User talk:ChocolateTrain

For the time being Ella is just a remnant area of low pressure per the FMS forecasts for Fiji and is not a "tropical disturbance".Jason Rees (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ChocolateTrain, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to 2016–17 Australian region cyclone season. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! ~ KN2731 {talk} 10:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI 22U has been upgraded to a tropical cyclone, in the immediate post analysis of the system.Jason Rees (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Oh, yes, it has too. Strange how they didn't classify it originally - they are saying it had winds of 85 km/h (pretty fast to not be classified as a cyclone). They originally said it peaked at 35 km/h, which is completely wrong! ChocolateTrain (talk) 05:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invitation to join the Tropical cyclones WikiProject (WPTC), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with tropical cyclones. WPTC hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming cyclone season. Simply click here to accept!

Hi, ChocolateTrain. I noticed your recent contributions to the 2016–17 Australian region cyclone season article. You added content that was badly needed in multiple areas. Since you seem to have a liking towards improving tropical cyclone articles, I would like to formally invite you to join the Tropical cyclones WikiProject. Have a great day, and enjoy your time here. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:53, 18 April 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

-- 05:20, Saturday, April 29, 2017 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Hi there and I see that you are already part of the TC Wiki project and thank you for contributing in the past few days. Just to note that you do not need to wait for a system to intensify to a named TC in order to use the "current infobox", but if an agency is already issuing advisories, even if it's not yet a TC, just start using it. Also when uploading images, name them appropriately with its TC name and the time and date (eg: Frances 2017-04-28 0530Z). Anything else I could help you with, just ping me somewhere or leave me a message. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: Hi Typhoon2013. Thanks for the tips! Also, would it be OK for me to upload my satellite image of Frances as a more updated version of yours (onto your image file page)? It is technically the same image (we got it from the same place), but mine is cropped so that there is no 'blank' space below the clouds of the cyclone (i.e. cloudless terrain). If you don't want me to do that, that is perfectly fine also. Once again, thanks for the tips and encouragement! ChocolateTrain (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright. For the Frances image, I think it would be just fine to leave it like that, though I just wanted to know how you cropped it? Did you just use paint or something? Talking about that, if you are going to make an image similar to another one but you have made changes (eg crop or 250m res), no need to make another file, but there is a button in the image saying "Upload new version" and you can upload your image there, plus it saves you more time. Also I was just wondering if you will only be focusing on one basin because pretty much I should say that each users have their "own" basin(s), like for me my main basin for editing TCs is the West Pacific but since last year, I've started to help update cyclones in most basins. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Typhoon2013: Hi again. Yes, I will only be focussing on the Australian basin. I live in Australia (Queensland, specifically), so the cyclones that occur here are the ones I suppose I'm most interested in.

I am using a windows computer with Windows 10. After I saved the image of Frances from NASA's website, I opened the image in the normal Photos app thing and pressed a button near the top, which is edit. I cropped the image, then enhanced the clarity, light and colour to make it more vivid. ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I live in New Zealand by the way just in case. But yeah, thanks for your edits so far in Wikipedia it's really good and I appreciate it, hope I could work with you more in the coming months. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cyclone Greg 2017-04-30 0950Z.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Severe Tropical Cyclone Frances Satellite Image (Category 3) - 1020 UTC, 28 April 2017.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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) 17:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Severe Tropical Cyclone Frances Near Peak Intensity.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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) 18:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cyclone Greg 2017-04-30 0950Z.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

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]

@Typhoon2013: Hold on. First, it was one of two IP editors who initially made the erroneous change, not ChocolateTrain. Second, see WP:NOTVAND - not every incorrect edit is vandalism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@Typhoon2013: I strongly urge you to heed the following advice in the near term: please refrain from giving others "warnings" or otherwise telling them what to do. This and the past message you gave to ChocolateTrain were both unhelpful, and this really shows a failure to assume good faith on ChocolateTrain's part. This is not the first time this has been an issue. If you have concerns about another user's edits, please feel free to ask an uninvolved user such as me or Jason first. You should also have a clear read of 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 MOS:LINKS and delinked wind shear on similar grounds. Explosive intensification doesn't have a wikipedia article nor did Fernanda undergo it, so I changed that bit. CDO for some reason has no Wikipedia page, so I included a generic explanation of the term instead. Moreover, Pacific Ocean does not need to be linked, in accordance with WP:OVERLINK, which notes that "The names of major geographic features, locations (e.g. United States, New York City (or New York in the context of the city), London (if the context rules out London, Ontario, etc.), France, Berlin...), languages, nationalities (e.g. English, British, American, French, German...) and religions (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism...)". Regards. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 00:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. YE ^{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. YE ^{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". YE ^{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]

@Typhoon2013: It doesn't seem like you took my comment above seriously. This comment is quite condescending. Also, all this feuding over images is really 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]

@ChocolateTrain: I think your comment would better deliver its point if it weren't so long - see WP:TLDR. To be clear, I do think Typhoon2013 does not think critically enough about his edits, especially when following the practices of others, and really should use more edit summaries. But with that said, one thing both you and @Typhoon2013: should do to each other is assume good faith and assume the assumption of good faith. I don't think Typhoon2013 meant to label you as an idiot, and you should keep that in mind; I do understand that the impact on you wasn't the same as his intent. Everyone involved in the imagery dispute (including @Meow and MarioProtIV:) should also consider whether it is worthwhile arguing over (what seems to me to be) a rather trivial detail (i.e. bikeshedding). But if you can reach a consensus, that would be nice. Why not start a discussion at 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]

@Typhoon2013: Sigh. It is normal for experienced users to give new users advice, but at the same time, not 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]

@Typhoon2013: Also, if you remember, the 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 move-war. 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 09:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 OR "original research". But then again I believe this should be discussed more and possibly again in the future where I invite all other users who have edited within WPTC before. So atm, please use JTWC for the distances as it has a source, until we have another discussion regarding this. The other reason behind for another discussion is that I believe it is a 'tie' and I do not mind which ones to use as using the JMA and JTWC distances have a point. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:29, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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 XD (contribs) 11:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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... consensus. I am sure you know alot about it, but it seems that you meed to know more about it, particularly on major articles like Hurricane Harvey like i always said about. In this one, you can't put our consensus between our two–the people must and also needed to involve so they could voice what is their opinions about these images. Do you know what i mean? If you don't know, this is how WP:RfC works—in this way you could get your image accepted via consensus. Nah, i'll end it and i'll expect your reply after you finish your studies and i'll reply your reply after i wake up on morning Indonesian Central Time. Anyways, :D--SMB99thx XD (contribs) 13:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the Suomi NPP peak image of Hurricane Maria, I found that what NASA posted in the gallery have already overcome with that edge on the northeast corner, resulting in a broader view that we cannot produce. Thus, for the overall advantages, I would presume we should choose the gallery version this time. 🐱💬 02:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tropical Cyclone Barnstar
		For your fine edits to various tropical cyclone articles, and your works in tropical cyclone imagery. (We seriously needed the expansions in a lot of places.) Keep up the good work! . LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LightandDark2000: Thank you so much for the Barnstar and your kind words accompanying it! I'm thrilled to receive my first Wikipedia award! ChocolateTrain (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a nice occasion to enjoy your firsts. :) Anyway, I hope you have a great time editing here. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just if you want to play. :) LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ChocolateTrain, and yes, long time no interaction. But with the information you've placed in Kelvin's section, I am amazed and shook. Instead, I transferred all of your information you wrote and made the article Cyclone Kelvin. I will now make a shorter summary in Kelvin's section in the season article. But wow I am impressed and thanks so much. Keep up with this kind of work :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ChocolateTrain. Not sure why B dash didn't inform you as a major contributor to Cyclone Ernie, but that article has been proposed for merging into the season article. Discussion is here if you'd like to participate. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 13:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@KN2731: Thanks for letting me know. I've posted a reply on the matter. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2017–18 Australian region cyclone season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ACST (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice if you used your great writing skills to spice up Cyclone Marcus as it looks it is closing on to be the first C5 (SSHWS) in the AUS since Ita in 2014. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would like a response soon imo. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioProtIV: Hi Mario. Sorry for the wait. I'll be sure to add some content to the article on the weekend. Yesterday I had a chemistry exam and today I have a geography exam, so study has taken up my time recently. My exams will be finished by this afternoon. ChocolateTrain (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good to know. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision is damaged so I have to revert. What you mentioned is the issue from Himawari-8 if only 3 bands are combined with. However, I could try to make a revision again today if you think the image is not clear enough. 🐱💬 01:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can now update tropical cyclone information easier because of the implement of the conversion templates. Please do not break them or you are bringing back the troubles of updating information.-- 🐱💬 10:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are not negotiable.-- 🐱💬 13:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refer to the tropical low in the Australian Region as Bouchra. It was not referred to as Bouchra by the Australian BOM in the Australian Region so even mentioning the name in the title of the seasonal section is inappropriate. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 01:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Figfires: Even though it was only an unnamed tropical low in the Australian region, as I am well aware, the system itself later became Bouchra. You would have seen that I had not written 'Tropical Low Bouchra', but rather 'Tropical Low (Bouchra)". By convention, the brackets denote that a particular system was not named within the region, but later developed into a named tropical cyclone in another region. By omitting the bracketed Bouchra component, it would suggest that the tropical low in the Australian article and Bouchra in the SWIO article are separate systems, which they are most certainly not. A precedent for this is Moderate Tropical Storm Cherono of the 2010-11 season. ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't true. The enter and exit basins are what denote it is the same system. The name in parentheses is an incorrect application. For example, all storms named by PAGASA have their name listed in parentheses as they aren't the official name of the system. By putting the name in parentheses within the title, you are implying that an unofficial agency within that basin named the system. Btw... I will be opening a discussion on this matter. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 03:03, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2018–19 Australian region cyclone season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Darwin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChocolateTrain: It is worth noting that Liua was considered to be a tropical low within the Australian region before moved into the SPAC. However, the BoM didnt think it was worth issuing an out of season outlook as it only had a low chance of developing into a tropical cyclone within the Aus Region. It is also worth noting that the FMS initiated advisories on Liua @ 160E, while it was on the border between the two basins. As a result, it is wrong to consider Liua just an ex-tropical cyclone while within the Australian region. I also note that you would need to provide a source that shows that 2018-19 was the third season in a row to start early, which I seriously doubt you would be able to find for various reasons including the fact that the August TL in 2017-18 only existed for a day and was moving into the SWIO. Otherwise its just trivia that isnt worth including since its unciteable.Jason Rees (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: I noted these points on your talk page. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChocolateTrain: I should have noted within my last message that I emailed the BoM at the time (More than happy to forward the email on) and they responded to me stating that they did consider it to be TL 01U, but that they didnt think it was worth issuing an out of season outlook as it only had a low chance of developing into a tropical cyclone within the Aus Region. Nadi's on 01F gale warning at 06z on 01F states that it was at exactly 160E, which is why I would push for it to be included in Aus as a TL and not just an ex TC. I also note that Liua will probably be just placed within an other systems section once Aus gets going as it was more significant within SPAC and didnt really do anything in Aus. As for sourcing the 3 seasons in a row, I seriously doubt that you will be able to find a source as i strongly suspect that the system we have labelled as 01U isnt 01U as we dont have a source that says it.Jason Rees (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Ah, that's interesting. Thanks for that information, Jason. So do you reckon we should note the system as having been tropical within the Australian region for a very brief period on 25 September? Why do you think the FMS classified it as 01F rather than 01U? Also, I have used the tropical cyclone outlooks for the out-of-season lows in the past two seasons as references for the three-in-a-row thing. That should suffice, given that it proves there were tropical systems active prior to the start of the three seasons. ChocolateTrain (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: I might also add that I would support all the tropical lows, no matter how minor, having their own section. I think we should do away with the 'Other systems' section, at least for the Australian region. I think you would agree that it is very messy and unprofessional to just squish ten unrelated lows into two paragraphs at the end of the article. There is always enough information that can be collected on a tropical low to be able to write at least a few lines of text on it. The only reason they typically end up being relegated to waste away in the 'Other systems' part is because I would say most of the editors on here are sort of obsessed with strong cyclones, and basically ignore the weak lows, and generally can't be bothered writing a section for them. The sections that I wrote for the two tropical lows currently in the article didn't really take that long to do or to find the information for, and to be honest, I think it actually looks quite good to have a nice clean section and infobox for those two systems. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on this. ChocolateTrain (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ChocolateTrain: I don't see why we can not call it tropical for the majority of its life with a carefully worded section especially if we use the JTWC's STWA's that are archived on the talk page in the pre-season to better present the information. As for the other systems section, I am a fan of them as they help to cut the page size down and better present the limited information, we have on some systems especially within the WPAC, where we regularly get 30+ tropical depressions per season. We also have to present the information, so that it's verifiable by the average person who reads Wikipedia, which is why we do not use surface analysis maps to prove stuff like something existed in the SWIO for a week before it was designated. In fact, if you look at the talk page of each season bar the Atlantic/EPAC you will find links to various subpages which contain links to advisories issued by the warning centres in question. As for the designations, you will find that the BoM and Nadi assign their numbers for different basins, which explains why Nadi called it 01F and not 01U.Jason Rees (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: I have slightly rewritten the section on Liua to include this new information. Thanks for your help, as always. ChocolateTrain (talk) 05:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Meow. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 2018–19 Australian region cyclone season have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks.-- 🐱💬 14:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Meow: I wish to make a very important point that your actions and comments suggest you do not fully grasp yet. This is of utmost importance both in Wikipedia, and more importantly, in the real world. It is that just because I like something done differently, or have a different opinion to you, this neither makes me wrong nor makes my contributions vandalism, as you so often dismiss them as. You should note that I have stopped “breaking templates” on the other season articles with respect to the unit conversions in the info boxes. I understand that you may like to use these unit conversion templates on those articles; however, they have never in the time that I have been a part of Wikipedia been used on the Australian region season article infoboxes. They are messy, unnecesssrily complicated, and they clutter up the boxes with markup text which could be simply replaced with just two numbers. I am perfectly fine with the conversion templates which you seem to so dearly love being allowed to reign supreme on the other six season articles, but I would appreciate it if they could be left out in the Australian articles. I am an Australian myself, so the region I am most interested in and active in is naturally the Australian one, and it really would be fantastic not to have to deal with the templates everywhere. The conversions really are quite easy to do manually. Additionally, I won’t accept having my edits called vandalism by you anymore. To be honest, I really wish you would stop nitpicking everything that I do that conflicts with your own particular way of doing things, especially when you remark or imply that your methods are better and correct by default. I really don’t want any more to do with this matter. It serves no constructive purpose whatsoever, and frankly these disputes that we continually have over such trivial matters are just a waste of time. We will just have to respect each other’s differences - you use the templates, and I won’t. It can be as simple as that. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You said a lot but you still do not care about other editors. You believe that it is easy to convert, but it would take much time for other editors. I have talked about this so many times before, and other editors agree with this method until the better solution like bots can be introduced. What you have done discourages editors to update. Where you are does not mean anything. The season article is not your own article. Please understand that you are the one who breaks the consensus.-- 🐱💬 02:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Meow: I think saying that I don’t care about other editors is a bit rich coming from you, and is both baseless and untrue. You keep talking about ‘the consensus’ without actually providing any evidence that consensus exists, which would mean that you would once again be superimposing your own opinion over everyone else’s and forcing everyone to take it as the consensus or the best option. Have you perhaps considered that, given you change everything I do to suit your own ends, you in fact might be vandalising my edits? And I disagree fundamentally with your assertion that using the conversion templates makes it easier for editors to update the article. Given that you have been on Wikipedia for a long time, you may have forgotten what it is like to be new. I know that when I started, I would read the documentation for the templates for hours just so I could understand how to use the things without breaking them and inconveniencing everyone else, and being yelled at in the edit summaries for stuffing everything up. The use of such templates for such a simple task as converting units, which frankly you should just remember how to do manually on a calculator, or you can do easily via Google, actually discourages newer editors who care about what they’re doing from editing. Also, I never said I owned the Australian article. I just said that it would be good to not have to deal with the templates on the article that I edit most often. Surely you can accept using them on the other six? If not, then how about you add a hidden note for editors who want to use the template, with a copy of the conversion markup that they can use when they edit the article? That would mean that you can quickly get the templates back without any trouble by simply copying and pasting from the article’s markup, which would mean I wouldn’t be supposedly inconveniencing anyone by doing things my own way. I just really don’t want this to become yet another issue that we disagree upon, and that forces me away from Wikipedia for months like it did last time. ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t mean to appear argumentative or anything untoward like that. I am just frustrated that my opinion is always disregarded and bulldozed through as if it wasn’t even there like I am some uninformed idiot. That’s basically what it feels like at the moment, and to be honest, what it has felt like for a long time. ChocolateTrain (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain what the issue with using or not using the conversion templates is? IMHO we should be using them for pressure estimates but not winds as the winds should match what NHC, BOM and the rest of the RSMC's/TCWC's are saying that they are. Also ChocolateTrain, I appreciated your views on the other storms sections last month and can see that you will be an interesting editor for the Australian region and do not wish to see you leave Wiki just because of a disagreement with Meow.Jason Rees (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do editors only spend time on Wikipedia? Editors should not spend most of time on converting units that could be automatically done by the templates. It seems that you never realised that many people hesitate to update because of those complicated conversions. I originally suggested that the current box should be suspended for the typhoon and cyclone season articles. Some editors recommend bots, but they still have not introduced them. That is why I tried to find a temporary solution and those conversion templates could make editors type in only one value, bringing more efficiency for updating information. Thus, the solution saves not only my time but your time and all editors' time.-- 🐱💬 02:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Meow: We have always had problems with people updating the seasonal articles outside of the NHC's AOR and it's not because of the current storm information as that hasn't always been implemented in the non-NHC AORS. I am also not a fan of Wikipedia providing current storm information full stop but I have bigger fish to fry than challenge the consensus. I would also urge you to look at other things other than the CSI for people not updating the articles.Jason Rees (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you double check the tropical lows of the last few days please? My feeling is that Penny was two tropical lows that merged together which i think means that the TL in the northern Coral Sea on 28 December is not 04F. Instead, I think its the TL that was located to the south of Sudest Island. PS: This is another reason for the OS section.Jason Rees (talk) 01:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: I have had another look, and I’ve also checked the MSLP charts to see if there are any clues there. It’s not clear which tropical lows merged. It could be that the Sudest Island one merged with the low that became Penny, or it merged with the one near the Solomon Islands. Of course, it is also possible that the Sudest Island low just dissipated rather than being absorbed by a deeper low. BOM talked about the potential for some of the lows to merge in their outlooks a few days ago, but didn’t specify which ones, and they didn’t make any mention of it happening in their most recent outlooks. Whatever actually happened, we can be sure that the Sudest Island low ceased to exist after 30 December, and can therefore state that as its dissipation date. Now, 04F is the tricky thing. I believe 04F is actually a completely separate system entirely to all of the Eastern Region tropical lows that occurred over the last few days. BOM released an Eastern Region Outlook at 8:25 a.m AEST on 1 January (22:25 UTC 31 December) which stated that a tropical low existed just outside the Eastern Region, at a longitude of about 161E. At this time, however, the FMS was issuing advisories for 04F, which was located around 165E. MSLP charts from the BOM show this deep low around 165-166 at this time, which agrees with FMS’s location of 04F, as well as suggesting that the weak tropical low discussed in the Outlook must be a different system as it is located at 161E. Anyway, regardless of whatever did actually happen, I am certain that I’ve got the correct formation and dissipation dates for the tropical lows in the Australian region. I don’t really know much about what’s going on in the South Pacific at the moment, as I have been focusing on getting accurate information for the Australian lows. Hopefully this wasn’t too confusing. ChocolateTrain (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply clarfying your thoughts on things and when things get tricky to work out - I have a look at all of the information available including any from the JTWC. This shows me that 04F isnt a seperate tropical low to any of the lows in the Australian region of the last few days and if you bear with me ill explain why. Firstly if you look at the FMS forecast track map for 04F you will see that it passed over the Solomon Islands and was in the Australian region yesterday. This is consistant with Nadi's first position for 04F of 10.0S 162.5E at 21:00z on December 31. This is also consistant with the BoM's postion of 9.9S 161.4E from 22z that you mentioned in your reply and 11.5S 158.0E from yesterday. As a result, I would suggest that we restore the designation 04F to the Aus region page or add in the OS section. I will look into Penny in a mo.Jason Rees (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Well-spotted. I can see why it is 04F now. ChocolateTrain (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is Trevor not dissipated in a tropical sense? The BOM is no longer issuing on it or mentioning it in the high seas warning. What source do you have to dispute that it isn't dissipated? Noah^Talk 02:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Now why would the BoM mention Trevor in their high seas warnings? For what its worth they are still mentioning it on their normal forecasts and I would wait until the TWO comes out at about 6am UTC.Jason Rees (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: No tropical low in the Australian region is considered dissipated as a tropical system until the MSLP charts no longer say 'Ex-TC ___' and the daily tropical cyclone outlooks and high seas warnings no longer reference the existence of the system. Until that point, the systems are just as existent and viable as synoptic scale tropical systems as when they were first strengthening to TC intensity. ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2018–19 Australian region cyclone season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. B dash (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@B dash: I am sorry, but how dare you threaten me like this, and act as if you are completely innocent. I will not tolerate your persistent bullying behaviour. From the very first time that I ever encountered you on Wikipedia, you have been hostile towards me through your reversions and conduct, and you have contravened the policies which you preach and purport to act by. Last year, you went through my Wikimedia Commons page and personally listed scores of my uploaded images for deletion without any reason whatsoever for doing so other than to further your own agenda. The reasons which you provide for reverting almost every single picture I ever upload to any Wikipedia cyclone article (if you happen to provide one, which I should point out is a rare occurrence in itself) are often contradictory, hypocritical, incomplete, illogical, and sometimes incoherent. It is an exceptionally hypocritical action that you could possibly even consider dishing out a warning to me regarding edit warring when you are person who so frequently reverts my edits without providing any reason at all. This demonstrates that you believe you are above the law, and that such technicalities only apply to inferior editors such as myself. You pretend to be a rule-abiding editor on the surface, but engage in aggressive, intimidatory actions towards me such as those I have already outlined. I should also point out that it is impossible to have a conversation on someone's talk page when they are an IP user.

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]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:2018–19 Australian region cyclone season, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

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 (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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]

Lorna never was a severe TC in AUS. Unless the BOM issued a warning at that time (which they did not as MFR never delegated it to them), then it is not a severe TC. You are taking a synthesis of the warnings issued by the MFR in order to say it was a severe TC. If the RSMC doesn't declare it as such, it never happened. Unless you can find proof that they said it entered the basin at a certain intensity, this needs to be removed immediately. Noah^Talk 00:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there ChocolateTrain. I read your new article on Wallace. A few points. First, good job with the referencing. That’s one of the most difficult aspects for new users. Secondly, I noticed a very detailed meteorological history. Please keep in mind that the articles should be written for laymen (amateurs). I mention that because your writing is a bit on the verbose side. For example:

The influence of strong vertical wind shear of 30-35 knots (55-65 km/h; 35-40 mph) on the northwestern side of the low was causing the displacement of the deep convection, confining it to the west and south of the system and leaving the low-level circulation centre exposed.

That’s a lot of words, when the same could be said as:

Strong wind shear displaced the convection to the west and south side of the exposed circulation.

Given your talent for writing, have you considered working on storms with more land impact? They are more likely to be read, and are more important articles in the grand scheme of things. You wrote an impressively long article about what was a weak storm that barely affected land. Most of what you wrote could likely be summarized in a paragraph or two, because there wasn’t much detail about land impact, which is often the reason storms have articles. I saw that there is a merge discussion about Wallace. Don’t take that personally, and I hope you don’t feel like your work was wasted if the article does end up getting merged.

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 Cyclone Wallace, I happen to agree personally with the merger, but I'd like to note that it hasn't happened yet (the content from your article hasn't been integrated into the season article). I was wondering if you could parse down everything you wrote into two paragraphs.

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).

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

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 Cyclone Lili (2019) could be part of a future good topic or featured topic, if you worked on a collection of 8 articles, including Lili. There are lists on other parts of the world, including Bermuda, California, and the Arabian Peninsula, and so I suggest you write an article for Tropical cyclones in Indonesia, encompassing every storm to affect the country (which is the 4th largest on Earth). I can't imagine there being an excessive number of tropical cyclones in Indonesia (and East Timor, I'd include since it's the same geographical area. It's a pretty rare area to be affected by tropical cyclones, with just 7 articles on Wikipedia for storms affecting the country. Just an idea. Good work on Lili, again. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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]