reason I don't pick it up is because the photo editor's background on my computer is black. I cropped the image very slightly and then inserted it into a Word document with the white background to check if it was gone (it is). Also, rather than reverting your edit, I changed it back manually, so as not to increase your revert count. Thanks again. :) ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks for your reason for why you've done it. So doesn't mean the JMA is now tracking it, doesn't mean we remove the designation (08W). Yes the JMA is the RSMC for that basin, but for this case, no. This has been a 'stable' thing since then and is been listed like this for all PTS articles. This also includes other basins where two agencies are monitoring on a system (every basin except EPac + Atl). Also who told you, or where did you learn that "All TDs that are monitored by the JMA, regardless of whether the JTWC monitors them or even designates them first, are simply referred to as TD"? Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: I just assumed that, as the Japan Meteorological Agency is the official agency, the names and designations (or, more to the point in this case, non-designations of simply 'TD') given by them would be used as soon as they become available. I understand that unofficial numerical designations from the JTWC (such as 08W in this instance) would be used as placeholders for the time during which the JMA does not recognise the formation of a tropical depression, however I don't think that designation should be maintained as it has been superseded by an agency with more authority. Anyway, I don't really mind, but it just seems wrong to call it 08W now that more up-to-date information is available.

On the hypothetical circumstance that the JMA begins issuing advisories on the system (as in, if the sustained winds reach 30 knots), would we change it from 08W to TD? Just because it would specifically say on the advisory 'TD'. I don't know, but that would be my assumption should those circumstances occur. Hopefully it ends up developing, as more cyclones equals more excitement! ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict may increase if we remove the JTWC designation and follow JMAs, especially how the WPac is the most active basin globally. If the JMA starts issuing advisories on a designated system, I would still retain the designation because it described the storm more and there are loads of "TD"s like the 2016 article for example. We can't really just say "Tropical Depression", TD, TD etc because it would be really weird and you would be expecting a designated system that never reached a (named) tropical storm. Typhoon2013 (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: Yeah, alright. That's a good reason. It is annoying how the JMA just lists them as TDs rather than assigning actual numerical designations. I can see why it's beneficial to have the JTWC code when possible. Thanks for your help once again. ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright. Questions are fine because it makes me and other users learn too and how we use our TC knowledge. Again, I am really pleased on your reasons too because they are pretty good. The JMA do use designations, however, only when the system is determined as a tropical storm (eg: 1610, 1706). And imo it's really weird to have a TC designation higher than the number 40 (yes there were cases that designation numbers reached the 30s). Typhoon2013 (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

2016-17 Australian region cyclone season went up to 30U (which later became Greg). That was pretty spectacular for that region! Speaking of Greg, I really wish the BOM would release a tropical cyclone report on it, as I reckon it was stronger than 65 km/h. I took a screenshot the storm at 09:50 UTC on 30 April from the Himawari-8 satellite viewer on the BOM website. It looks WAY stronger than 35 knots... you can even see a pinhole eye! ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Correct and yes they should make a report on it. Speaking of the designations in the AusR, actually that was my first season where I finally speculated about the BoM designations. Because, if you may not know, the BoM is I should say the most confusing agency to have designations because in past events, they skip like the first system was 05U then the next was 12U. That year, we had all systems because I speculated if the "Tropical Lows" in the bulletins would have a designation. So I am looking forward and to test one more time for the 2017-18 season if I am right. Yes I do know that this is original research, but I really get pissed off at jumping designations because I love numbers. Typhoon2013 (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: I like numbers too (though sometimes maths at school annoys me because it seems so pointless). The BOM is my favourite agency in my biased opinion, as it's Australian and so am I (ha ha ha...). My favourite thing about the BOM is their forecast track maps. They look so good, especially when it's a large and powerful cyclone like Debbie. The colours are really nice, and they draw lovely smooth lines... unlike the JMA. I wish I could show you what I mean by Greg looking stronger, but I don't know if it's a free image, and I don't have the URL to provide a source in the upload. It's probably not 'way' stronger as I said originally, but it's almost definitely higher than 35 knots. ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should've asked this a while ago but what source do you use for "trackfile"? Are you using this? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry now. I'm sure you are using this. That's fine. Both sources are the same it's just that my one is delayed. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Fletcher was downgraded during BOM's BT process to a tropical low, that is why the page was moved to Tropical Low Fletcher.Jason Rees (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Mmmm... perhaps. It does say that it was a tropical low in that file, but then again it says in the official cyclone report, which is updated when new information becomes available, that it was a Category 1. Also, the maximum wind speed in that file you showed me is 18 m/s, which is a Category 1 tropical cyclone on the Australian scale. Additionally, and probably most significantly, on Page 13 of the Bureau of Meteorology's 2013-14 Annual Report, it states that Tropical Cyclone Fletcher crossed the coast as a Category 1 system. I can see that there are reasonable arguments for both sides; however, there are three pieces of evidence to say that it was a cyclone rather than just a low, and we can't ignore that fact. Thank you for your diligence in checking the validity of my edit, though. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last time i checked those cyclone reports are based on operational data and are thus only preliminary and are rarely updated after the BT Process takes place. Also while 35 knots does normally equal TC intensity, the BoM and Nadi apply a rule that states that gale force winds must extend 1/2 way around the centre before it is declared a TC. Also as far as I know, the BT Database that i cited over rules any reports that the BoM may produce and is often cited in the TCR's.

Also notice in that report: "All information relating to intensity and track is preliminary information based on operational estimates and subject to change following post analysis." As a result, I politely ask you to revert your edits to Fletcher or email the BoM for clarification.Jason Rees (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the data that BoM submitted to IBTRACS, which shows that it was downgraded to 30 kts and 995 hPa in BT. I then took a look at exactly when the BoM was alleging that it had 35 kts winds and it appears that it only had 35 kts for four hours. As a result, I feel we have enough to ignore the reports and go with the BT Data and downgrade Fletcher to a TL. However, I would like to invite @Jasper Deng, Hurricanehink, Cyclonebiskit, Yellow Evan, and Typhoon2013: to take a look at what im showing/saying here.Jason Rees (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChocolateTrain, regardless of who is right, please do not

WP:BRD applies here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Jason Rees: Hmm, well it depends on how BoM does their BT system and when they do it. If the BT came out after the official TC report then I would go with that. Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: Here there's no ambiguity: the report explicitly says it's operational and preliminary (see Jason's quote above) and BT always takes precedence over operational estimates.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: Yeah but you have that one case from 2011's Talas where the JMA operationally had it as a TY, then it was downgraded to a STS for its BT and was upgraded back to a TY again. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very interested to know where the JMA re-upgraded Talas 2011 to a typhoon, both the BT Folder and the final yealry report state that it was an STS at peak.Jason Rees (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: It has been stated in its article since then or the 're-analysis'. Also before I joined Wikipedia, I noticed this as I visited the article a lot. Perhaps checking the "View history" box gives more proof what previous editors did. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes @Typhoon2013: I think that people are not aware that the data is checked in the cold light of day, but regardless we always follow the latest best tracked data available to us. Which means that in this case we should be calling Fletcher a tropical low with either 30 or 35 kt winds rather than a full blown tropical cyclone because of the gale force wind rule.Jason Rees (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know you downloaded them from NOAA View Global Data Explorer. I also have downloaded many from it, yet your images are ridiculously blurred comparing to mine. Could you upload the original pictures with a better ratio next time? And I need to say that we do not need to only use MODIS or VIIRS images, if there are better ones from Himawari-8. 🐱💬 06:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Meow: Yes, I know the images I get from NOAA View are blurry. However, this is unavoidable as far as I can see, considering the satellite imagery viewer only gives SNPP images to 750-metre resolution. Do you know how to fix this? Also, the Himawari-8 image is not better. It is very dark, the colouring is completely off, and it looks frightful. Sometimes the Himawari-8 image is better, like with your image for Severe Cyclonic Storm Mora, but in this case, no. However, I would greatly appreciate it if you could tell me how to 'un-blur' the images from NOAA View. ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use their “Capture Image” function and select the full resolution. If this does not work, you will have to check how you handle your images. I uploaded a huge picture for an extratropical cyclone from NOAA View before and that is so clear. I will upload the same one with a different filename as an example for you. Besides, I prefer JPEG for MODIS and VIIRS images. 🐱💬 07:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that those NOAA View images cannot be handled properly by Wikimedia Commons. I use the JPEG format with the 95% quality, yet this problem is solved. 🐱💬 07:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask you why you uploaded the same Noru picture one hour after? Your timestamp is wrong, and the ratio as well as the scale are not more proper than what I uploaded. Could you really notice the difference of what we did to the same pictures? I need to say sorry, but this really upsets me. 🐱💬 06:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC) You also have a big problem on MODIS and VIIRS images: You don’t know their original resolution so you have artificially enlarged many images; that take people more time to download. I appreciate that you have contributed a lot, but it seems I have to fix what you have done many times. 🐱💬 08:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should not take much time on updating people’s images slightly, and what you have done is making the quality worse as you did not handle the quality of JPEG properly. Besides, what I have uploaded are presumed to be better than the ones from the gallery. In 2016, even NASA copied my picture for Emeraude, and English Wikipedia selected my Patricia picture as featured. Could you trust a bit more on other people’s effort?

For the Noru picture on July 31, honestly, we should not darken the details too much, for it actually looks very bright in real. 🐱💬 07:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, that we follow the JTWC follow the distances. Yes you are right that we follow the RSMC, but no, for this instance we only follow the JTWC ONLY for this, nothing else. This has been the layout (for PTS articles) ever since. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: No, this time I refuse. The JTWC coordinates are different to the JMA coordinates, which makes the distances inherently incorrect by the very way they are calculated. The JTWC distances are always at least 3 hours late, and will range up to 9 hours incorrect before they release their next advisory. Displaying such incorrect data is irresponsible and unacceptable. Additionally, it clearly states that the JTWC provides information solely for US government interests, in particular the US navy. As such, they give distances from places that have effectively no use to any normal person reading the article. Places such as Learmonth Air Base, Kadena Air Base, Wake Island and Minami-Tori-shima. The single reason the current infobox even exists is to give useful and potentially important information to the public on the strength and whereabouts of cyclones. Listing distances in terms of air bases which literally no one has heard of (I live in Australia, and I can guarantee with 100% certainty that basically no one who lives outside of a small area in Western Australia will have heard of the RAAF's Learmonth base) is ridiculous on a public encyclopedia. The same goes for Kadena Air Base. They are not useful whatsoever to anyone other than the specific intended audience of the JTWC's advisories—the US navy.

If it's too much effort to calculate the distances based on the up-to-date and correct JMA coordinates, then let me do it. I am very happy to do it myself, as I enjoy doing it. But I will continue to change the incorrect JTWC distances to the correct JMA distances for as long as it is necessary to do so. Thank you for your understanding. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: Also, if I may add, I would like to iron out something. The fact that something has been done in the past does not make it right, even if it has been done for a long time. Holding that as a reason for sticking with something is logically fallacious. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for replying late. Regarding about the time, they are the same as the JMAs. I did have the same problem as you before, but I was not fully reading the advisory back then. If for example the JTWC issues an advisory during 03Z, then the storm's information was during 00Z (if you read the advisory you will understand). Also it does not have to be from the storm's advisory itself because the JTWC issues the WPac advisories every 6 hours. It doesn't matter if people know the place or not, and that's the reason why ofc, we use hyperlinks. Also there is no source where you get the distances from, so we still to whatever information we have. So please keep it this way. Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: The JMA must have changed what they do since last you looked, because it clearly says on their advisories "Analysis at 09 UTC, 6 August", which is issued just 45 minutes later, not three hours. Also, what you said about the JTWC, that's exactly my point. It is issued three hours late at earliest, then it is another 6 hours until they issue the next one. 3+6=9, so it is 9 hours late as I said originally. And it does matter if people don't know where they are. Hyperlinks are meant to explain difficult concepts and to extend the breadth of the reader's knowledge, not to direct a reader somewhere because we're too lazy to make it easier for them. Also, I don't need a source. It is literally the Earth. It is a finite, concrete distance from Point A to Point B. Anyone can work it out. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not accepting this, especially when you said "I don't need a source". Everything needs to have a source. Because if you use your own distances, people will be like "how could we trust you?" which is the same for me. Also you are not the agency itself, unless you really are working in a RSMC agency, but I highly doubt that. According to guidelines, we use JTWC for distances. JMA does not use distances as well so sorry. I guess you really just have to get used to the layout(s) within all articles from the WPTC. Any problems with you aside from this topic, I do not see any, so I really hope you do follow the things you've learnt by now. Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Typhoon2013 we do apply some common sense when putting distances in and at times I just take a position and measure it in google earth or using one of the numerous lat/long calculators that are available. As for using JTWC over JMA that's just pure and utter tosh and the standard should be changed if there really is a standard. Also Typhoon2013 I feel that you need to lay off some of the advice giving and try and concentrate on ensuring accuracy in what you are saying.Jason Rees (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Well if the user makes a change of some sort of layout, then (s)he should start a discussion about it with another user or leave a message over in the WPTC talk page. This is to clarify other users that there is a "new" thing, and would help reduce edit warring and conflicts. Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is very improper to remove a valid citation or a proof for a fact in Wikipedia, and I hope you will never do it again. Besides, I am very tired of talking about people’s issues. Please let me take a rest by doing things better. 🐱💬 13:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Meow: Umm... I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. I don't remember removing anyone's citation, and if I did, I'm sure it was either accidental or it was for a good reason. Sorry if this caused you distress, though you need to be a bit more resilient, especially considering this is an encyclopedia which is open for everyone to edit—Wikipedia encourages everyone to be bold with their edits. Please remember to assume good faith, and not take everything personally. Also, no one is saying you have to hound me about my supposed flaws, so you have brought that tiredness upon yourself. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you removed one here by accident ChocolateTrain, but the main question on my lips is why are we putting citations in the lead, when the leads are not supposed to contain refs or include facts that arent already in the article.Jason Rees (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I forgot to discuss this before, but if you would like, you could help improve articles by adding information in, especially for the 'Preparations and Impacts' section. I'm not forcing you to and you don't have to do this, but it's just a suggestion for you to 'extend' yourself as a user if you can see yourself contributing further to the project in the coming months (hopefully years). I really wanted to do this, like to work with someone who is new because why not? I have done similarly to this before two years ago with a user, though sadly the user other stuff going in his life and barely edits now. So anyways, if you do accept and start working on it, I suggest you to start with WPac storm articles because there are a lot of articles that have 'problems'. It would be great for you so, again, you could extend yourself and you could contribute with other users (if you don't know some) and especially how I'm focusing on other minor stuff like adding OS and switching ACEs for the WPac etc, plus I have exams to get ready soon in a couple of months, so my edits will go down around those times. Any questions if you would like to ask or comments or anything, just leave a message either in my talk page or by pinging me, as usual. Typhoon2013 05:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching Perth's first low of the season - however, rather than referring to the analysis chart it might be better to refer to RSMC La Reunion ITCZ bulletin for meteorological details since realistically its in their AOR.Jason Rees (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep and just a tip, I would suggest not to put "too much" information in just a small system, especially if a system will be likely to be moved to the OS section, unless this system has its own section. If you don't know one of my concerns here is the length of a season article when it becomes too big like the PTS articles and we may see a likeliness to that for the AusR articles too, with the 2016-17 article having a big OS section. Though everything seems fine and still love the efforts you're putting in the project as usual and keep up the good work. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add the parent categories if there have been already the proper categories. What you have done may make categories disorganised. 🐱💬 07:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep ignoring facts and suggestions from other editors in Wikipedia. I have said many times that you should not enlarge any satellite image and pretend that the images are with “better resolution”. The best resolution of a VIIRS sensor is 375 meter, but what you have uploaded are incorrectly larger than the sensor resolution. I also corrected images with the proper ratio and scale, but you just reverted them with a such impolite way. This is my last explanation about this issue. If you continue providing incorrect efforts throughout Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, I will take action seriously. 🐱💬 05:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Meow: Meow, I appreciate that you are trying to help; however, the manner in which are acting is not appropriate. Firstly, I do not ignore people, and I don't see how I've ignored facts before. Also, I may have expressed disagreement with some suggestions, but that does not at all mean I have ignored them. Just because you may not like that I have presented reasons that refute your 'suggestions' does not give you the right to demonise me and allege untrue accusations.

Your accusation that I am enlarging photos and pretending they have better resolution is entirely inaccurate and displays a lack of faith in my contributions. I am not a liar, and would not claim that something was the case if indeed it was not, to the best of my knowledge. I either click the 125-m or 250-m resolution on Worldview, and consequently I receive images with far more pixels than the ones you provided. Also, can you please tell me where it says that the maximum possible resolution is 375 metres? I don't doubt you, but I want to see it.

Also, you cannot assume that whatever you do is correct and whatever I do is wrong. That is just simply self-important, distrusting, and dismissive of my efforts, opinions and contributions as simply folly and a waste of space. That is the way you are acting. To quote your own instructions to me, "Could you trust a bit more on other people's effort?" You have previously requested that I not update other people's uploaded content. There are a number of problems with that (one particular one being that this is Wikipedia...), but the one I am most frustrated about is that you evidently regard your own actions as too important to be governed by that rule which you so willingly stamp on me. Since telling me not to change your uploads, you have changed my uploads a number of times without any compunction whatsoever. It is utter hypocrisy and is completely unfair.

I don't agree with your highly arrogant and supercilious assertion that your uploads are (quote), "presumed to be better than the ones from the gallery". Your pictures are so presumed by who, exactly? Yourself, no doubt, but I can't think of many others who would agree with that comment. Indeed, Typhoon2013 certainly wouldn't agree, as he favours gallery images. I am sure some of your pictures are better than some of the pictures on NASA's gallery, but it does not follow that all of your pictures are necessarily better.

You keep saying that you are 'correcting' or 'fixing' my (and others') images in terms of their scale or ratio. You can't attach words such as those. They are 'correct' or 'fixed' in your mind, perhaps, but not in mine. My opinion has equal weight to yours. Additionally, I often explain at length why I do things, whereas you regularly provide disjointed and confusing reasons for particular actions. An example of this is your recent comment on my talk page about categories. It was evident to you that I was not informed on the conventions for the categorisation of cyclone images, which is demonstrated by the fact that you left me a message correcting me. However, I do not really understand what you mean by 'parent categories' and 'proper categories', as you have not explained your self-created terms. A message such as that is not useful, as it conveys no meaningful information to the recipient. I think what you mean is to only put, for example, "Typhoon Banyan" instead of "2017 Pacific typhoon season" and "Pacific typhoons in the 2010s" as categories, but I'm not sure. If that is what you meant, then why do those categories even exist on Wikimedia Commons if we're not meant to put images in them?

Lastly, I am not impolite. I pride myself on being well-mannered, polite and respectful in the way in which I conduct myself. You could ask anyone I know, and they would agree. I do not understand how my efforts can be 'incorrect', as you called them. You often complain to me about having to endlessly 'fix' my so-called 'mistakes'. Well, you don't have to 'fix' what I do, as there's nothing wrong with what I do. I'd appreciate it if you stopped pretending that you are somehow superior to me and have to tediously 'fix' all my 'mistakes', because that is not at all the case. There's a very simple way to not be tired of 'fixing' my so-called mistakes: don't 'fix' them. Also, I do not appreciate this continual harassment which is verging on bullying. I will not accept you threatening me into submission by warning you will take "serious action", and manipulating me to your will because you are annoyed and spiteful because not everyone holds your romanticised opinion that your pictures are glorious. And, ultimately, if you do feel like getting rid of me, who you undoubtedly consider an enemy and a blemish in this community, then be my guest and request an external opinion. I am fully confident that they will find no wrong in any of my actions, as I am certain that everything I do is the best interest of the cyclone articles and Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you for your understanding. Kind regards, ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you had not ignored, why haven’t you felt anything wrong about what you have done? For the VIIRS resolution, there has been already a Wikipedia article explaining it clearly, why wouldn’t you do some research before keeping objecting my opinions? My efforts are confirmed by English Wikipedia and people selected mine as a featured picture. Moreover, NASA even directly copied what I have done to Intense Tropical Cyclone Emeraude. As some of yours are with lots of significant issues, why shouldn’t I correct them?

I have paid much efforts on all of things I uploaded. I highly restrict myself to follow the proper scale by finding out the eye’s location very carefully. I also restrict myself on resizing the image to the nadir of the sensor resolution. However, it seems that all of my efforts are meaningless to you. I have my life and my time. If you can upload images without significant issues, I will be very glad. Yet, the current situation is that you have not done it as what I have expected.

You claim you are not impolite, but you describe me as utter hypocrisy, highly arrogant, and supercilious. If double standards are okay with you, it will be fine. I accept your personal attack. 🐱💬 10:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Meow: Please reread the phrasing of my above comments carefully. At no time did I call you a hypocrite, arrogant or supercilious. It was very clear in the construction of the sentences, paragraphs and evidence contained therein that I was referring to certain actions of yours. To be honest, I don't see how you can deny that, either. It is plainly obvious to me that when you tell me not to edit your uploads, then you proceed to edit my uploads, your actions are clearly hypocritical. Additionally, I would say that the word arrogant describes very well you saying that your images are "presumed to be better than the ones from the gallery", and then telling me many times that the images I work on are worse than yours by default.

Also, just because I asserted and defended myself from your incessant harassment does not make me impolite. I did not call you names, I did not swear at you, and I did nothing, having reread my comment many times, that should label me as impolite. I am concerned that you feel that my comment above is a personal attack. In no way is that the case, or was that the intended purpose. I am exercising my right as a human being to assert my opinion and defend myself against continual accusations. I wish to be afforded some decent respect.

Despite what you may think, I also spend a lot of time editing the images I download to improve their appearance before I upload them to Commons. That quality is not unique to you. Indeed, on my most recent image (which you have rejected once again), I have followed all of your suggestions. I have adjusted the aspect ratio so that it is similar to your uploads, I have not made the image too dark, I have put the eye in the centre, I only clicked the 250-m resolution (it was a MODIS instrument this time, not VIIRS), and I specifically used the non-rounded exact time at which the photo was taken. Your image followed hardly any of these—your own—conventions. Then you proceeded to say that my timecode was wrong and thus my image warrants removing from the article and replacing with your own. How is this fair, according to your own standards? By the way, see here to find that the photo was taken at 02:52 UTC, not 02:50 as you claimed.

Finally, and once again, me objecting to your opinions or suggestions does not mean I have ignored them. You once again presented this falsehood in your reply. And no, your efforts are not meaningless to me at all. The same is unlikely to be said on your opinion of my efforts, though, considering I have 'not done it as what you expected'. Anyway, I need to do other things at the moment. I don't have time to continue this conversation right now. ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to your edit summary, even if you didn't mean it, please watch your words and be careful of what you say as I also found that a personal attack to another user and haven't seen any of this here in my Wikipedia lifetime. Also backing up Meow, I have deleted your image and merged it to the 0250Z version, sorry. Next time when uploading images, if you make a mistake, then use the move button. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:54 August 2017 (UTC)

As I have already posted my last explanation, I should not respond to this new statement. I hope what you think is not to declare war against editors. 🐱💬 16:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at

• FWIW I feel that it would be good for you too comment there and state exactly how you feel.Jason Rees (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at 2017 Pacific typhoon season. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Your edit summary left with the edit you made here is not the proper way to discuss a dispute. Please take your concerns to the article's talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:09, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After a discussion made with other editors regarding what distances we should use, it was decided to retain the usage of distances from the JTWC, as (despite) using the JMA coordinates and calculating distances our own is

@Typhoon2013: No it isnt OR to be calculating the distances and you need to get out of that mindset. As I said to Jasper, im sure Google will have taken factored in to its products geodesics especially since the warning centers use it.Jason Rees (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: Something is only considered original research if the information is not available and does not yet exist; that is, it would require scientific experimentation or other such investigation and related analysis in order to produce new concepts and data. That is not the case with physical and concrete distances across the topographical surface of the Earth. The information is readily available to anyone and it is permanent. It is not as if calculating a distance between two distinct locations using Google Earth (as I do it) or another similar latitude/longitude or mapping program is creating anything unique or original. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You liked 2230Z, while i liked 2231Z. I want to avoid debating with you at first by saying simple sentences (i simply said No for example), but it seems that you want to debate with me, for real. Okay, let's go and i'll wait for your reply in my talk page. Thanks! :)--

@

SMB99thx: There are a number of reasons why I think the 2230Z image if better than the 2231Z one. One of them is that the 2231Z image has colours that are duller and more faded than the 2230Z image. In an image, it is important to have good visual vibrancy and hue so it is actually a good picture to look at. The 2230Z image is also lighter overall, which makes it a little better again (I can improve this further if this is desired). In the 2230Z image, the eye of Hurricane Harvey is displayed clearly closer up to reveal the true strength of the hurricane. The 2231Z image seems to have a fair bit of wasted space in it. There's a lot of area which, for the purpose of the image, is basically empty. I understand that images will obviously not, and should obviously not, be filled entirely with the cyclone, but there should by also be a convention that says too little space occupied by the subject matter is not good. Anyway, I've got to do some study, so I can't continue this conversation now. Sorry... ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@ChocolateTrain: Okay. I am agreeing in most (or all) of your statements, but i believe that even 2231z is poorer, here is my cons for 2230z and pros for 2231z: First, i believe 2230z looks more like a late 1980's to pre-1995's images: primarily on shadows in that satellite images, pixelations and the background. Shadows, when compared to modern times it's more unnatural (much more solid and maybe larger than it looks). Based on background, it looks like that the Earth isn't rotating, so it's obviously unnatural. And even seriously, due to that looks it might make some people think it's pixelated even it's not IR so it'll be perceived as... Usually, in any means this would make people remind of 1990's storms satellite images (mostly for ones who experience it). This could make people think that satellite image is old and antiquated while also bit horrifying, which could make some people turn off from that page. While 2231z, despite more darker it looks more better and had a big potential to become a featured image for obvious reasons. It also looked more natural (and true color) than the 2230z itself. This one could attract more people due to "trendy" looks too. I personally believe that tend to people ignore and won't care that wasted space (with the exception of the resolution of the image and/or too much close or too far out) regardless of you trying to do. Secondly, you notice that i said "with the exception of the resolution of the image and/or too much close or too far out". I have been talked to Cyclonebiskit about it and he said that the 2230z is better for main page purposes, which could also mean that people tend to factor it based on resolution and opposite factor of the space, which means that if it's closer it's much more better on smaller infobox. If it's much more outer, it's much more better on larger infobox, which also means much more larger image. I refused to change your edit after seeing that 2230z is better on smaller infobox, but i opposed your edit directly into larger infobox on the Hurricane Harvey article. And finally, third, i don't see some of the people actually complaining about the 2231z eye (they'll just ignore it but most of the time they accept it), which i mean you think that 2230z would represent the better eye one but the people says not (see Wilma 2005 and take your look on satellite image of Wilma). So, i think that you do recently on Hurricane Harvey is (maybe) just to put a fear on some people as i said many times and i can't accept you on that. But otherwise i respected your actions in some images (particularly then WPAC and EPAC) for bettering them anyways... :)

So, that's my arguments about the cons of 2230z and the pros of 2231z. I've reverted all of your edits about 2231z to 2230z (and you even changed the style of the infobox, which i doesn't like it and might be close into vandalism primarily). Before you want to undo my edit about that, please you had to know about this Wikipedia law...

I should note that I am not the only person whose images you have been deleting en masse because you dislike a particular aspect of theirs. A very quick look at your talk page shows that you have been doing this to two other users in the last four days. Additionally, to their 13 lines of queries, you responded with an extremely inadequate response of nine words, showing once again that you seemingly have little time or care for anyone else's concerns. Back in 2017, I left a message on your talk page regarding two instances where you had designated my files for deletion with entirely false reasons, to which you failed to respond. Additionally, I have found almost 20 instances of people complaining to you on the first of three archives of your talk page on Wikimedia Commons regarding you designating their files for deletion due to completely false allegations of copyright infringement or no source provided, and lots of other things like that. This is clearly a habitual and frequent behaviour, and it quite frankly needs to stop because it is bullying.

Regarding the image for Cyclone Veronica, I was the first person to upload a peak intensity image for the system, so really, if you didn't like it, you should have been the one contacting me about it rather than choosing to switch it to the one you uploaded then aggressively reverting anyone who disagreed with you. In my edit summary, I addressed a number of issues with your image. Your responses did not make sense, and some were just completely false (a pattern that seems to be repeating a fair bit here). For example, you claim that your image is 'more centred'. Well, do I have news for you! The eye of Cyclone Veronica is 56.5 mm horizontal distance from both edges in my image (according to the size displayed on my computer), and 0.5 mm from being centred vertically. This is compared to your image, where the eye is located 53 mm from the left for a 109 mm width image (so 1.5 mm from the centre), and 73 mm from the bottom for a 148 mm image (0.5 mm from the centre). So basically, both images are about as centred as you can possibly make them, and if you were really going to push the point, mine is actually more centred. I am not sure how you decided that mine was less centred, but it evidently was not based on any sort of facts whatsoever, and just existed to serve your own agenda. You also stated that my image is brighter, which is true. However, you then said that your image supposedly shows the structure of the cyclone better. I'm not really sure how you came to that conclusion using a logical approach, because both images show the cyclone's structure fine. Once again, however, I would contend that it is actually my image which is superior in this regard if you were going to argue the point, given that your lower brightness and decreased contrast has actually introduced a visibly apparent light grey haze across the entire image, which actually serves to obscure the finer details in the cloud tops and land areas. You also mentioned in reply to my statement that your photo's resolution is significantly less than that of mine by saying (and I quote): "resolution is not an absolute tools". What is that even supposed to mean!? Firstly, resolution isn't a tool, so I'm not exactly sure what you're saying by that. I am guessing that by saying 'absolute' in regards to resolution and 'tools' you are implying that resolution is subjective, which is patently incorrect. Either way, your response in this regard is both illogical and incoherent, and does not serve to refute my factually true claim in any capacity whatsoever. There is no point uploading an image with far less detail when one that has higher resolution already exists. You have also completely ignored the fact that the timestamp in your image title is completely wrong. The only image taken at 06:40 UTC on 21 March was by the Aqua satellite, capturing the southern Indian Ocean more than 500 km southwest of the Australian mainland. Furthermore, Aqua did not capture an image of Veronica that day, as it was too far to the west and east on subsequent passes. Later in your description of your photo, you contradict yourself by saying that the photo was actually taken on 20 March. This can be shown to be false by the fact that the cyclone looked nothing like that on 20 March. I find it quite hypocritical, as I have mentioned before, that you nominate so many of people's images for deletion for reasons like copyright, incorrect source, incorrect name, etc. which are entirely false allegations, but you then completely ignore it when I mention a provable inaccuracy in your own upload. You will see that I didn't mark your file for deletion, though.

In conclusion, I ask that you cease your bullying and nastiness towards me and other editors, and that you begin to show consistency between the things that you tell others to do and the things that you do. Regarding the Veronica image, I have shown above that the 0219Z version (technically they are both 0219Z, just yours is incorrectly labelled in two different ways) cannot be objectively deemed as inferior to the image which you uploaded, and as such, it should be the photo used for the article. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

@

B dash: Thanks for notifying me of this! I must have missed it when I was proofreading my comment. Though, it's definitely unnecessary to have the whole template thing with the Welcome to Wikipedia spiel—I've made more than 2000 edits and been here for 2 years. It was a simple oversight. Thanks again for letting me know. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Feel free to message me back on my talk page or here. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given your writing skills, have you considered making an article for Veronica? It’s likely to be retired, given the damage and strength. That’s an article Wikipedia needs. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take notice of Hurricanehink's comments Chocolate Train as he is more experienced than me at writing TC articles. However, a couple of general comments for you. You are allowed to abbreviate the warning centres down to JTWC/BoM and the article would benefit from it. There is no need to list every single category change - just the major ones like TL to C1 or C2 to C3 but for obvious reasons, this varies between MH's. Wallace. You also need to be careful with dates as I that Wallaces PTCR states that it was a TL on April 3 not April 1.Jason Rees (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I want to add, if you make an article for Cyclone Veronica, you already have the experience of writing detailed about a storm. I hope you aren't discouraged by the merge proposal. Several of my earliest articles were deleted or redirected. The eventual goal of Wikipedia is to have a complete documentation of every known tropical cyclone in existence. You've proven with Wallace than you can be thorough. You should put those skills with Veronica, but that's just some random editor speaking. You have good potential as a writer. I think you just need the right challenge to hone your skills. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Firstly, thank you for the time you have taken to write all of your comments. I am very frustrated with the whole process. I spent a month writing that article (sure, not non-stop, but a lot of time). I archived 30 official advisories, collected 60 references, monitored weather observations like a hawk, and painstakingly compiled a detailed picture of the cyclone through its lifetime—and one that I truly hoped would be appreciated. I was meticulous in making sure there were no errors, whether factual, grammatical, formatting-related or otherwise, and ensured that there were no ambiguities in my writing. I truly never could have anticipated the backlash that I would receive for investing this much time and effort into something which I was doing to benefit Wikipedia, the WikiProject, and public knowledge. I could understand an objection to writing an article such as this for an uneventful tropical depression, or even a Category 1 or Category 2 system (on the Australian scale). I cannot, however, accept the objections to my article on Cyclone Wallace. It was a severe tropical cyclone—a hurricane equivalent system—which affected land areas. The purpose of the notability conventions on Wikipedia are to prevent the creation of stub articles with no information, or articles about extremely niche, fringe topics—articles which, to some extent, are detrimental to Wikipedia. The article I wrote on Cyclone Wallace, however, was far from a stub, and one on a topic which people may find genuinely interesting. The existence of such an article is of benefit to Wikipedia. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the first place that most people consult when they are interested in a topic is Wikipedia. The article I composed provided the best easily-accessible coverage of the cyclone available anywhere. The level of detail in the season article might be sufficient to satisfy a transient observer, but it would leave a more interested reader wanting more. To be able to read about Cyclone Wallace with the thoroughness exhibited by the article in another place would require a reader to mine the best track database of the Bureau of Meteorology. Even then, this would provide pure statistics only, with no reasoning or explanations. In deciding whether an article should be deleted, I think it is very important to think critically about the actual benefits and consequences that such an action would have, and then whether or not those actions can fairly be justified. I do not think such an evaluation took place in this circumstance. There were no benefits drawn from deleting the article. Wikipedia did not rid itself of a poorly constructed, badly sourced or otherwise sub-par article, and the WikiProject did not arrive at a higher standard of content than it had previously possessed; the outcome in this sense was neutral at best. The effects, however, were that the public lost access to a freely accessible information source, and the tens of hours of work done by the article's author (that is to say, myself) was trashed, amounting to nothing. Now, I understand that I have a conflict of interest in making such an argument, given that I was the author; however, I would like to believe that I have made a fair account of the matter. I suppose the crux of this entire deliberation is that the fact that some editors would not have made a particular article originally, is not a logically sound argument for the alleged necessity of its deletion post-publication. Although many would not have been bothered to write such an article, I went to the effort of doing so. I would contend that this article brings the WikiProject one step closer to its ultimate goal of having, as you concisely put it, "a complete documentation of every known tropical cyclone in existence". I would very much appreciate it if you would consider revising the deletion. Thank you once again for your time. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand the frustration with Wallace. On the surface, it appears like the most significant body of work for the storm, and in a way, it was. I'd like to compare Wallace with the Lili article you made, which is much better, if only for the reason that Lili caused more impacts. Lili is half the size, because it didn't last as long, but the impacts are more thorough. If you keep updating Lili's article, I imagine it would pass a good article nomination fairly easily. For Wallace, you really scratched the bottom of the barrel in terms of adding information, and the article read as one that was rather bloated and pointless. The storm essentially did nothing more than an average cold front. Incidentally, we could probably make an article for every cold front, because there is verifiable information on meteorological history and statistics. That doesn't mean there should be an article. It seems like you went over the top being detailed in your writing, when you could've written the same 40 kb article in two paragraphs. As for reversing the deletion for

I want to emphasize though, your writing is generally good. You are sourcing your content well, and it is generally grammatically correct. It's perhaps a bit too thorough, which is a good problem to have. Try writing more succinctly. You have enormous potential as a writer, and I hope you keep writing. I saw you're working on a sandbox for Ann. Since the storm is in two basins, its content will already be split across two basins' articles, just keep that in mind. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Little update CT - I merged the content from Wallace's article into the season section. I believe I maintained most of the content that you had in your Wallace article. I just streamlined the writing (a lot). Aside from the media stuff (which would be more appropriate in the Cyclone Veronica article), could you check if I missed anything important in the merger? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take my merge proposal the wrong way. Your work on the Wallace article is of decent quality. If you want to write storm articles, there are a few good ones for this season that are in desperate need of articles. Owen, Veronica, and possibly even Savannah could have articles written for them. I know you are up to the task. If you ever need help, please feel free to ask other project members. Noah^Talk 21:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your proof that the NOAA/HWRF track file is an official source of information per the JTWC and that it supersedes what the JTWC are saying publically within their STWA's? Jason Rees (talk) 11:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: You just said yourself what the proof is. It is the fact that it is a publication of an official agency. If you wish, we can remove the line "Joint Typhoon Warning Center" from the text. I do not have an issue with that (you will see that I actually typed National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration rather than Joint Typhoon Warning Center when I created the reference). However, I must insist that we use 25 kn TD as an official statistic, as it can be nothing other than that. It is not superseding what the JTWC is mentioning in their advisories, as they have done nothing to contradict it. As I mentioned, the sole reason they do not issue warnings for systems below 35 knots outside the northern Pacific is that the US does not have the concentration of military interests and assets in other regions that it does in places like the Philippines, South Korea, Japan and Guam. It is still a tropical depression, even if no warning is issued for it. The data in the track file I referenced is always the data that the JTWC uses, without any exception that I have ever found, whether that be location, pressure, wind speed, radius of gales, and so on. As I said, I am fine with not explicitly stating that the JTWC classified it as a TD, but it must still be included that it reached TD status (without naming an organisation, just the fact that it was assessed as such). ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is contradicting what the JTWC are saying as the JTWC are just calling it an Area of Convection/Invest 94P within their significant tropical weather advisory. As a result, I oppose calling it a tropical depression just because some track file that NOAA has automatically produced for the HWRF model, calls it a tropical depression based on the fact that it now has winds of 25 knots.Jason Rees (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: I can see where you're coming free; however, there is a flaw in your reasoning. Just because the JTWC doesn't specifically use the language "tropical depression", doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. If that were the case, that would imply that the very existence of a tropical depression is predicated on the condition that the JTWC issues an advisory on it. It logically follows, then, that tropical depressions only exist in the northern Pacific Ocean, since this is the only basin for which the JTWC issues advisories on tropical depressions. Now, since a system's wind speed as a function of time is continuous on the domain of all times during the system's existence, then for a system to have reached tropical storm strength on the SSHWS, it must have passed through TD status at some stage. That is, its wind speed cannot jump past the TD partition without ever existing inside it. Then, since TDs cannot exist anywhere except the northern Pacific, logically it is required that tropical storms also cannot exist anywhere except the northern Pacific. The only circumstance I can see where this proof would break down is if a system is entirely frontal or is a tropical wave up to the time at which it attains 35 knot winds, and then becomes a tropical storm, hence bypassing the TD range. Now, you would of course agree that the conclusion that tropical storms cannot exist anywhere except in the northern Pacific is false; however, assuming the logical validity of my argument, this necessitates that tropical depressions must exist outside the northern Pacific, regardless of the JTWC not mentioning them. Also, I must ask, what is the purpose of providing any intensity indications in the track file if they are false? That would mean NOAA is providing incorrect information. Anyway, disregarding all of this, we have a reliable source—reliable because it is NOAA—which has data that JTWC always uses, which has indicated that the system is a TD. To decide ourselves that it in fact isn't a TD is original research (well, actually, it isn't even research). ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Ironically, it has been re-analysed as 20 kn, so we currently do not need to state that it is a TD, as it's now assessed as a disturbance. Though, there is every chance that it will intensify later on. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to the TD stuff later, but for now I am happy to include Ann as an official system of the 2018-19 SPAC since the BoM are responsible for marine warnings. I have asked Nadi about a XXF designation though.Jason Rees (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: RSMC Nadi will probably just end up using 26U as their official designation. Besides, we can just call it Tropical Low Ann in the South Pacific article, now that it has intensified into a named cyclone. ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Cyclone Lili (2019).

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hughesdarren: Thank you for your review! I have just noticed that another news article has been released regarding more damage from the cyclone in East Timor, so I will add that to the page as well. Thank you again, from a fellow Aussie. :) ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So here's a crazy idea I had. Your recent article

@Hurricanehink: That is an interesting idea. I will have a look at what I can do in that regard. Just to be clear, would that mean I would write individual articles for all the cyclones affecting Indonesia, and then also write a general article covering all of them in less detail (kind of like a season article, but for a country)? ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would require creating any additional articles for Indonesian storms (if there even are any left to be created), plus the general article, which can be formatted like the other articles on tropical cyclones by area. The most time intensive part is generating the list, making sure it's well-sourced, and adding the tables/summarizing stuff. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: On a different note, I have a query regarding Cyclone Lili’s article. Currently, whenever I type “Cyclone Lili” into the Wikipedia search bar, the article I wrote does not show up. Furthermore, it does not show up when hyperlinking text in the Visual Editor. I actually have to type the entire “Cyclone Lili (2019)” full name for it to display. I think this could be because there is currently a redirect page located at Cyclone Lili (which Wikipedia obviously doesn’t want people to link to or search for), which links to the SPac severe TC called Lili from 1989, which I would assume originally had an article that has since been deleted. Would you say that this is what is happening? I would go about removing this redirect, but I’m not sure if there is a fast way to change the more than 50 places which link to this redirect. I just don’t really want to have to go through every link and manually change them from “Cyclone Lili” to “1988-89 South Pacific cyclone season#Severe Tropical Cyclone Lili”. Do you know of a fast way of doing this? ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I set the redirect for Cyclone Lili to go to the disambiguation page. Also, I changed Lili's quality level on the talk page. Noah^Talk 02:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm two retired names in a row being reused. Anne -> Ann and Lili.Jason Rees (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Yes, that is very odd, isn't it. I would have thought that the retirement of a name would disqualify it from use in all basins, not just the one that the notorious system was located in. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two in a row is very odd and I doubt it has ever happened before, however, we have numerous examples of it happening once. Maria last year for example and it was meant to be spoken about at last years RSMC/TCWC conference.Jason Rees (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you are aware, Ann is not dead. The season and Ann have been changed to ongoing. Thought I should let you know.

Arafura Coast Forecast: Cape Don to Cape Wessel View the current warnings for the Northern Territory

Forecast issued at 10:00 am CST on Friday 17 May 2019.

Weather Situation A weak tropical low [1008 hPa], remnants of ex-Tropical Cyclone Ann, in the southern Arafura Sea is moving northwest and is expected to dissipate over the weekend. Associated fresh to strong winds, scattered showers and thunderstorms extend over northern coastal waters. A high [1029 hPa] in the Tasman Sea is expected to stall near the New South Wales coast for the weekend and maintain a ridge of high pressure along the Queensland coast into next week.

Please feel free to mark both as ended once it dissipates. Noah^Talk 00:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Thank you very much for letting me know! I am surprised that the BOM only mentioned a ‘low’ in their High Seas Forecast rather than a tropical low. I wish they would be a little more consistent. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CT, in the future, please move any articles you have in the sandbox, rather than copying and pasting them. This is important to preserve the edit history, as hurricane Noah made it one edit to the Ann sandbox. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Sorry about that! I'll make sure to move the pages in the future. The only reason I've being doing it the copy-paste way is so that I can keep a copy of the article in my own user space, just in case anything goes haywire, or if I want to draft a large edit to the article without having to deal with other edits in the meantime. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways and means around that, for example, {{major edit}} addresses the drafting, while all edits are stored in the page's history accessible under the page tab at the top of the screen or by typing &action=history.Jason Rees (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much CT! And if you ever need a page moved and there is a redirect in the way, I can move it for you. It requires an administrator to delete redirects. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Cyclone Ann—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 219.78.190.16 (talk) 12:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CT, I need to make you aware of something i consider so minor that I would just correct it normally, however, i have seen you make the same mistake a few times. Basically the JTWC isnt just the United States Navy's, hence the word Joint as it is also the United States Air Forces and serves the US Millitary primiarily.Jason Rees (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Yeah, I made sure to stop doing that when you mentioned it in an edit summary a while back. Where was it that I did it recently? ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appologies I thought you had added it to the 2018-19 Aus, when i looked at your edit just now. Sorry.Jason Rees (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: No worries! Looking back over the edit, it seems like I added a wikilink to the United States Navy without realising the mistake. It was probably left over in the lead section from when I thought that the JTWC was only run by the navy. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you tried to close the merge discussion in

@

B dash and Hurricane Noah: My sincere apologies for my error of judgement. I intended no malice by it. I actually originally thought it would indeed be improper for me to close it; however, I checked the closure of the Wallace merge discussion to see what happened there. That discussion was closed by an editor who voted with a self-described strong opinion on the matter, so I concluded that closing such a discussion was not a matter regarding involved or uninvolved editors. I see now that it was a stupid decision. Sorry again. ChocolateTrain (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@LightandDark2000: Ha ha ha, thanks! I'm glad you like the user page. Thanks for the compliment about the new articles I've been writing. I do try and conform to notability guidelines as best I can—I only write the article if I believe the system was notable. Thank you for the support you've given me during my time on Wikipedia. You've always been friendly and helpful, and I appreciate it. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, good user page! I'm also a piano player here. Funny how Wikipedia attracts certain people. Happy editing CT. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Thanks heaps! I read your user page a while back, and I must say that I am mightily impressed that you wrote your own musical. That's amazing, and certainly something to be very proud of! I also think it's incredible that you play so many instruments. Here I am just playing the piano, and you've got eleven instruments listed on your user page—and not just one type, but brass, woodwind, strings and vocals! Anyway, thanks for your support, especially recently. It's been great having an experienced editor such as yourself helping me out. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks as well! Music teacher is one of my jobs, that’s the only reason I know so many instruments. Piano is pretty easy compared to the other side - you just play a C, E, G, easy. On wind, brass, and woodwind instruments, so much depends on your breath support. As a musician, I know how important collaboration, positivity, and practice is to life, especially here on Wikipedia. In my many years on Wikipedia, I’ve rubbed more than a few users the wrong way, so I’m working on being more welcoming, and hopefully fostering that among fellow project members. Enough of me blathering, happy editing CT! Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Volume XIV, Issue 39, May 31, 2019 The Hurricane Herald is the arbitrarily periodical newsletter of mailing list. This issue of The Hurricane Herald covers all project related events from April 14–May 31, 2019. This edition's editor and author is Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs ). Please visit this page and bookmark any suggestions of interest to you. This will help improve the newsletter and other cyclone-related articles. Past editions can be viewed here. ← 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 →

Article of the month, by Jason Rees Clement Wragge, who named tropical cyclones and anticyclones between 1887 and 1907. This system of naming fell into disuse for several years after Wragge retired, until it was revived in the latter part of World War II for the Western Pacific basin. Over the following decades, various naming schemes have been introduced for the world's oceans, including for parts of the Atlantic, Pacific and the Indian Ocean. The majority of these lists are compiled by the World Meteorological Organization 's tropical cyclone committee for the region and include names from different cultures as well as languages. Over the years there has been controversy over the names used at various times, with names being dropped for religious and political reasons. For example, female names were exclusively used in the basins at various times between 1945 - 2000 and were the subject of several protests. The names of significant tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Australian region are retired from the naming lists and replaced with another name, at meetings of the various tropical cyclone committees. Storm of the month and other tropical activity landfall in Odisha, India on May 3. The storm achieved peak intensity as a near Category 5-equivalent cyclone with 3-minute sustained winds of 215 km/h (130 mph), 1-minute sustained winds of 250 km/h (155 mph), and a minimum central pressure of 937 hPa (mbar). Fani caused over $1.8 billion (2019 USD) in damage in India and Bangladesh and killed at least 89 people. Since the last newsletter, twelve systems have formed. Southwest Indian Ocean In the Southwest Indian Ocean, Cyclone Kenneth made landfall in Mozambique approximately 1 month after Cyclone Idai, causing widespread flooding and destruction. Overall, Kenneth killed at least 52 people and caused more than $100 million in damage. Additionally, Tropical Cyclone Lorna formed over the eastern portion of the basin in late April and dissipated in early May without affecting land. Australian Region In the Australian Region, cyclones Lili and Ann formed in early May and both affected land. No deaths were reported, although Lili caused moderate damage in the Maluku Islands and East Timor. South Pacific In the South Pacific, a tropical depression formed in mid-may, but failed to intensify and dissipated a few days later. South Atlantic In the South Atlantic, Subtropical Storm Jaguar formed in late May and lasted for approximately two days before becoming extratropical. Western Pacific In the Western Pacific, three weak tropical depressions existed during the first half of May. North Atlantic In the North Atlantic, Subtropical Storm Andrea formed on the same day as Jaguar, but failed to intensify and dissipated on the next day. The Eastern Pacific hurricane season began on May 15. The Atlantic hurricane season will begin at 2:00 AM EDT on June 1. The Central Pacific hurricane season will begin sometime after 12:00 AM HST on June 1. Recent storms of the month Edition Storm 36 Cyclone Idai 35 Typhoon Wutip (2019) New WikiProject Members since the last newsletter in April 2019 More information can be found here. This list lists members who have joined/rejoined the WikiProject since the release of the last issue in April 2019. Sorted chronologically. Struckout users denote users who have left or have been banned. talk · contribs ) SaiTheCyclone (talk · contribs) To our new members: welcome to the project, and happy editing! Feel free to check the to-do list at the bottom right of the newsletter for things that you might want to work on. To our veteran members: thank you for your edits and your tireless contributions! Editorial for welcoming new users, by Hurricanehink Every year, editors new and old help maintain the new season of season articles. The older users are likely used to the standards of the project, such as how to Wikilink and reference properly. Newer users might make mistakes, and they might make them over and over again if they don't know better. If anyone (who happens to read this) comes across a new user, please don't bite, because with enough pushback, they'll decide that this group of editors is too mean, and unfun. This is all a volunteer project; no one can force anyone to do anything. We're all on here because of our love of knowledge and tropical cyclones. If you find someone new, consider using the official WPTC welcome template - Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Welcome . I also encourage that if you know any tropical cyclone researchers, please speak up and try recruiting them to edit. Veteran editors can't keep editing forever. Life gets busy, and the real world beckons! Member of the month (edition) – Yellow Evan Yellow Evan has been involved with WPTC since 2008. Since the last newsletter, Yellow Evan has taken 5 typhoon articles to good article status as well as created 2 more. Overall, he has created and/or significantly contributed to more than 130 good articles. Your work in the Western Pacific Basin is invaluable... Thank you for your contributions! Latest WikiProject Alerts The following are the latest article developments as updated by AAlertBot, as of the publishing of this issue. Due to the bot workings, some of these updates may seem out of place; nonetheless, they are included here. Article alerts Did you know 30 Apr 2024 – Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Dylan620 (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 30 Apr 2024 – Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Dylan620 (t · c); see discussion 23 Mar 2024 – Timeline of the 1994 Pacific hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Dylan620 (t · c); see discussion Featured topic candidates 17 Mar 2024 – 1991 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was FT nominated by Dylan620 (t · c); see discussion The topic includes: Timeline of the 1991 Atlantic hurricane season Good article nominees 01 May 2024 – 1895 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by 12george1 (t · c); start discussion 29 Apr 2024 – 1937 Hong Kong typhoon (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Hurricanehink (t · c); start discussion 17 Apr 2024 – Hurricane Hilary (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Hurricanehink (t · c); start discussion 17 Apr 2024 – 1876 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by 12george1 (t · c); start discussion 09 Apr 2024 – 1873 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by 12george1 (t · c); start discussion 08 Apr 2024 – 1872 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by 12george1 (t · c); start discussion 29 Mar 2024 – 1936 Pacific typhoon season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Hurricanehink (t · c); start discussion Articles to be merged 13 Apr 2024 – Cyclone Kate (2006) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2005–06 Australian region cyclone season by Hurricanehink (t · c); see discussion 06 Apr 2024 – Tropical Storm Philippe (2023) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2023 Atlantic hurricane season by 71.190.208.91 (t · c); see discussion 03 Mar 2024 – Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2002 Atlantic hurricane season by Hurricanehink (t · c); see discussion 23 Feb 2024 – Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2003 Atlantic hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion 23 Feb 2024 – Tropical Storm Lester (2004) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2004 Pacific hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion 23 Feb 2024 – Tropical Storm Ignacio (1997) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 1997 Pacific hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion 23 Feb 2024 – Tropical Storm Danny (2009) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2009 Atlantic hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion 05 Feb 2024 – Hurricane Shary (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2010 Atlantic hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion 30 Jan 2024 – Hurricane Nora (2003) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2003 Pacific hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion 30 Jan 2024 – Hurricane Newton (1986) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 1986 Pacific hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion (2 more...) Articles for creation 25 Apr 2024 – Draft:Effects of Hurricane Ian in Florida (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 204.98.124.205 (t · c) Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature? Click to watch (Subscribe via  RSS  Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics! Featured Content This section lists content that have become featured, articles and lists, since the past newsletter in mid-April 2019. From April 14–May 31, 2019, 1 featured article was promoted: Cyclone Raja Featured article reviews are currently open for the 1900 Galveston hurricane and Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018) Featured list review is open for the Timeline of the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: News & Developments An awards program for the project began on May 31. It involves 25 levels that may be gained by earning points for completing various actions such as getting good or featured articles. Additional awards will be added in the future. As of this news letter, there are more articles ranked a good article or better (1317) than articles ranked B-class or worse (1272), for the first time in the project's history. Every Atlantic hurricane season from 1945 to 2007 is rated at least a GA. That is an impressive feat, and an incredibly body of work among many editors. featured article in the project. Thanks to all of the editors and their tireless edits for writing 2.7% of all of Wikipedia's featured articles. In the 24 hours after Hurricane Michael's TCR was released, the article on the hurricane was edited 82 times by 18 different users. In March 2019, the most popular article in the project was Cyclone Idai, viewed 231,969 times during the month. The generic cyclone was 2nd most popular, with 131,080 views. In 3rd place was Hurricane Katrina with 112,283 views. Included in the top 20 were the 2018 and 19 Atlantic hurricane seasons, hurricanes Michael, Florence, Irma, Maria, and Harvey, and the 1896 Cedar Keys hurricane, which was TFA on March 20th. New articles since the last newsletter include: Cyclone Veronica List of Eastern Pacific tropical storms (2000–present) Tropical cyclones by year - from 2000 to present, there were 2,490 tropical cyclones of various intensity, causing a collective $1 trillion in damage and 200,000 deaths Tropical cyclones in the Mascarene Islands Typhoon Percy (1990) Tropical Storm Rolf Cyclone Ann Cyclone Lili (2019) Cyclone Savannah Typhoon Eli (1992) New GA's include: 1900 Galveston hurricane 1974 Atlantic hurricane season 1977 Pacific hurricane season 2015 Pacific hurricane season Effects of Hurricane Floyd in Florida Hurricane Dora (1999) Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018) Tropical Storm Irving (1992) Typhoon Janis (1992) Typhoon Kent Typhoon Ofelia Typhoon Robyn (1993) Current assessment table Assessments valid as of this printing. Depending on when you may be viewing this newsletter, the table may be outdated. See here for the latest, most up to date statistics. As of this issue, there are 150 good articles , meaning it is possible we get to our 1000th GA by the end of the year. There are only 61 B-class articles, perhaps because because most articles of that quality already passed a GA review. There are 350 C-class articles, 720 start-class articles, and 141 stub-class articles, with 29 lists and 8 current articles. The number of lists may decrease further as the "Tropical cyclone X" articles continue to be reclassified as set index articles. These figures mean that nearly half of the project is rated a GA or better - including the lists/current/future articles, there are 1272 articles that are below GA status, versus 1317 that are GA or better. About the assessment scale → From the Main Page From the Main Page documents WikiProject related materials that have appeared on the main page from April 14–May 31, 2019 in chronological order. Today's Featured Article May 4 - Tropical Storm Nicole (2010) May 15 - Tropical Depression Nineteen-E (2018) Did you know...? WikiProject To-Do Here are some tasks you can do : Requests: Original-content tropical cyclone articles: Cyclone Keni, more Wikify: Make sure tropical cyclone lists, such as List of Texas hurricanes, have storm articles properly linked Cleanup: Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Wilma, Tropical Storm Fay (2002), Tropical cyclones in 2017 Expand: Indianola Hurricane of 1886, Typhoon Nina (1975), Typhoon Durian, Tropical cyclones in 2016/2015/2014, List of Category 1 Pacific hurricanes , Pacific hurricane season timelines Typhoon Fred (1994), more... WPTC 15th Anniversary push: some goals for the 15th year of WPTC include the creation or improvement of many other articles listed in the first section on the WPTC talk page . Project Goals & Progress The following is the current progress on the three milestone goals set by the WikiProject as of this publishing. They can be found, updated, at the main WikiProject page. 250 featured pages: 87.2% complete 150 featured articles: 99.3% complete 1500 good articles: 87.2% complete All articles to C-class or better: 66.8% complete Write the next issue of The Hurricane Herald →

Noah^Talk 22:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Good job on writing this edition of the Herald! I enjoyed reading it. ChocolateTrain (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not write about future events that are not certain. Your sandbox could technically be flagged for an MfD (Miscellany for Deletion) as it is only a hypothetical storm. Keep in mind the policies

@Hurricane Noah: I was only doing that for fun. I would never have published that article before any impacts happened, and I would have made sure that no incorrect details were included. That is why it is in a sandbox in my user space. It is not able to be found by search engines, and even if somehow someone stumbled upon it (when there really is no way they could), there is a bold, capitalised message at the top saying that the article is hypothetical. I appreciate your prudence, but all things considered, I don't think there is an issue. ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't want you to create a draft for a storm and then have it be wasted if nothing happens or it forms in an entirely different area. Noah^Talk 13:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: That is very considerate of you! I haven't really spent much time on it at all, so if it turns out that the disturbance doesn't develop, or it isn't notable, I won't be too disappointed. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Hi again. Are you free to have another look at the article I wrote for Cyclone Lili? I have addressed the points you raised in your initial quality review. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely better, but I don't think you need subsections in the impact. On the article I wrote, TD Nineteen-E, it only has subsections to divide the Mexico and US impacts. Since you only have a few small paragraphs, it isn't really necessary to divide it up into separate sections. You could try nominating this for good article sometime if you want to. Noah^Talk 20:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: I removed the subsections for the impacts, and did some other rewording tweaks. How do I nominate it for good article status so that someone in WP:WPTC reviews it? Sorry for all the questions, and thank you once again for your help. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go to this. Please note you are not guarenteed a WPTC reviewer. ANYONE may review a good article given they are not the nominator or a significany contributor. If you feel the article lives up to the 6 criteria, feel free to nominate. Noah^Talk 00:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a tip, I would suggest that the article at least be at B-Class quality status before going for a Good Article nomination, unless you feel that the article has dramatically improved enough to the point where it stands a good chance of passing the Good Article review. Concerning what Hurricane Noah said, I would say that it's probably better that an experienced WPTC editor review the article (even though this is neither a requirement nor guaranteed). You can ask Hurricanehink to review the article for you if you'd like. He's pretty experienced in this area, and he's got quite a few successful Good and Featured Article nominations himself. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LightandDark2000: I believe the concerns that Hurricane Noah raised in his B Class Review were relatively minor, and I addressed them a while back. I am hoping, even though the review was never actually completed and the article is not officially B Class, that it still satisfies the criteria anyway. I suppose I may have been hasty in submitting the article for a Good Article Review, but we'll see what happens. @Hurricanehink, would you be willing to review Cyclone Lili (2019) for Good Article status? ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yellow Evan -- Yellow Evan (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

@Yellow Evan: Excellent. I look forward to your review. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to always fill out the "name" parameter of every template you create, even if is is going to be exactly the same as the "title" parameter (which can happen when there's no specific article for the template title to link to). This way, the template will show up properly-formatted on the linked articles, with the v (view), e (edit), and t (talk page) buttons on the upper left corner of the template. Without filling out the "name" parameter, these buttons will fail to appear. You can see the Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes template as an example. Thanks. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LightandDark2000: Thank you so much for telling me! I was wondering why the V, T and E weren't showing up. I was sure that I read in the Navbox template documentation that you weren't supposed to fill in the name field, which is why I left it blank. I would have filled it in otherwise. Perhaps I misread it, or confused it with something else. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChocolateTrain, I am currently working on list articles for SPAC 3-5 as well as Aus 5 in my user space. If you are up for it you are more than welcome to help expand them.Jason Rees (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Hi there Jason. That sounds interesting. I'd be glad to help out if I can. Is this one of the list articles you were talking about? ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to hear that you are willing to help me out on them, as I feel that we could do a lot together since I am the main editor of SPAC and have had to deal with Aus at various times. Anyway Aus 5 is one of the articles I mentioned, most of the data that's in it so far from List of retired Australian region cyclone names, though I also went through the Aus DB the other night and found all the C5's that I could see. (I will double check my list against yours later!) The other three I mentioned are located here: SPAC Cat 3, SPAC Cat 4, SPAC Cat 5. They are all in different stages of development and the one that would benefit the most from you right now is SPAC Cat 5, as it is close to going out into the mainspace but just needs a few tweaks and a bit more met info.Jason Rees (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Im going through your C5 list right now and was wondering if you happen to know of a source for Shelia-Sophie winds? I realise that the Wiki section says it was a 5 but the BoM DB doesn't give any windspeeds. I have also downgraded Larry based on the DB saying that it was a 4.Jason Rees (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Hmm. That's true. I didn't realise there weren't any wind speeds listed for the earlier cyclones. In that case, I have no idea how someone decided on 115 kn for Sheila-Sophie. Should the systems prior to 1972-73 be left out? ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the systems in the templates for now but we should drop them as we work through them, if the winds are not able to be verified. So I will remove Sheila-Sophie in a mo. BTW what are your thoughts on Mahina? I noticed that you put a * besides it on the cat 5 template. Jason Rees (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: I haven't found any official 10-minute wind speeds for Mahina anywhere. I'm also not sure if the Australian scale was even in use in 1899 (or even in the mid-1900s). But if it was, then Mahina's 914 hPa or 880 hPa would have made it a C5 for sure. What do you think? ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: I just found a reference for Mahina being C5, as well as two other systems we didn't even know about. The Courier Mail quotes the BOM as saying that Marcia would be (it was before it made landfall) only the fifth C5 landfall in Queensland on record. The others were Mahina in 1899, a cyclone in Mackay, and another in Innisfail in 1918. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great and interesting find that will be of some use to us later and you should feel pleased with yourself. :) As for how to present Mahina, Innisfall and Mackay as Cat 5's, I would suggest that we add them to the template in the same way as you have done with Mahina but drop the *. Within the article we can then highlight the fact that they were considered to be Category 5's, within the other systems section in the article. Oh and the Aus scale was only created in the late 80's but systems before that time have been rated on it as you can see with Mahina, Innisfall and Mackay.Jason Rees (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have created sandboxes for Aus C3 and C4 by using your template, an external tool and a bit of magic.Jason Rees (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of work on Aus 5 earlier and have ended up with 44 Cat 5's within Aus during the Satelite Era. It might be worth you double checking the list and adding some of the details in like windspeeds, pressure etc if you can.Jason Rees (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Good job. I will add in the wind and pressure data. ChocolateTrain (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: I have redesigned the table slightly (it is found here). Tell me what you think. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I am currently making lists for the Eastern Pacific... You need a place to put references in the table. Keep in mind that 1-minute winds are unofficial and really serve no purpose in these lists. Coloring for the Category is kind of redundant since they are all Cat 5s. Also, it may be easier to put damage amounts in their respective years and add a note at the top of the table instead of inflating all of them. That will prevent the need for yearly updates on the totals. I am working on

List of Eastern Pacific tropical storms (2000–present) currently. Feel free to take some ideas from it. I hope those comments help. Noah^Talk 02:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Your table is interesting and I feel that we could incorporate some of the changes in to the table I created. However, one thing I would say is that the general consensus is to only include systems that would currently be considered to be in the Aus Region, rather than pre 84-85 when the boundary changed from 80 to 90E. That means Viola-Claudette is only considered to be a Cat 1 in Aus and an ITC in the SWIO.Jason Rees (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that came off the wrong way or if you think I have been ignoring you, I have just been busy trying to keep up with work and using Wiki to relax in the evenings. On a side note if you look at the main page today you will find that Cyclone Raja is Today's Featured Article, which is what you could achieve with a bit more work. Anyway I have merged the two tables together and will edit them further over the next couple of days - If you wish to edit any of the sandboxes then you are free to do so. More thoughts later.Jason Rees (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: No, not at all! I never thought you'd been ignoring me. I've been busy as well. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your effort on assessment tags - please see Toyota Team Australia to have an idea why there is just a little bit more that can be added. Thanks again! JarrahTree 15:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: I appreciate the recognition, and thanks for the advice. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, so many eds seem to be so disinterested in fixing that side of things up, thanks is not enough really, good on you! - if you havent tried it yet - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Evad37/rater can be very useful... JarrahTree 15:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Vayu to the draft space per

@

here. I would appreciate it if you could move the page back, though you should note that I accidentally recreated the page when I saved an unsaved edit from a few hours ago, so that will have to be fixed. ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, the guideline is wrong. I have been reverted by multiple people for creating storm articles within 48 hours of landfall. This storm could easily fizzle out by the time it reaches the coast and not be article worthy. Forecasts show the storm getting ripped apart by shear and land interaction. As for moving the page, you need to ask an admin to merge the history. Noah^Talk 03:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Fine, it can just stay in draft space then. But now I am going to have to find a CSD template that fits what happened, and I doubt there's going to be one. This is going to be an enormous palaver just for an accidentally created page. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just go to the talk page of an admin and post there. I would do it, but I’m on mobile. Noah^Talk 03:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Don't worry, it's fixed now. I used CSD:G7 (author requested deletion) and it has been deleted. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize I'm not saying to merge the article now. I said it would need merged if the impacts were minimal as the season article is quite small. That pagemover jumped the gun on moving it out of the draft space and I was mainly trying to prove a point to him. Since several people have been killed already and that number is likely going rise, the storm likely will have enough notability to keep the article as long as you can find details regarding the specific impact. Keep in mind that I will oppose your ITN until an impact section is added since there is information out there regarding 6 deaths. There is a big difference between a sideswipe with TS winds and a landfall with Cat 2 winds. This storm will likely do millions to tens of millions in damage rather than hundreds of millions because it isn't making landfall. Noah^Talk 17:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: I'm glad we're a lot closer to being on the same page now. I will start writing the impacts section from the preliminary information that I have collected. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page today, your limiting factor for this storm will now be what you can find rather than notability. It will take some time for all the reports to come out from the various news sources, but the damage will be a lot less than what it could have been. Noah^Talk 01:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cyclone Lili (2019) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cyclone Lili (2019) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yellow Evan -- Yellow Evan (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should join the project discord channel. You would be able to communicate with some project members more easily. Noah^Talk 01:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very important article needing attention if you would want to help with it. Noah^Talk 14:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: I am intrigued. Do tell more... ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Idai, the costliest and third deadliest in the south-west Indian Ocean is a top importance article for both WPTC and WP Mozambique. The MH is pretty well complete, but the impact and aftermath need a lot of work. Editing on the article practically ended in April. There is about 2 months worth of information and updates that need added to those two sections. Information can be found here if you are interested in trying to get this article to GA. It is simply too much for me to do by myself. Noah^Talk 14:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Sure thing. I'd be glad to help out (probably once Vayu is done and dusted). By the way, did you end up having a read of Cyclone Nora? Sorry if it is too early, given it's only mid-morning in Ohio. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting ready to run through it now. I was at an academic advisory meeting earlier. Noah^Talk 15:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should nominate the article at Wikipedia:Peer_review so I can make an official review that will appear in the article archive. Noah^Talk 15:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: OK, I will do that. But I'm quite happy for you just to have a read through without having to go to the effort of conducting a full review. ChocolateTrain (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may need to move those templates back into your user space. Apparently, they violate policy since list articles don't exist for each Category. I would rather you move them back then have them merged and lost. Noah^Talk 15:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Thank you for letting me know. I am copying them to my user space to preserve them. ChocolateTrain (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will ping you when the review is done. It will take some time to go through the entire article. Noah^Talk 16:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Thanks for your help. There's no rush, and I'm going to bed now anyway, given that it's past 2 a.m. here in Brisbane! Enjoy your lunch. ChocolateTrain (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all done. Noah^Talk 01:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Wow! That must have taken a while. Thanks again. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It took a couple hours. Isn't anything compared to the EPAC 2000-2018 TS list I have been working on. It has over 165 references and is only 76% complete! Noah^Talk 02:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: You didn't have to spend that long on it! I appreciate your diligence. Also, just out of interest, are you planning to write any sections for that EPac TS list article, or is it going to be primarily the tables that you've been compiling? ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There will eventually be a main article titled "List of Eastern Pacific tropical storms" that will have full sections on the information contained in the lede (climate and background). This list I am working on is basically a child article for one that does not yet exist. I plan to get the child articles done first and then create the main article. Noah^Talk 02:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: I addressed the last of your suggestions on the review. ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you are aware, the article I am working on right now is an example of what the person from the template discussion wants. Lists for all those intensities are needed in order to keep the templates. List of Category 2 Pacific hurricanes is a finished version of what these articles may look like. Noah^Talk 04:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Ah, OK. That looks good. I'll put those list articles on my to-do list. Thanks a lot for your time in reviewing Cyclone Nora. I'll nominate it for GA and see how it goes. ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Good luck with your GAN. Btw, it will be a pain for whoever has to do the source review for my list since it will be over 200 once I add in 2000. Although, it was really a pain for me to create such an article in the first place. Like you said with the templates, the work takes hours and is very repetitive. This list is currently 106k bytes, believe it or not. Noah^Talk 04:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: 106 kB! That really shows in itself how many references there are. Let's hope the reviewer likes cross-checking! ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have 13 TCRs (storms), damage/death sources for 4 storms, sorting/formatting, and the landfall section (bar graph and paragraph) left to do before I nominate this for FLC (You would be welcome to participate). I added 44 storms in about 4–5 hours. Anyways, I will talk to you later. Noah^Talk 04:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know that I did open up the candidacy here. Please note that this is different from GAN. There must be consensus from the community on whether or not to promote. Each person may do their own review on the nomination page. Noah^Talk 02:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For creating and keep updating Cyclone Vayu. Regards from an editor from Gujarat who was keenly watching the progress of the cyclone and the article. :) Nizil (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nizil Shah: Thank you so much for the Barnstar and the kind words, Nizil! I'm very pleased you've been following the article! How was the cyclone for you and your family? I hope you are well, and that no damage was done to any of your property.

Thank you very much once again. Best wishes, ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All well here except a lot of rain. :D I have clicked an image and a video of the rain instead of the cyclone winds as it did not make landfall. I have uploaded them on Commons. Thanks for the concern. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

A barnstar for you!

		The Tropical Cyclone Barnstar
		For your excellent work in developing tropical cyclone articles. Congratulations on your first Good Article! Enjoy the second edition of the original Tropical Cyclone Barnstar. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LightandDark2000: Thank you so much for the Barnstar! I'm really pleased to have been able to write a Good Article for the tropical cyclones WikiProject. By the way, when was the new version of the Barnstar designed? It looks great! ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second edition was designed in 2017 or 2018. The first time I came across this was on the talk page of another editor about a year or two ago. But yeah. it's yours now. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you saw my comments on Noah's talk page about the SE Charts, but I have finally found some time to look at your proposed changes in conjunction with the templates. On the whole im happy to include your proposed changes within the SE Charts as they are only really minor tweaks and have made them to the Template:Australian areas affected. If they are ok then I will look at adding them to the Pacific areas affected, which is a harder job with more articles affected.Jason Rees (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why your creating yet another SE, when the existing templates are a lot better at capturing the data, than the ones your creating.Jason Rees (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: What do you mean? ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been looking over your edits and noticed that you seem to be creating yet another SE Chart when i feel that the existing tables capture the data better than the templates that you have created.Jason Rees (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: I haven't actually changed the design of the table since the minor tweaks that I made back in July. All I've been doing is automating the template. So far, we have had to manually input the full category name, correctly formatted unit conversions, correctly formatted dates, non-breaking spaces, line breaks and category codes for the background colours. With the template I have made, all of this has been made significantly easier. All the formatting is done automatically, the category names appear automatically after entering just a number for the category, the km/h and mph appear automatically with correct formatting after entering just the knots, and so on. Basically, the actual structure hasn't been changed, but the ease of use has been improved. The difference should be particularly significant on Visual Editor, where the season effects table has previously taken 10 seconds or more to open (with a large number of cyclones) due to the huge number of template transclusions. I think the changes I have made will make everything much smoother. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ill have another look later and see what i think as i have to dash to work. BTW take a look at the seasonal forecasts from the BoM, NIWA and partners and FMS, it seems that Australia maybe quiet this year and that the TC activity might be pushed out towards French Polynesia.Jason Rees (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Ah, interesting. I've been waiting for the release of the outlooks. I'm actually a little surprised that the BOM has given the western part of the South Pacific region a greater-than-even chance of seeing more cyclones than normal. From what I understand, although ENSO is currently neutral, some of the models are showing temperature anomalies leaning towards the El Niño threshold. To me, that would suggest a lower likelihood of cyclones near Queensland and a normal or elevated likelihood east of the International Date Line. However, that is the opposite of the BOM's percentage estimates. Their statistical model for the western part does have a high accuracy, though, so I guess there's good reason for it.

I am also guessing that the Northern and Western regions of the Australian basin will have lower numbers of cyclones this season, particularly the northern part of the Western Region. The temperature anomaly related to the positive-phase Indian Ocean Dipole is currently as high as it has been since at least 2001. There probably won't be many cyclones in the west, and definitely not severe ones, early in the season before the arrival of the Australian monsoon breaks down the IOD. On the contrary, the SWIO basin might see elevated activity during the first half of the season. We'll wait and see. ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you managed to pretty much manage to guess the seasonal forecast above and you are correct in thinking that El Nino generally means that Aus TC activity is displaced. I would poitn to 1997-98 and 1982-83 as prime examples of this. Anyway, I am pleased to see that you have written up the seasonal forecasts and included some of the background meteorological information, however, I want to go through and generalize it since NIWA's forecast is valid for the Aus region and should be included.Jason Rees (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Cyclone Nora you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cyclone Nora for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@12george1: Thanks for your time and effort reviewing the article. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good job on the article! Noah^Talk 04:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: Hi there. It's been a while. I was just wondering if it was you who has been commenting on the NHC's Facebook updates regarding Hurricane Dorian. I am guessing there's only one articulate and logical Jasper Deng who would be commenting on hurricane posts! ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there CT! I hope you're having a good winter/spring. I have been working on the article for tropical cyclones by year for the past few months, and what's currently holding me back is the older coverage of Australian season articles, namely pre-1968. I don't know what projects you have going on, but not having the AUS seasons is one holdup for figuring out how many tropical cyclones there have been. Any interest in working on any older AUS seasons? That would be a huge help to not just me, but filling a huge gap of info that's out there but not on Wikipedia. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there CT - I wanna follow up on this. If you check out tropical cyclones by year, you'll see the number of storms each year worldwide hits a hold at 1968. The NIO has good numbers back to 1890. Maybe User:Jason Rees can chime in on this. Or perhaps other editors? I don't know where there is a thread for Australian seasons. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there CT! Just to let you know, I updated your user rights, so you can move pages, you can rollback with a single click (be careful with that one), and you're a confirmed user. Thanks for your editing and good work on Wikipedia. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Wow, thank you very much! It is always a pleasure editing on Wikipedia, and I am glad that I have been able to contribute at least in a small way. I will be sure to read up on the information about these new user rights so I don't mess anything up! Also, just to check, did you also add pending changes reviewer for the Pacific typhoon season issue? Thank you again. ChocolateTrain (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Jason Rees reached out to me that I should give you the new user rights. So if you mess up, I'm gonna blame him :P Happy editing. Cheers to everyone who works hard on keeping up with all things tropical. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to [email protected], so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at [email protected].

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricaneboy23: There are currently two active tropical lows in the Australian region. The references for the formation of each of these tropical lows are provided in the article sections for each system, which you evidently have not read. For your convenience, I will reproduce them here:

• 02U
• Other TL

In the future, please be more thorough in checking your information before reverting edits and throwing insults around. ChocolateTrain (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesnt it seem a little fishy they formed on the same day and are at the exact same position? No. They’re the exact same system. Its just 2 different outlooks regarding the same system... look at the map! Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 16:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/index.shtml Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 16:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricaneboy23: No they are not two different outlooks concerning the same system. The first TL 02U is roughly located at 14S 122E while the second is at 7S 130E. By my very rough maths there are 8 degrees of latitude between them.Jason Rees (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the map? Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 16:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt mention 2 systems. They were issued at 2 different times im pretty sure, thats why theres a difference in latitude/longitude. Sorry to break it to you. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 16:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if there were 2 systems, im pretty sure the JTWC would mention 2 invests. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricaneboy23: Firstly, please use the ping template to notify someone when you have responded to their comment, as they do not automatically get a notification. Secondly, please indent your replies (I have done this for you).

No, it is not at all "fishy" that two systems formed on the same day. Things like that happen regularly in meteorology. There is only one system shown on the summary map because that is the only system that the BOM is currently issuing advisories on. This does not mean it is the only tropical low. The BOM regularly discusses tropical lows in their tropical cyclone outlooks which tropical cyclone forecast maps are not issued for. This is the case again this time. The sources that I provided clearly indicate the existence of two different tropical lows. That can be determined from the coordinates of each tropical low, as well as the locations mentioned. Furthermore, the two systems are more than 1,000 km apart. It is not one system that has travelled that distance in five hours. ChocolateTrain (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ChocolateTrain:“Firstly”, you legit just showed me 2 advisories. Why would there be only 1 TL on the map? Secondly, the JTWC would’ve probably been issuing on 2 “invests” if this was the case. Third, Northern Territory is a region right by Western Australia’s Kimberly region... Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also you do not mark the strongest storm as “Tropical Low” 02U. Have you seen other articles? They don’t have “Tropical Cyclone” Veronica and “Tropical Low” in front of the name. Sheesh. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt even worth arguing about anymore. Just please let me do my edits. I wont delete your stupid “Tropical Low” Section. Im deleting this talk... Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just delete a discussion you don't want to have. I have already explained why there is only 1 TL on the map. It is because there is only a track map for one of them. The JTWC does not mention all tropical lows that are designated by the BOM, and the BOM is the RSMC for this basin. Your point about the Kimberley and the Northern Territory is simply irrelevant. Australia is an enormous country, and the distance between the systems is more than 1,000 km. I don't understand why you are being confrontational or continuing to argue this point. ChocolateTrain (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is done lmao. Please, just stop bugging me. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussion is done, I have full right to delete it. It’s my talk page. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you read my last message you would understand... lol. Hurricaneboy23 (Page) 17:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not finished yet, and there is nothing funny about this situation, and believe me, I would much rather not be bugging you. Jason Rees has years of experience and tens of thousands of edits on Wikipedia, and although I'm not anywhere near that level, I am by no means a newbie. The sarcasm and dismissive attitude with which you have treated this situation is very distasteful and unpleasant. Just because you have finished what you want to say, does not mean other people have finished what they want to say. I am not going to just "let you do your edits" without saying anything, because you are practically vandalising the article. I know it is not intentional, but you are still causing damage. There is nothing "stupid" about the Tropical low section. ChocolateTrain (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricaneboy23: Can you please refrain from making a mountain of tiny edits all at once? It makes it impossible for other people to edit the page because we just keep getting edit conflicts. Combine all of your changes into one edit if possible. ChocolateTrain (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 Australian region cyclone season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wyndham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 Australian region cyclone season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barrow Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CT, I took Nadi's 18z pressure for 06F from their marine bulletin which stated 1006. I also note that from what I saw last night, the BoM gave 1003 hPa on their MSLP maps at 18z. I am aware that the BoM has some rights to warn for the SPAC, which is why I am happy to include their data especially in cases like this where there is confusion as to where the system is. You also have to remember that the FMS, Melbourne, Brisbane all do their own analysis.

As for the AOR, it is hard to define where the border between the regions should be as there are no perfect spots. 180 is out since, you dont want Nadi to be talking about a tropical cyclone that is impacting Fiji or Rotuma, but that they dont have the responsibility for or are about to take the responsibility for. Any further east like 160W or 140W and your having a laugh. I also believe that the original idea was for Nadi to warn for the islands including Vanuatu - so 170E isnt a great choice but nor is 150E since you are approaching parts of Queensland/New Zealand. You also have to weigh Wellington and PNGs feelings regarding the border into the mix. So your probably stuck with 160E unless you wanna do something at 135E like the JTWC do.

On a side note, feel free to add me on Facebook, as I suspect that we would be able to communicate about things a lot quicker/easier.Jason Rees (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears just to be your computer as it looks fine on mine, I will ask other editors who communicate with me offline to check though.Jason Rees (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a dig through all of the bulletins issued by the FMS via my email from February 1st onwards and all of them show that the LPA that became TC Uesi did not exist within the Australian region. This has been backed up by the track maps issued by Nadi As a result, I am forced to take official data and say that Uesi didnt exist in the Aus region regardless of what the BoM say especially since the only TWO archived says that the system existed to the southwest of the Solomon Islands which is so broad that they could mean that the system existed as far west as 170E. Jason Rees (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: In this case, I disagree. Perhaps for the South Pacific basin you can take the FMS's word for it, but you cannot upon solely your own judgement go against the information provided officially by the BOM for the Australian region. All tropical lows mentioned within the tropical cyclone outlooks are located within the BOM's AoR unless otherwise specified. Besides, even if you don't accept that logic, they stated in their high seas forecast at 18:00 UTC on 4 February that the system was centred at 15°S 159°E, which is categorically, unambiguously and irrefutably within the Australian region. The BOM only issues xxU identifiers and track maps to systems that have at least a moderate chance of development within the Australian region within the next several days, and since the FMS works closely with the BOM and even uses the same category scale, I would suggest this is the same with them (but with xxF). Thus, it is very possible for a fully official weak tropical low to exist within the region without it appearing on any track maps or ever receiving an identifier, and indeed, this happens all the time. The FMS would only have started issuing advisories once they deemed it was likely that the system would develop, and thus it only appeared that the system formed within the SPac, when in fact it had moved there from the Australian region. The fact that it was given an xxF identifier does not mean it did not form within the Australian region. There are four archived sources from the BOM that show the system was within their AoR, and it is incorrect to dismiss these as 'unofficial', given they are absolutely official. ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond more fully later as I am running out the door to work at the moment. On a side note, Hink lazily left you a note on my talkpage yesterday responding to your infobox problem.Jason Rees (talk) 12:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Thanks. I'll check it out. ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not relying on my own judgement of where Uesi was as I haven't got the skills to decide where it was and as a result, I have to use what the warning centres say in their bulletins. The primary bulletins, I have to use for information about a system are Brisbane's TWO for the Coral Sea (Which isn't restricted to their part of the Coral Sea), Nadi's marine bulletins & Tropical Disturbance Summaries as well as JTWC Significant Tropical Weather Advisories which are all in theory issued daily. I also can refer to Melbourne's high seas warnings but can not really refer to things such as surface pressure maps, track maps or satellite imagery except for guidance. In this case Nadi's track maps for Uesi showed its past track, which is near the Australian region but never in it. As a result, I looked through Nadi's marine bulletins up until the point they designated it as a tropical disturbance (they referred to it as a low which is their term for LPA) and they dont show that it went into the Aus region. As a result, I dont see why I should refer to Melbourne's warnings especially when t I also note the following line from the JTWC's STWA at 06/06z "A BROAD AREA OF CONVECTION WITHOUT A CLEAR LOW LEVEL CIRCULATION (LLC)." As a result, I can not count it towards the Aus region at the moment. I am more than happy to chuck it in an other systems section though as it has obviously been designated as XXU since its threatening to move into the Aus region, but I noticed your not a fan of them despite it being perfect for situations like this.Jason Rees (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: The thing is, though, you can't take the FMS's word for the Australian region. Every single one of the BOM's products is official for the Australian region. If the BOM says that they have a tropical low within their own region, then whatever the FMS says is completely immaterial. What the JTWC said is also irrelevant. The BOM determined that a TL existed within their region, and gave very specific coordinates for it to show that it was unambiguously within their region. I understand that Brisbane's TCO is not restricted to the Coral Sea region; however, if they mention a disturbance that lies outside their AoR, they always mention that explicitly. Using a foreign organisation to judge official calls from within the region is not correct. For example, the BOM said in their technical bulletin for TC Uesi at 00:00 UTC on 12 February that the system's winds had dropped to 60 knots and that the pressure was 977 hPa. This contradicts the FMS's information of 65 knots and 976 hPa (which, incidentally, has not changed one bit in 30 hours, so is almost certainly wrong), but since the system is in the SPac, the BOM's information is not official and the system must still be deemed an STC. Likewise, trying to use the JTWC and FMS to say that a tropical low in the Australian region isn't a tropical low when the BOM says otherwise is quite simply ridiculous. If you decide that they are correct rather than the BOM, then you are absolutely using your own judgement, since you are deciding to ignore the official advice of the RSMC. I cannot sanction this system being removed based on information from an unofficial source. ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read your argument is that your basically saying that the BoM are kings of the Aussie region and should be used in the Aus region, even if another warning centre who is in primary control of the system disagrees with their analysis. This is an interesting argument bearing in mind, that we have Jakarta and Port Moresby for the region as well as Reunion, Nadi and Wellington within Melbourne's High Seas AOR. Applying it liberally it means that Anthony 2010 & others rapidly intensified/weakened on 160E despite being in a strengthening or weakening phase, that we can not use any of BoM's reanalysis in the SWIO/SPAC etc. Now things have obviously changed since i wrote my argument last night as the BoM are now in control of the system, have publically called it 06U and we can see their past track in MetEye. As a result, I had a look at it and shared it with Jasper via FB, before I had to leave for work and I am happier to say that it developed in Aus initially.Jason Rees (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Sorry about not replying earlier. I somehow didn't realise that you had responded. I guess my point is that the BOM are the "kings" of the Australian region as you said. However, I would take the word of TCWC Jakarta and TCWC Port Moresby (even though I have no idea where TCWC Port Moresby actually publishes their TC warnings) over the BOM when the system in question is in their own sub-region. Additionally, if the BOM mentioned in a high seas forecast that a tropical low was in the northeastern Coral Sea, east of 160°E (still within their WMO-designated Metarea 10), but the FMS did not regard the system as a tropical disturbance, then equally I would not support including the system in the SPac article as its own section. This would be because the FMS (and TCWC Wellington) is the RSMC for the SPac and therefore the BOM is unofficial. Incidentally, this would actually be a case where I would support the inclusion of an "Other systems" section. It could be used in a situation like that to recognise that an unofficial agency (e.g. the JTWC or BOM in the SPac) has determined the existence of a tropical system which is not supported by the RSMC. However, my opinion still remains that if the BOM said there was a tropical low within their own AoR, then we have to take their word for that over any contradictory advice of the FMS. What we could say if an individual article was to be written on such a storm is that "The BOM indicated that a tropical low formed on 3 February and moved into the SPac on 5 February; however, the FMS did not classify the system as a tropical disturbance until..." This would respect the authority of each agency within their own region, while simultaneously providing all the relevant tracking information to the reader. I suppose with the reanalysis there is more lenience when it comes to the authority of the RSMC, especially if only one of the agencies in question actually performs a reanalysis. For example, if the BOM happens to produce a best track for the entire lifetime of Uesi but RSMC Nadi only stays with operational data, then I would be inclined to accept the BOM's analysis. Of course, situations like these are not very frequent and each agency would probably only re-analyse the system within their own region. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like calling the BoM unofficial within the SPAC especially after this week, where they were issuing official warnings for Uesi but unofficial warnings for the SPAC. We will see how Uesi is treated in its PTCR when it is released before making any decisions about giving it an article or how to treat it further, as I would not be surprised to see the formation date moved to the 5th since that's what MetEye seemed to be suggesting. As for the other systems, I moved your proposal to the project page and responded to it there as there wasnt any point in having a fragmented discussion. It would be nice to see what you think.Jason Rees (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ChocolateTrain reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: ). Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond more formally later but I just wanted to note that I strongly disagree with @Jasper Deng: taking this dispute to ANI and feel that it is better that we resolve this informally without involving outside administators.Jason Rees (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Thank you for your thoughtfulness and sense. If you wish to have a read, I wrote a piece defending myself at the noticeboard. I mentioned your name, but only to explain to the administrators what the context of the dispute was. I expressly mentioned that you were not involved in the edit war, and that you have conducted yourself with civility throughout. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was bored at work so I had a good read through it and thought that it was a fair summary of what had happened, though belief wasn't quite the right word. The problem is that the TCOP defines a TL as a TDE when in reality its BoMs word for about 6 Categories. (ZoDW, TDI, TDE and LPA), I have also noticed the FMS use it a few times for LPA but that's another argument and for now I just want you to keep your head up high as your doing a decent job and all of this stuff has been blown out of proportion by Deng. Though I wish you would reply to me at times over issues where I have provided you with my opinion on something.Jason Rees (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've read many "summaries of disagreements" by editors. Usually, they're nearly impossible to understand unless you're already involved in the issue, but your summary was clear, direct, and sensibly organized. (I don't have an opinion on the dispute, I just admire good clean writing.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Schazjmd: Thank you very much for the compliment. I try my best! ChocolateTrain (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Im 1/2 thining about creating an article for Uesi and was wondering if I could play with your sandbox a bit rather than starting a fresh one? Also if you have any more thoughts on the season articles or other system sections, then I would like to see them.Jason Rees (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Yeah, that's fine. Would you like me to move the start of the Uesi article to draft space instead? ChocolateTrain (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Also, it would be good if the tropical lows that affected land areas could keep their own sections in the season article. There is enough information for those systems that there is not too much white space. Besides, since about 60–65% of search engine traffic is from mobile devices, there would be no white space at all for the majority of Wikipedia readers, regardless of how small each section is. ChocolateTrain (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Actually, I have a new point of contention. Tropical depressions in the Pacific and Atlantic hurricane season articles get their own sections even if they impact no land areas or only exist for a single day. Additionally, the NHC's use of one-minute sustained winds makes the depressions seem stronger than what the BOM would classify them as. Based on that, I don't see why tropical lows in Australia should not also get their own sections. Add to this the fact that, as previously mentioned, the majority of Internet searches are done on mobile devices, where there is no white space at all between sections on Wikipedia, and the case for the "Other systems" section diminishes. Furthermore, an image and a track map provide a wealth of information to the reader, and really should be included. The "Other systems" section prevents their inclusion and makes understanding the location, track and strength of the system difficult (and relies on the reader having a somewhat technical understanding of tropical cyclones and a strong familiarity with foreign geography) due to the vague imprecision of words and qualitative descriptions. To be brief, the "Other systems" section makes the information significantly less accessible and more difficult to digest and comprehend for all readers, especially to casual readers. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its up to you as I am personally happy to edit it in userspace since I have your permission to edit it and I assume get it moved to mainspace if and when it's ready. As for the tropical lows, I would urge you to comment on the project page further as the season articles are a work in development and I feel that your input would be invaluable, especially since you are developing and care about the Australian region articles and can provide fresh eyes. I would note though that I'm not the one who raised the point about the white space or put this year's AUS TL's into OS in the first place and that our general inclusion criteria outside of the WPAC is a designation that doesn't repeat every few weeks such as XXU or XXF. However, I would ask you to think about and consider what tropical lows are, do you believe that they are all tropical depressions as the TCOP (Pg 11) for the region would have us believe? even when other warning centres like Nadi, Reunion, Jakarta or PNG disagree? Is it a simple word use by the BoM to describe general zones of disturbed weather in the region, tropical disturbances and tropical depressions? Should we really provide all tropical lows with a section even if they dint get a U designation? As for the Atlantic/Eastern Pacific, there is simply no need for an other systems section in those basins, since as i presume you know, the NHC does a TCR for each system and full-blown discussions for each advisory. Personally I think that any system given a TCR by the BoM or included in the seasonal summary would be given a full-blown section. I would also love to see a trackmap created for all of the weaker systems included in other systems and some criteria set for the sections.Jason Rees (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW in case you didn't notice the BoM have tweaked the dates for Daman (slightly) by 1 day either side.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019–20 Australian region cyclone season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nicholson River and Robinson River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently no significant tropical disturbances currently exist or are forecast to exist in RSMC Nadi's AOR within the next 24 hours, despite them issuing gale warnings on TC Gretel. The only thing I can think off is that RSMC Nadi is not planning to take the primary forecast responsibility for Gretel due to the BoM being in warning mode for Norfolk Island. Any thoughts? Jason Rees (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Yeah, I noticed that—very odd indeed. The BOM stated in their 00Z technical bulletin that they would not be issuing any more technical bulletins for the system, but did not actually specify that they were handing over responsibility to RSMC Nadi. They will apparently still be issuing forecast track maps, however, which I assume is because Norfolk Island is under a TC Warning, as you said. The FMS still does not have a forecast track map up on their website, and they haven't noted Gretel in their tropical disturbance summary either. They have, however, updated their tropical cyclone gale warning to indicate that Gretel is at 161.0°E. I also checked NZ MetService to see if they've assumed responsibility, since Gretel is expected to cross 25°S in about 18 hours, but they haven't issued any products apart from a TC outlook. So, I have no idea who is currently officially responsible! The fact that Australia's Norfolk Island territory exists is an argument in my mind for extending the BOM's AOR to 170°E. It's also pretty ridiculous that a cyclone could exist 700 km from Brisbane but still be within the FMS's AOR. ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadi have finally issued a track map, so I am expecting to see a Tropical Disturbance Advisory at 06z. We seem to keep going back to the AOR thing but this time I will point out that 170E is straight down the middle of New Zealand's South Island.Jason Rees (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volume XIV, Issue 39, March 17, 2020 The Hurricane Herald: Special COVID-19 edition! The Hurricane Herald is the semi-regular newsletter of mailing list. This issue of The Hurricane Herald covers all project related events from August 1, 2019–March 17, 2020. This edition's editor and author is ♫ Hurricanehink (talk ). Please visit this page and bookmark any suggestions of interest to you. This will help improve the newsletter and other cyclone-related articles. Past editions can be viewed here. From the Main Page ← 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 →

WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: News & Developments An awards program for the project began on May 31. It involves 25 levels that may be gained by earning points for completing various actions such as getting good or featured articles. Additional awards will be added in the future. In March 2020, the most popular article in the project was the Beaufort scale, with about 4,800 daily views, followed by tropical cyclone with 3,865 daily views, and Hurricane Katrina, with 3,393 daily views. Hurricane Dorian remains popularly viewed, six months after it devastated the Bahamas. Rounding out the top 10 are hurricanes Sandy and Irma. There is ongoing 2005 Atlantic hurricane season statistics , and articles for Franklin and Philippe. A singular article for the 2005 season was prepared in draftspace, and was incorporated into the main 2005 article. New articles since the last newsletter include: Tropical Storm Ampil Tropical Storm Meari (2011) Tropical Storm Nestor (2019) 1902–19 Pacific typhoon seasons 1920–38 Pacific typhoon seasons 1931 Pacific typhoon season Hurricane Dorian–Alabama controversy List of Azores hurricanes List of South Pacific tropical disturbances and tropical depressions List of Category 1 South Pacific tropical cyclones List of Category 2 South Pacific tropical cyclones List of Category 3 South Pacific severe tropical cyclones List of Category 4 South Pacific severe tropical cyclones New GA's include: 1915 Galveston hurricane 1916 Texas hurricane 1922 Atlantic hurricane season 1935 Atlantic hurricane season 1944 Jamaica hurricane 2008 Atlantic hurricane season Hurricane Dennis (1999) Hurricane Erin (1995) Hurricane Humberto (2019) Hurricane Lane (2018) Tropical Storm Kirk (2018) Typhoon Halola Typhoon Robyn (1993) The good topics . Project Goals & Progress The following is the current progress on the three milestone goals set by the WikiProject as of this publishing. They can be found, updated, at the main WikiProject page. 250 featured pages: 88.8% complete 150 featured articles: 76% complete 1500 good articles: 73.1% complete Recent storms of the month Edition Storm 38 Hurricane Barry (2019) 37 Cyclone Kenneth 36 Cyclone Idai 35 Typhoon Wutip (2019) New WikiProject Members since the last newsletter More information can be found here. This list lists members who have joined/rejoined the WikiProject since the release of the last issue in May 2019. Sorted chronologically. Struckout users denote users who have left or have been banned. JavaHurricane (talk · contribs) Sdslayer100 (talk · contribs) talk · contribs ) AC5230 (talk · contribs) JDD Sicko (talk · contribs) talk · contribs ) Chicdat (talk · contribs) To our new members: welcome to the project, and happy editing! Feel free to check the to-do list at the bottom right of the newsletter for things that you might want to work on. To our veteran members: thank you for your edits and your tireless contributions! Latest WikiProject Alerts The following are the latest article developments as updated by AAlertBot, as of the publishing of this issue. Due to the bot workings, some of these updates may seem out of place; nonetheless, they are included here. Article alerts Did you know 30 Apr 2024 – Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Dylan620 (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 30 Apr 2024 – Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Dylan620 (t · c); see discussion 23 Mar 2024 – Timeline of the 1994 Pacific hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by Dylan620 (t · c); see discussion Featured topic candidates 17 Mar 2024 – 1991 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was FT nominated by Dylan620 (t · c); see discussion The topic includes: Timeline of the 1991 Atlantic hurricane season Good article nominees 01 May 2024 – 1895 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by 12george1 (t · c); start discussion 29 Apr 2024 – 1937 Hong Kong typhoon (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Hurricanehink (t · c); start discussion 17 Apr 2024 – Hurricane Hilary (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Hurricanehink (t · c); start discussion 17 Apr 2024 – 1876 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by 12george1 (t · c); start discussion 09 Apr 2024 – 1873 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by 12george1 (t · c); start discussion 08 Apr 2024 – 1872 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by 12george1 (t · c); start discussion 29 Mar 2024 – 1936 Pacific typhoon season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Hurricanehink (t · c); start discussion Articles to be merged 13 Apr 2024 – Cyclone Kate (2006) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2005–06 Australian region cyclone season by Hurricanehink (t · c); see discussion 06 Apr 2024 – Tropical Storm Philippe (2023) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2023 Atlantic hurricane season by 71.190.208.91 (t · c); see discussion 03 Mar 2024 – Tropical Storm Cristobal (2002) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2002 Atlantic hurricane season by Hurricanehink (t · c); see discussion 23 Feb 2024 – Tropical Storm Nicholas (2003) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2003 Atlantic hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion 23 Feb 2024 – Tropical Storm Lester (2004) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2004 Pacific hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion 23 Feb 2024 – Tropical Storm Ignacio (1997) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 1997 Pacific hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion 23 Feb 2024 – Tropical Storm Danny (2009) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2009 Atlantic hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion 05 Feb 2024 – Hurricane Shary (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2010 Atlantic hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion 30 Jan 2024 – Hurricane Nora (2003) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2003 Pacific hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion 30 Jan 2024 – Hurricane Newton (1986) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 1986 Pacific hurricane season by Hurricane Noah (t · c); see discussion (2 more...) Articles for creation 25 Apr 2024 – Draft:Effects of Hurricane Ian in Florida (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 204.98.124.205 (t · c) Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature? Click to watch (Subscribe via  RSS  Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics! Storm of the month and other tropical activity for August Typhoon Lekima became China's costliest typhoon ever recorded when it struck the country in early August, leaving 90 fatalities and over $9 billion in damage. Atlantic - In August, there were two weak, short-lived tropical storms – Chantal and Erin, as well as Hurricane Dorian. Eastern Pacific - at the beginning of August, Hurricane Flossie was active, which ultimately passed north of Hawaii. Later in the month, there was a series of tropical storms off the southwest coast of Mexico – Tropical Storm Gil was the shortest-lived, Tropical Storm Henriette passed near the coast of Mexico, and Tropical Storm Ivo moved over Clarion Island. Western Pacific - in the beginning of August, Typhoon Faxai. Toward the end of August, Tropical Storm Bailu struck Taiwan and China, killing three people, and Tropical Storm Podul moved through the Philippines. North Indian Ocean - a deep depression killed three people when it struck Odisha in eastern India. Storm of the month and other tropical activity for September Grand Bahama Island at the same intensity a day later. Dorian killed 58 people and left $7 billion in damage to the island nation. The hurricane later struck North Carolina as a minimal hurricane, and Nova Scotia as a post-tropical cyclone. Atlantic - The tropics were more active in September. Tropical Storm Fernand killed one person and caused damaging floods in northeastern Mexico. Tropical Storm Gabrielle moved across the eastern Atlantic Ocean. Hurricane Humberto affected the Bahamas weeks after Dorian devastated the island chain, and later brought hurricane-force winds to Bermuda. Tropical Storm Imelda formed rapidly near the coast of Texas and dropped torrential rainfall, killing five people and inundating parts of Texas affected by Hurricane Harvey two years earlier. Hurricane Jerry and Tropical Storm Karen moved near or over the eastern Caribbean. At the end of the month, Hurricane Lorenzo became the easternmost Category 5 Atlantic hurricane, reaching that intensity in the eastern Atlantic Ocean; the hurricane caused a shipwreck, killing at least three people, and also passed through the Azores in early October. Western Pacific - In early September, Tropical Storm Kajiki brought heavy rainfall to northeastern Vietnam, killing six people. Typhoon Lingling moved through the East China Sea before striking North Korea, killing eight people. In the middle of September, short-lived Tropical Storm Peipah dissipated south of Japan, and Typhoon Tapah passed between Japan and South Korea. At the end of the month, Typhoon Mitag was moving across South Korea. There were also a series of nine non-developing depressions. Eastern Pacific - There were two major hurricanes in September – Juliette and Kiko. Short-lived Tropical Storm Akoni was in the Central Pacific. Toward the end of the month, Tropical Storm Mario and Hurricane Lorena interacted with each other, and the latter hurricane struck Mexico twice, killing one person. At the end of the month, Tropical Storm Narda followed a similar path to Lorena, killing four people in southwestern Mexico. North Indian Ocean - In September, Cyclonic Storm Hikaa struck eastern Oman, killing one person. At the end of the month, a land depression formed over western India. Storm of the month and other tropical activity for October Typhoon Hagibis was considered the most devastating typhoon to hit the Kantō region of Japan since Ida in 1958 . It struck near Tokyo on October 12, triggering heavy rainfall and landslides. Hagibis killed 95 people along its path and left about US$9 billion in damage. Atlantic - a series of weaker storms formed in October, beginning with Melissa, which caused significant flooding along the east coast of the United States from its predecessor extratropical low. After a weak tropical depression formed near Cabo Verde, there were two tropical storms in the Gulf of Mexico – Nestor and Olga, which together left more than $250 million in damage and four fatalities to the United States gulf coast. Later in the month, Hurricane Pablo became the easternmost storm on record to attain hurricane status, having originated from a nontropical storm near the Azores. A few days later, Subtropical Storm Rebekah formed in the same region. Eastern Pacific - there were three cyclones in the Eastern Pacific during the month, beginning with short-lived Ema in the Central Pacific. Later, Tropical Storm Octave lasted two days over open waters, and Tropical Storm Priscilla moved ashore near Manzanillo. Western Pacific - in addition to Hagibis, two other storms formed in the western Pacific during October. Typhoon Neoguri and Typhoon Bualoi existed south of Japan. At the end of the month, Tropical Storm Matmo struck Vietnam, which later redeveloped in the North Indian Ocean as Cyclone Bulbul. North Indian Ocean - there were two storms in the North Indian Ocean during October. The first was Super Cyclonic Storm Kyarr, which was the strongest storm on record in the Arabian Sea; the cyclone produced high waves throughout the basin, but didn't strike land. Later in the month, Cyclone Maha formed in the Arabian Sea, marking the first time on record there were two simultaneous storms in the body of water. Maha eventually struck Gujarat in western India as a depression. Storm of the month and other tropical activity for November Cyclone Bulbul formed in the Bay of Bengal from the remnants of Tropical Storm Matmo, which struck Vietnam in late October. Bulbul intensified into the record-breaking sixth very intense tropical cyclone (the NIO equivalent to a hurricane). On November 9, Bulbul made landfall near the India/Bangladesh border, killing 38 people and leaving US$2.6 billion in damage. Atlantic - Tropical Storm Sebastien formed northeast of the Lesser Antilles and moved across much of the Atlantic, becoming an extratropical cyclone near the Azores. Eastern Pacific - there were two simultaneous tropical cyclones in the middle of the month. Tropical Storm Raymond brought rainfall to California, and Tropical Depression Twenty-One-E existed south of Mexico. Western Pacific - Typhoon Halong was the strongest storm of the year worldwide, reaching winds of 215 km/h (130 mph) according to the JMA. The storm remained away from land. Also in the month, Typhoon Nakri struck Vietnam, killing six people. Typhoon Fengshen struck the northern Marianas Islands. Typhoon Kalmaegi and Tropical Storm Fung-wong affected the northern Philippines in short succession. Later in the month, Typhoon Kammuri formed, moving through the Philippines in early December, where it caused US$116 million in damage and 12 deaths. South Pacific - Cyclone Rita passed through the Solomon Islands. Member of the month (edition) – ChocolateTrain ChocolateTrain first joined Wikipedia in April 2017. An Australian native, he is already a prolific writer on the Australian basin, and is responsible for half the edits to the current Australian cyclone season. ChocolateTrain wrote good articles on Cyclone Lili (2019) and Cyclone Nora, plus several articles that are C-class. We thank ChocolateTrain for his edits, and hopes he keeps writing about southern hemisphere storms! From the Main Page documents WikiProject related materials that have appeared on the main page from August 1, 2019–March 17, 2020 in chronological order. List August 12 - Hurricane Nadine August 30 - Tropical Storm Faxai (2007) September 6 - List of Arabian Peninsula tropical cyclones October 20 - Meteorological history of Hurricane Patricia December 6 - Hurricane Connie December 13 - Timeline of the 1983 Atlantic hurricane season January 3 - Cyclone Ada January 20 - Timeline of the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season February 17 - Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018) March 9 - Hurricane Hattie Did you know...? August 29 - 1875 Indianola hurricane September 20 - Meteorological history of Hurricane Dorian Featured Content From August 1, 2019–March 17, 2020, one featured list and three featured articles were promoted: 1944 Cuba–Florida hurricane Hurricane Alex (2016) Hurricane Sergio (2018) Timeline of the 2015 Pacific hurricane season Current assessment table Assessments valid as of this printing. Depending on when you may be viewing this newsletter, the table may be outdated. See here for the latest, most up to date statistics. As of this issue, there are 154 good articles . There are only 63 B-class articles, perhaps because because most articles of that quality already passed a GA review. There are 374 C-class articles, 733 start-class articles, and 150 stub-class articles, with 32 lists, and 9 current articles. These figures mean that slightly more than half of the project is rated a GA or better - including the lists/current/future articles, there are 1320 articles that are below GA status, versus 1334 that are GA or better. There is a discussion about getting rid of redirect and list-class articles. About the assessment scale → WikiProject To-Do Here are some tasks you can do : Requests: Cyclone Keni, more Wikify: Make sure tropical cyclone lists, such as List of Texas hurricanes, have storm articles properly linked Cleanup: Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Wilma, Tropical Storm Fay (2002), Tropical cyclones in 2017 Expand: Indianola Hurricane of 1886, Typhoon Nina (1975), Typhoon Durian, Tropical cyclones in 2016/2015/2014, List of Category 1 Pacific hurricanes , Pacific hurricane season timelines Typhoon Fred (1994), more... WPTC 15th Anniversary push: some goals for the 15th year of WPTC include the creation or improvement of many other articles listed in the first section on the WPTC talk page . Collaborating - AKA the right kind of sharing, by User:Hurricanehink As mentioned elsewhere in the newsletter, 2005 Atlantic hurricane season has changed recently. It was a collaborative effort of several users, making sure this top-importance vital article is still of featured-quality. (There is an ongoing discussion about removing its featured article status). There are other kinds of collaborations. Recently, users TropicalAnalystwx13 wrote Tropical Storm Kirk (2018) together. Each year, the season articles are written by many editors, by folks who add the latest satellite imagery or track. There are others who document the storm's journey, and what impacts they left. When a major storm is threatening a landmass (especially the United States), users edit from IP addresses far and wide to add the latest information. Unfortunately, some of these big storm articles languish, because they're written in real time without historical perspective, and the websites might no longer be up and running a few years later. Don't get me wrong, I know the excitement of being the first to write on Wikipedia when the NHC classifies something. However, there are lots of older articles that end up half-finished, or with broken weblinks. Thankfully we have the web archive. We see the disruption that Covid-19 is causing in our world right now. Yea, it sucks to have everything canceled, for schools and bars and gyms and restaurants to be shut down. Some people experience that same feeling every few years when a hurricane/typhoon/cyclone strikes. It's easy writing/researching about these furious beasts of nature when we're in the comfort of our own home/office/library/school. And sometimes it's uncomfortable seeing how we rebuild. After every storm, there is help, often from the government. Politics have made my country turn fearful and hateful, and so I have to choose my words carefully. When nature is at its worst, my government is there after when people need it the most, providing financial assistance, logistical support, and a sense of national unity. This pandemic is making a lot of people fearful of the unknown, how bad that unstoppable force will be. A lot of us may be stuck at home right now with a sense of fear and too much time on our hands. Consider, then, the spirit of collaboration, working together to document the world around us. If you're reading this, you are likely interested in meteorology. Go improve an article then. Now. Do it. :P Stop reading this and find an article you're interested in, and make it better. <3 Tropical cyclones by year In 2019, there have been 143  tropical or subtropical cyclones. We (the thousands of editors who are writing the first draft of history in the middle of Earth's biggest climate crisis in many millennia) are writing the first draft of history. There might be edit wars, conflicts over whether a source is reliable, and maybe even a controversy surrounding a sharpie, Alabama, and a NWS weather map (see also Hurricane Dorian–Alabama controversy, AKA Sharpiegate). 2019 has featured several significant storms: Cyclone Idai, one of the deadliest tropical cyclones in the southern hemisphere. Cyclone Kenneth was the strongest cyclone to strike Mozambique. In February, Typhoon Wutip was the strongest tropical cyclone ever recorded in the month of February. The storms in 2019 represent about 0.116% of the known tropical cyclones on Wikipedia. We're aware of around 12,000 tropical cyclones; about one-third were in the Western Pacific, where storms have killed more than 1.4 million people. Storms in the western Pacific date back to the year 957, during the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period. In the Atlantic, we know of 2,443 tropical cyclones, dating back to 1494, and Christopher Columbus's 2nd voyage to the New World; however, paleotempestological evidence] of storms date back to 1330 BC. In the eastern Pacific, storms date back to 1537, when a hurricane struck Mexico and was recorded by a missionary. Storms in the South Pacific Ocean date back to 1568, and in the South Indian Ocean to 1615. Wikipedia coverage in the North Indian Ocean goes back to 1721. Storm of the month and other tropical activity for December very intense tropical cyclone in the South-west Indian Ocean since Cyclone Fantala in 2016. It formed on December 3 as part of a series of storms in the western Indian Ocean in both hemispheres. Ambali's winds increased by 185 km/h (115 mph) in 24 hours, marking the fastest 24-hour intensification recorded in the Southern Hemisphere. The storm rapidly weakened after its peak, degenerating into a remnant low by December 8. Western Pacific - Typhoon Phanfone moved through the central Philippines on Christmas Day, killing 50 people. Damage was estimated at US$67.2 million, enough to warrant the retirement of its international name, as well its local Filipino name Ursula. North Indian - Cyclonic Storm Pawan formed in early December in the western Arabian Sea. It struck Somalia, causing flooding rains that killed six people. Pawan existed simultaneously to a deep depression off India's west coast, which killed 25 people. The season ended on December 10 when another deep depression formed in the Arabian Sea, which dissipated near the Somalia coastline. South-west Indian Ocean - Cyclone Belna developed west of Cyclone Ambali, and struck northwestern Madagascar on December 9. The storm killed nine people and left US$25 million in damage. Cyclone Calvinina formed at the end of the month, passing near Mauritius on December 31, causing power outages and flooding. The storm became extratropical the next day. South Pacific - There were two December tropical cyclones – a tropical depression, and Tropical Cyclone Sarai. Sarai passed near Fiji on December 27, causing two deaths and US$2.3 million in damage. Storm of the month and other tropical activity for January Cyclone Tino was part of a broader convergence zone that affected ten South Pacific countries. Tino formed on January 11, and passed near Fiji on January 17 with winds of 120 km/h (75 mph), where two people were left missing. Tino became extratropical two days later. South Atlantic - Subtropical Storm Kurumí formed on January 23 south of São Paulo. It existed for two days, until it was absorbed by a larger weather system that killed three people in Brazil. South-West Indian Ocean - A series of three systems formed in the second half of the month, beginning with a short-lived tropical depression. Tropical Storm Diane moved across Madagascar in its formative stages, killing 31 people. It later passed near Mauritius, and eventually became extratropical. Tropical Storm Esami formed east of Madagascar and followed Diane's path. Australia - the Australian season began when Tropical Cyclone Blake formed on January 4. It later struck Western Australia on the Dampier Peninsula, causing localized flooding. Simultaneous to Blake's development, Cyclone Claudia moved across Australia's Top End, dropping heavy rainfall, and eventually reached its peak intensity off northwest Australia. There were also two tropical lows during the month, including one low in the extreme southeastern Gulf of Carpentaria, which dropped 475 mm (18.7 in) of rainfall in Queensland. South Pacific - Toward the end of the month, there was a short-lived tropical disturbance near American Samoa. Storm of the month and other tropical activity for February Cyclone Damien struck Western Australia near Karratha on February 8, having originated from a monsoon trough five days later. Damien caused localized flooding and power outages. South-west Indian - Tropical Storm Francisco lasted for nearly two weeks, beginning as a short-lived storm near the Chagos, and moving across much of the basin as a weak disturbance. Francisco regenerated into a tropical storm near eastern Madagascar, moving ashore near Mahanoro; it killed one person in the country. Also in the month, Cyclone Gabekile formed on February 13, and weakened after it stalled over open waters. Australia - there were two other storms in the basin during the month, in addition to Damien. Cyclone Esther moved across the Northern Territory, reached the coastline of the Indian Ocean, and then moved back east inland. The storm caused flooding rains along its path. Occurring simultaneously to Esther, Cyclone Ferdinand developed, intensified, and weakened off Australia's northwest coast. South Pacific - Cyclone Uesi passed west of New Caledonia on February 11, causing flooding and power outages. It later moved into the Australian basin, where it transitioned into a subtropical cyclone. High waves killed one person in Sydney. Over a one week span, four tropical cyclones developed in the basin in short-succession near American Samoa, including two tropical disturbances. Cyclone Vicky caused power outages and flooding, followed only days later by Cyclone Wasi. Write the next issue of The Hurricane Herald →

@Hurricanehink: Thank you so much for the recognition! It is a very pleasant surprise, indeed! I love being a part of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones, and I am so glad that I have been able to contribute in some small way to the expansion of our articles, particularly in the Australian region. It's always a pleasure working with you, as always. Thanks again! ChocolateTrain (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve it! You would've gotten it sooner if I had decided to publish sooner, but life gets busy (until you get quarantined). Hope you're safe and healthy where you are. Keep up the good editing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your messages in JR's talk page. I am glad that you are also keeping an eye in all three parts of the Australian basin. But I really have seen TCWC Perth's bulletin on that day that a weak tropical low had developed, and, I have recalled that the day before mentioned a tropical low may formed and hence why I kept an eye in the I.O area via TCWC Perth's advisories around that time. I do not know if you look them out the same as me, but I do the TC 3-day outlook. One of my main goals for the past 3 years for the Australian basin is to find all "tropical lows" mentioned in any of the three areas because the BoM is not really that good in designating their systems and usually, skips a number, which I personally do not like either.

Moreover regarding the sources, if you may not know a senior user used to archive all sources in all basins and have provided sources which helped provide citations for the storm's sections and articles, and actually is someone that can archive a source from a while back. Ever since he left many of the storms articles like in the 2019 PTS article have not been cited. Kind regards, though. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: I definitely do recall TCWC Perth talking about the possibility of a tropical low forming near the western boundary of the region, but I don't believe one ever did actually form. Regardless, we can't include a system if we don't have a source for its existence. I certainly don't know how you can archive a page that has been overwritten, so I'm afraid I'm not able to be of any help on that matter. On the topic of Tropical Low xxU identifier codes, they are only mentioned in technical bulletins, which are in turn only issued if the system is expected to strengthen into a cyclone in a few days. That can make it seem like numbers are skipped, when in reality the weak tropical lows that the "missing" numbers refer to are just not mentioned by their identifier code in the outlooks. Of course, the occasional administrative error is bound to occur. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it kinda sucks really. One time I remember JR has to email the BoM regarding some confirmation about unnumbered TLs and confirmed from there about the missing designations. But in anyway, I'm really glad that you work effortlessly in the Australian region articles because those articles were rather lacked behind before. I haven't been editing for a while due to university and I've seen that you were editor of the month; you really did improved so much and congrats of your work too :) Stay safe, though. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: Thanks, mate! I have a natural connection to the Australian region since I live here, so I do my best to edit frequently on those articles. It sure was a pleasant surprise to be named WPTC's editor of the month! I hope you're staying safe as well. New Zealand has had one of the best responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in the whole world, so I would say you shouldn't have any problems (assuming you still live in New Zealand, that is). From all indications in our news here "across the ditch", Jacinda Ardern has been doing a great job, as always. Also, congratulations on getting into university! Did you get the final mark you wanted at the end of high school, and a place in the degree you were aiming for? ChocolateTrain (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! And thanks as well. Yes I'm staying here in NZ anyway. I am really proud on how she handled this as well and how she really proved on how well she is being a PM. Despite some ministers behind her who are not effective imo, she's still worth my vote for this year! In university I got in to what I wanted which is on Biomedical Science, however kind of stoked how I couldn't fit in some lectures regarding music or doing a minor in music because of how structured biomedical is (if you do not know I am on to music as well). However, which I also found out recently from you too, is how I'm doing one lecture on Music theory, because that is my only option left for any musical things this year haha. Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: Wow, is it election time already this year in NZ? That went so quickly. I'm glad you're able to do at least one course on music theory to keep up with your interests. I did music at school until the end of Year 10 (equivalent to Year 11 in NZ, because you go to Year 13 if I'm not mistaken), but stopped for my final two years of school to focus more on science. Are you studying the biomedical science degree as a pathway into a doctor of medicine program (i.e. a pre-med pathway)? I have quite a few friends from school who are doing that. ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep elections are held every 3 years here. And woah I see you are quite rather similar to me. Regarding the biomedical science pathway, I would say yes? My major is Pharmacology and Molecular Science, which I assume it is the same as what you have referred. Typhoon2013 (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: We have federal elections every three years in Australia as well. Our most recent one was in May last year. I'm not sure how it works in NZ, but if you want to become a doctor in Australia, you can't go straight from school into a Doctor of Medicine program at university. You have to do a "pre-med" degree first. I'm not sure what restrictions there are on which degrees are permitted (it probably depends on the university anyway), but many people (including my friends) choose to do a three-year Bachelor of Biomedical Science first, and then enrol in the Doctor of Medicine after that. At the University of Queensland, which is where I attend, there aren't any majors for the Bachelor of Biomedical Science, so it's interesting to know that you can formally specialise within your degree. So, are you intending on becoming a doctor afterwards? ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So this might sound stupid, but believe it or not, the course I'm doing was picked last minute. But I really love to do Biology and Chemistry and I picked this because all of the lectures I'll be doing is something I love. I just know that I want to do something related to Science (more on Biology and Chemistry sides) but then again it is a bit broad so yeah, however at this point it looks like I'm enjoying at making medicines? But a bit too early to tell haha. I do know that in my major I still have to study after my third year and go into masters degree, but not quite too sure about that. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: No, it doesn't sound stupid at all! I unfortunately do a lot of things at the last minute, so I completely understand. Is the masters degree a requirement for graduating your program, or is it an optional extra afterwards? Perhaps you could go on to do medicine development or research? I suppose you could also do a Bachelor of Pharmacy and work in a hospital as a pharmacist. I have another friend who is doing that. ChocolateTrain (talk) 05:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah apparently there is no such thing as a Bachelor of Pharmacy here lmao. I am basically just following my friend as he is doing the exact same pathway as me, but either way I planned on going further after my three years and do a masters (or perhaps further if I want to). Anything biochemistry related etc I am down for any really, but with this virus going on, it is kinda increasing my passions towards there too but I'll see where I go in life. I also feel weird spamming your talk page if perhaps you have other social media that you use too? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there CT. How's your fall going? Thankfully it hasn't been too bad a cyclone season for Australia, but poor Vanuatu/Fiji :/ I just wanted to check in and see how you're managing in these weird times. It's easy on Wikipedia to think of all of the other users as just faceless user names, but there's always a set of hands on the other side of that computer screen. I've been trying to stay busy editing and doing lots of writing. Here's hoping you're managing well! Talk to you later, cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Hi Andrew (if you don't mind me calling you by your real name)! It's good to hear from you. The times are certainly weird—I doubt there's been anything like it since the Second World War. I am going well, and thankfully Australia has been able to keep a lid on the COVID-19 cases. If I'm not mistaken, our number of new cases has decreased for nine of the last ten days, which is a positive sign. I sure am worried for people in the US like you, though. It must be frightening—or tense at the very least—living in New Jersey, where the pandemic really seemes to be centred upon now (with New York included, of course). I hope you and your family are staying safe. And if I may bring partisan politics into this, I also hope that President Donald Trump doesn't make any rash decisions about lifting restrictions at the expense of people's lives.

Like you mentioned, it has been a very quiet cyclone season for Australia this year. Admittedly, we have had three landfalls (which I think is one below the long-term average), but only seven tropical cyclones which I hardly need to clarify is very low. No major-hurricane-equivalent systems, either (although, Damien and Ferdinand did get close). The South Pacific has been stealing our cyclones this year—Uesi, Gretel and Harold all originated in the Australian region before promptly escaping to the east. What Harold has done in the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji and Tonga is absolutely disastrous. The COVID-19 restrictions may also prevent or slow humanitarian aid from Australia and New Zealand that is usually given after natural disasters like this. I hope the countries are able to recover quickly.

On a different note, I was very pleased with the rain that fell in eastern Australia earlier this year, including in Brisbane, where I live. in fact, by mid March, we had received about as much rainfall as we got in the entirety of 2019. Last year was Australia's driest year on record, and it is such a relief to finally have some good rainfall. Before the rain, everything was dry—the grass (or what was left of it) was brown and sparse, and the ground was quite literally cracking. Now the park behind my house is covered in green grass (the fact that I have to specify the colour of the grass is ridiculous, but it really was brown before), which is fantastic. The persistent heavy rain that fell on the southern half of Australia's eastern seaboard—from around the Sunshine Coast to Melbourne—for several days during February also put out the bushfires that had been burning since last year. I believe there was also flash flooding in various places, including parts of Brisbane, the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast and Sydney, but no one was complaining, because we finally had rain. What has the weather been like in New Jersey, and in the US more broadly?

Stay safe, and keep up the good work as always! ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: If you are interested, here is a choropleth map showing Australia's rainfall deciles for last year. The only above-average patches of note are from Cyclone Veronica in Western Australia's Pilbara region, Cyclone Trevor on Cape York Peninsula, and the terrible flooding in central-western Queensland and Townsville in early 2019 (as in, up to two metres of rain in twelve days terrible). Everywhere else was below average. ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Chocolate! Nope, I don't mind being called my name :) Yea, things are certainly interesting now, and what's wild is that it's the internet era, during the world's biggest disruption since WWII. Hell, I thought that Trump was the world's greatest disruption, and he is making things worse every day. I'm almost at the point where I want to don't ever want to work on any US storm article from 2017-2021, just so I don't have to feel the embarrassment of writing "President Trump declared a disaster area..." I'm glad things are quiet for you, especially re: Covid cases, but I worry that it's now getting to be your fall/winter (especially as the world goes for months on end being in a state of abject panic/worry).

I'm glad your weather has been nice and rainy! (especially after the wildfires, that made the rounds on our news and Facebook feed up here) Yea you can really tell it with that choropleth map (never heard that term before you mentioned it!) I saw the article for 2019 Townsville flood, I'm guessing that's the flood you mentioned in Queensland? That article mentions it was caused by a tropical low, which makes me wonder if it was this one? It has been rather pleasant here in New Jersey (weather wise). We didn't have much of a winter here (it barely froze, which is unusual), and that means that we're going to have a bad tick/insect season this spring. Another great reason to stay inside XD Be safe, healthy, and well! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: I'm glad I could teach you a new term! Yes, the 2019 Townsville flood is the one I was referring to, and it was indeed caused by Tropical Low 13U. I have been intending to write that section of the season article for a long time now... well, I guess a year actually (so lazy!). To be honest, that article on the flood itself needs massive improvements as well. I might actually write an individual article for Tropical Low 13U which incorporates all of the Townsville flood information, as well as the information on the flooding in northwestern Queensland that is not included in that article. It's good to hear that your weather has been pleasant. I didn't know that you got ticks way up in New Jersey—I would have thought it would be too cold!

Ha ha ha, Trump sure is a disruption. What do you think the voter turnout will be like for the election at the end of the year? My guess is that more people than usual will vote because of how polarised politics has become under Trump's presidency. (At least, that is the way it seems from the news here in Australia. We hear about American politics almost every single day in our news, so I can only assume it permeates everything in the US.) I would expect that Democrats would be very keen to rid the US of Trump, whereas Republicans would be even more motivated than normal to keep Trump in the White House, and thus the voter turnout might be higher. Of course, COVID-19 could throw a spanner in the works and dissuade people from going to vote (hopefully everything will have calmed down by then, though). Personally, I am very supportive of the electoral system here in Australia, where voting in elections for all levels of government—federal, state and local—is compulsory for all people 18 and over. That way, the final vote is truly representative of what the entire country actually wants for their governments, rather than just the selection of the population that feels inclined to vote on the particular day. As I understand it, the Democratic voter base is composed of a significant proportion of young people, which negatively affects them during elections, since young people are less likely to vote than over-50s, who more typically align with Republican policies. If voting was compulsory, the artifical bias in votes towards the Republican Party as a result of the age difference would be nullified. What do you think about all this? ChocolateTrain (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's not laziness. There's no gun to your head, no real incentive to any of us contributing to Wikipedia except our own willpower and time availability. The Townsville flood would probably be part of a good/featured topic for 2018-19 AUS cyclone season, since it seems like a pretty important flooding event caused by that TL. But even then, you don't have to be the one to add it :P That's the beauty of Wikipedia. There's no deadline, there's no rush, and you don't have to do anything.

As for politics, I'm sorry my country's shitstorm is in your news almost every day. Yes, political polarization has become a daily shouting match, and the last three years haven't been easy. You're right, not just Democrats are keen to get rid of Trump, but so are the people who don't usually vote (the so-called "swing voters" who only vote when they feel like it). With only 55% of our electorate voting back in 2016, we saw a lot of those disaffected nonvoters vote for Trump (possibly because of Russian propaganda/misinformation, partly because Hillary Clinton was so widely expected to win that they thought they could throw away their vote). You're right that the Democratic base tilts young, and this year, a lot of young voters were hoping that our oldest candidate (Bernie Sanders) would be the nominee. But the US political system is a shit show. I agree that compulsory voting might fix some issues - at least the 45% of people who didn't vote last time would have to be knowledgeable enough to cast a vote. A large portion of the Republican Party base is older people (more likely to be former factory workers, or facing job loss due to Covid). Perhaps with compulsory voting, we would have multiple parties, much like Australia and some European countries have a viable Green party. Right now, we just have the two giant tent parties, with the Republicans going full authoritarianism (ignoring long-held practices, removing people from being able to vote, and on Tuesday, forcing one of our states to hold elections despite the Democratic governor wanting it to be delayed, or at least mail in ballot). So people having to vote would get them more interested at a young age. I've been interested in politics since the 2008 U.S. Presidential election (when Barack Obama was first elected), so I try and keep up with it. Your average millennial is more likely to vote as a result of the Obama years, but still not in as reliable numbers as the older crowd. How will Covid affect it all? Who knows! We'll find out as this year progresses. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]