Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:29, 24 August 2017

Typhoon2013's Archives
Barnstars 2013 // 2014 // 2015 // 2016 // 2017 2018 // 2019 // 2020 // 2021 // 2022

This is the 7th Archive of Typhoon2013's talk page. Archive 7 includes events during May 1, 2017 – Present.

If you want to put awards like barnstars, please put them here.

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Misplaced Pages. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

PAGASA names

For the 1990 Pacific typhoon season, I noticed you changed PAGASA names. I was having some significant problems attaching the PAGASA names to their WMO equivalents, and at one point, I considered removing them entirely from the Typhoon Abe (1990) article due to difficulty sourcing them. For Typhoon Abe, what prompted you to change the name from Heling to Iliang? Master of Time (talk) 03:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@Master of Time:, hi. For Abe, I switched it from Heling to Iliang because Becky entered the PAR first than Abe, which of course makes Becky the first to be named by PAGASA. Also a source from the Manila Bulletin showed that Heling (Becky) had a much higher death toll than Iliang, especially Heling made landfall over PH while Abe (Iliang) did not. -- Typhoon2013 06:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Pressure for 21F

The advisory currently says 1000 mb, not 1001. Please be more careful with getting the most up-to-date information--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Well literally during the time I edited that, the FMS stated 1001 mb, or I didn't see that they were already issuing advisories on the system. Also no offense or anything but why focus on the very little things instead of me like putting winds of 110 km/h, I'm sure you could just revert my edit and that's it? -- Typhoon2013 09:02, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I had entered 1000 in the edits before, so I didn't understand why you changed it to 1000, and during that time they were saying 1000. You probably didn't check their latest products.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't check the advisories of it, then I'm sorry and need to make sure, especially how it is in red. Also doesn't mean it was stated 1000 mb by you doesn't mean it is already 100% true, because I mean a lot of editors make mistakes and I've seen it, especially typos, and you'll never know if it is one. So literally, I am just trying to help update as much as possible, either info is (slightly) wrong or off with typos at least something is already there. -- Typhoon2013 09:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Muifa 2017-04-26 0410Z.jpg

Hello man, this is Kin at your service. Joke. Man, you have the improvement in this file. Did you just listen to my instructions? If yes, thanks for following my instructions. If no, i would rage out (not exactly) and say "WTF!" (Joke). But it is good that you have my responsibility.

P.S: NASA, MODIS / LANCE Rapid Response, not NASA, MODIS / LANCE. Give the source item a proper source man. - Nino Marakot Let me know 12:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Nino Marakot: First of all I wanted to say "hey" because I haven't seen you editing for a long time. But sorry for that, but the reason is because someone had told me off for putting the wrong source or something, which I was really confused. But don't worry, always in your side. :) -- Typhoon2013 07:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

2016-17 South Pacific cyclone season

Hello, I would like to inquire about why you reverted a recent edit of mine. You give the reason "not really "known"" but I don't understand what that is supposed to mean? Ella was indeed in the off-season, and User:Jason Rees and myself are trying to link various storms to this article so that people can get more information on them. --Undescribed (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Undescribed: Hello. About this, I reverted the edit because imo I believe that Ella was not really a "known" cyclone, where the media has been talking about it and stuff. Adrian and Arlene were really "significant" especially when they have formed. Also normally seasons in the SHem are common, or there have been a handful of storms, as well developing between May and the end of June. -- Typhoon2013 07:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Technically that isnt a reason to remove a valid see also link to an article that is lists Ella on it. Especially since cyclones in the SHEM during the offseason are not overly common. However, @Undescribed: I do feel that in hindsight that we should put the see also link in the See also section of each article rather than in a storms section.Jason Rees (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Placing it in the "See also" section would be fine for me. -- Typhoon2013 08:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Windstorm nom list

Template:Windstorm nom list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday, Typhoon2013! I saw on your user page that your birthday is the 7th of June, so I thought I'd wish you happy birthday. Have a great day! ChocolateTrain (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Happy Birthday from me Typhoon2013.Jason Rees (talk) 01:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: @Jason Rees: Wasn't expecting this here but thanks so much. :) -- Typhoon2013 05:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

New tropical depression

Hi Typhoon2013. I'm just wondering... which meteorological agency has started issuing advisories on, or starting mentioning, the depression you recently added to the 2017 Pacific typhoon season page? I don't doubt that it has been mentioned, and I do absolutely want to include it (the more cyclones, the better (well, not really, but you know what I mean)). I'm just curious as to where I could find these advisories in the future. Thanks. :) ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @ChocolateTrain:. So I see you want to contribute in other TC basins. Ok so for the W Pacific, the RSMC is the JMA (Japan Meteorological Agency). Because the TD has winds below 30kts, the agency does not (yet) issue advisories, although the rule is, of course, anything "tropical" is included. But just to note, there will be times where the PAGASA issue it first, but then again, it's the same thing. Don't worry as well, my "main" basin here in the TCs wikiproject is the W Pacific because it is the most active basin and I love the names given by JMA and PAGASA. But still, I just love it when other users contribute. :) -- Typhoon2013 20:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help once again, Typhoon2013! ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Strange indentation

Hi again Typhoon2013. I have been attempting to write a very small section on Merbok regarding its time of landfall; however, Misplaced Pages is indenting my text when I use a colon in writing the UTC time. I don't understand why this is happening, as I have used colon for non-indentation purposes heaps of times before, and nothing has ever gone wrong. Would you mind having a look and fixing the problem for me (if you can)? Thanks a lot! ChocolateTrain (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: I have made some minor fixes now. -- Typhoon2013 21:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your work in edits like this and this. Much appreciated, although I hold my self responsible for creating the problem that caused the 2nd of the 3 edits I linked. Regards. YE 01:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Recently splitted pages

Hey Typhoon2013! What do you think about my recently created pages of 1945 Pacific typhoon season, 1946 Pacific typhoon season, 1947 Pacific typhoon season and 1948 Pacific typhoon season? After the split of 1940–49 Pacific typhoon seasons i noted that you had created many details about 1949 Pacific typhoon season, so can you help to add these details for many of these seasons? This is because on the talk page of the said 1940-1949 Yellow Evan said to me that the split was done very hastily, so my split is not very better. I hope you would respond by editing these pages for me (like adding details, etc.). And after you done all that i hope you would rank these pages like 1949 Pacific typhoon season article before, so users can see if it's good or not. Thank you.--SMB99thx XD (contribs) 10:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @SMB99thx:. First of all thank you for doing this because I literally forgot about doing this like a few years ago :P. Also just to note I did not place in the information to 1949 PTS article, I just copied and paste it from the old 1940-49 PTS article. But tbh it's just fine. I mean it's the 1940s and there are barely other information about them. -- Typhoon2013 11:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

OK thanks--SMB99thx XD (contribs) 11:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Dora image

Hi Typhoon2013. I know we clash a lot about images, especially the Hurricane Dora one recently. I just want you to know that I'm trying to do the best I can for Misplaced Pages and the cyclone articles, and that I truly think whatever I upload is good and worthy of being displayed. I always put a lot of effort into everything I do because I am a perfectionist and I can't stand half-hearted attempts that produce mediocre results. I just wanted you to know that I am working towards the same goal as you and the other contributors despite the fact that we may have differing views on how things should be done, and that I'm not trying to ruin or do harm to your work, the articles or Misplaced Pages.

So, I've made a compromise so we can both hopefully be happy. I've uploaded another version of the Hurricane Dora image that is zoomed further out so that more of the Baja California Peninsula is visible, more of Mexico is visible and more of the Pacific Ocean is visible (as well as the cyclone itself of course!). I'm hoping you and MarioProtIV (though I haven't spoken to him about this yet) are happy with the new version, and that you think it is a good compromise in that it reflects what be both want from the image, and looks good too.

So, yeah, to recap... I appreciate everything you do to help improve Misplaced Pages and the cyclone articles, despite what it may seem sometimes. We are both striving to reach the same goal of producing great, informative and accurate articles, and I hope we can continue to work productively and cooperatively together in the hopefully long time to come. Anyway, thanks again. :) ChocolateTrain (talk) 02:33, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Oh hi and I'm glad you want to talk about this. So first of all I'm glad that we have like the same perspective where we wanted Misplaced Pages to be much accurate and be more realistic, or in other words, to help. Also I'm happy that you have contributed further and make images and make edits in other articles/basins.

Although for this image thing, I guess we do not have the same 'thinking'. Since I joined here in Misplaced Pages, especially in uploading images, I follow the layout of the images I see in articles and from NASA. This is the reason why I wanted the storm to be a little zoomed out than yours. I don't really know because I find the zoomed out better one better sorry, but Idk if you know about this site where the NASA puts up the images and we use them for articles. I literally just follow their layout to make it 'good'. Moreover I literally just wished if NASA uploads images of EVERY storm in a good layout (no lines) so we don't have this image clashing thing. :) -- Typhoon2013 04:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. Yes, I do know about that site. I've uploaded a few images from there before. In fact, I was initially going to use the image taken by SNPP (which is the one displayed in the gallery), but I decided against it because of the line through it. The line is there because SNPP combines images taken at different times rather than having the data gaps of Terra and Aqua that can be seen in Worldview. This is good in some cases, when the line is not in the picture, but in this instance it ruins the image. Please can we use the non-line image for Dora? Whenever there's no line, we should use the gallery image if it's at peak intensity (which it is this time, but it has the line). I have zoomed out from my original upload to include more of what you wanted. Surely that's good enough? If I must, I will zoom out a bit further again, but I think it's a really bad idea to use the image with the line through it — it looks horrible. ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

There we go. Done. Zoomed out again. It's good now. Close to the image you uploaded, just not as wide. The ugly line is also gone. ChocolateTrain (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Typhoon2013. Thank you very much for deciding to use the Dora image I uploaded, and for putting a message on MarioProtIV's talk page so we don't have to argue anymore. I greatly appreciate it! ChocolateTrain (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Misplaced Pages. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Other systems

Hi again Typhoon2013. I have a query regarding the usage of the 'Other systems' sections in the season articles. As you are one of the main contributors, especially in the West Pacific articles, and also I saw you move the recently dissipated tropical depression to the 'other systems' section, I thought I might ask you. When do we decide to move a storm there? Is it if it dissipates and neither the JMA nor the JTWC has issued any specific advisories on it? Like, in JMA's case, below 30 knots and for the JTWC, no higher level of warning than a TCFA? If a system is moved to this section, do its stats still count to the season infobox, season forecasts table, season timeline and the season summary table at the end? Also, do these guidelines apply in other basins as well, or are they slightly different? ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Glad you asked :). The other systems only include what-I-call "minor systems", which are TDs only monitored by the JMA. Yes they still count in the season totals because it is from the JMA, and they are the RSMC for the WPac. We only include it there when it had dissipated. Also if the JTWC issues a TCFA, or if the JMA starts issuing advisories but nothing else higher than that, it still includes in the OS section. Unless, in some rare occasions that a minor system had caused extreme impact, like I did in the 2016 PTS article (Nov TD), then we add it in (I'm still sorting that out because there was another system in Dec that had the same impacts). One of the reasons for this is to keep PTS articles "short". If you may see previous articles, especially the 2013 and 2016 articles, they were really long. I mean of course, the WPac is the most active basin. -- Typhoon2013 23:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, basically only actual tropical storms, severe tropical storms and typhoons are included in the main area, with almost all (with the exception of a very few special ones) depressions put in the other systems section. Did I get that right? ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Yep. Also we don't add in the only-PAGASA or JTWC systems in the OS section too as they have designations or names. -- Typhoon2013 04:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Thanks for your help, as always! ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Nanmadol image

Hi Typhoon2013. I'm just letting you know that I'm happy to use the 05:12 UTC image that you uploaded, as long as two things are improved—colour and resolution. I uploaded a new version of your image with better colour and more than nine times as many pixels. The image is the same height and slightly narrower due to SNPP. Everything else is identical. ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: hi and thanks for letting me know. I have reverted your edit to the image. Whenever a gallery image version is used/posted by NASA, then we use the image and that's it. NASA images from the gallery are much more high quality. Even if it is 375m resolution because there are some that I uploaded and are used. -- Typhoon2013 03:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I unreservedly refute the fact that such a concrete rule as that can be made, especially when it completely removes all opportunity to improve upon works. It is just lazy and unprofessional, and sets a standard of pure mediocrity whose gravity seems to be entirely inescapable at the present moment. There needs to be a culture shift within this cyclone community in this regard, as it is frankly unacceptable that higher-aiming contributors such as myself should be hindered by the lower tolerances of others. Both Worldview and the gallery are NASA products, displaying images from the same satellites, taken at the same time. NASA may possibly edit them, but that is by absolutely no means to say that they should not be edited further to make them better. The adversity to change is a serious and widespread affliction of this community, and is a significant hindrance to progress when the said change has the potential to markedly improve the articles we write. If it is lazy disposition that prevents one from wanting to make things better due to the fact that it takes work, effort and thinking, then the work should be left to those who are willing to take the steps required to further our article endeavours. ChocolateTrain (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Yes I know, but for me, I wanted the Wikiproject to have a change and I did changed a lot of things here, especially layouts etc. We have great users who upload images, too. But the thing is here, especially for images, we look at the layout. I was just like you when I was new to uploading images, like to create a (slightly) different version than NASA's but I got warned a lot because it is the gallery, and for sure the gallery is much better than our manual. Literally, around now the number of edits I make should be much less than my early years here, but it is just because how users are now becoming lazier than before and keep forgetting to upload/update images, add summaries, and even update the infobox. So therefore, I am still here, waiting for a number of new users joining in with me to continue. But then again, I really love how you are new here and you are already starting at a very high-standard. I just simply follow the "guidelines" and don't want to be 'in trouble' again, especially how a user is hating on me (not going on that as I ma reveal who he is). -- Typhoon2013 06:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll reply here. It looks like you have a good handle on the storm so far, but info is still coming in. Once no more news about the storm's impacts are coming in, review all of the writing, condense/consolidate as much as you can (no one likes reading fluff), and then see if the article holds up to other GA's in the basin. It's tough writing newer articles, especially without the benefit of hindsight, but it looks like the article is in pretty good shape. :) Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Not again

You clearly forgot about this. The last advisory was 5 knots higher than the 0z track file entry, for example.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this: there were also erroneous edits by two IP's, as it turns out.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Yep I reverted that edit too, thanks. That was the reason why I thought to add the other info in from the trackfile because nobody reverted him. And yes we did discussed this, but just to note I forget things pretty easily, sorry, but I am trying. I will let that user know that he should not follow the trackfile and always follow the official advisory. -- Typhoon2013 08:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Just because someone else does something wrong and it isn't caught doesn't mean you should follow suite. By that argument, you would commit vandalism simply because you saw vandalism that wasn't caught immediately, which you of course know not to do. Please think critically.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The upgrade of 7E to TS Greg is a prime example of why you should remember this. Don't always try to pre-empt advisories with the BT file.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: I have no idea what you are talking about because I do not use the trackfile anymore. My computer did not update and by the time the NH updated it with its 4th adv, it still stated "TD 4". Yes, I did know my mistake. -- Typhoon2013 08:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Then why did you update it when you had not received the official update on NHC's website yet?--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Because it said "#4" and I know that 'that' is the new update. -- Typhoon2013 08:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

If you saw that, you should've seen "Tropical Storm Greg" even if the headline hadn't updated. Please, slow down and be more careful.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Which I want to know why, because when I'm about to update a storm, I already saw that someone has updated it even though the NHC has not officially released the storm's next advisory. This is what TropicalAnalystwx13 did where he updated the Fernanda, 07E and Don infobox even though the NHC did not update their site. -- Typhoon2013 08:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Because they use the forecast advisory, which comes out before all the other products, and hence is the first to reflect all updates.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Oh ok. I use the Public Advisory because it it much easier to read. -- Typhoon2013 09:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Tallas

For now its better to leave Tallas out of the NIO article, since its not yet reached the North Indian Ocean.Jason Rees (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: The only system that had a similar situation was Loke in 2015 and we did the same where we briefly mentioned it in the OS section. So why not *Talas? The JMA has it lying in both borders, like what NHC reported in Loke. -- Typhoon2013 18:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Tallas is not really in the NIO though as its overland, where as Loke was over water and I think was picked up by the JMA at the time.Jason Rees (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposition

Hi Typhoon2013. I have been pondering the topic of images in my mind for the last few days. I have come up with an idea which may be good for both of us. I don't know if you'll like it, but I hope so. Anyway...

I was thinking that we could form like a sort of team thing regarding the images. I could source the images myself and edit them by improving colour, contrast, etc. (under you guidance at first), and then out of all the images made for a particular storm, you could select which one goes into the article. I enjoy making the images, and I'm pretty sure (at least, it seems this way) you like to decide which images are used in the articles as you know what you're looking for in the pictures in terms of peak intensity, eye clarity, etc.

I just thought it might be a good way for us to work together and to hopefully both be happy. I'd love to hear what you think. :) Kind regards, ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Yea that would be a great idea. I have done something like this before, like talking and working about images with this other user a few years ago, though it wasn't really a 'team' because it was just two of us. It did worked well, however, there were many 'edit conflicts' between both of us and he pretty much stopped editing just a while ago. Again, there are other users here who edit images. A few of them barely upload lately, though their images are way better than ours and I call them 'high-quality' and 'professional'. I really do not know about "improving colour, contrast etc" because you should now know I only upload via the NASA website. But let's give it a try. Though I was also thinking if we could do the geostationary images by specific basins (eg. I can do WPac + SHem and you can do EPac, Atl) or something like that. What are your other thoughts as well? -- Typhoon2013 21:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic! Let's hope we can do this really well. Just to restate the process:

1. I make heaps of images of the cyclones near peak intensity and give you the links to them.
2. You decide which one should be used in the article.

Also, regarding the geostationary infrared images for the current infobox image, I don't know where they're found, or what the naming conventions are for them. I'm happy for you to do them if you would like. And... I recently made an image of Fernanda while it was a tropical storm, weakening. We could include it in an article for Fernanda. Here it is. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Tropical depression in West Pacific

Hi Typhoon2013. Wow! Cyclone activity has just exploded! The JTWC has eight different advisories/TCFAs going on right now! One thing, though... where did you find out that the most recent tropical depression had formed? I may have just missed it, but I can't find it anywhere on the GIMDSS WIS thingy (I have no idea what it's called). Could you give me a link to the actual post where it's mentioned? Thanks. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: I did not edit that but @Meow: did and I do trust her. I left the same topic in her talk page minutes ago. -- Typhoon2013 08:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain:@Typhoon2013: It is absolutely the JMA website. 🐱💬 08:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Oh ok thanks. I guess I have to use the Japanese version now. -- Typhoon2013 08:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Wait, Meow, do you speak Japanese? Just because, how do you know it is a depression and not a low? ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: I speak Chinese so I can read Japanese kanji. 熱低 is TD and 低 is L. The Asian version of its weather map is in English so we can also compare then get it. 🐱💬 08:43, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Wow, that's so cool! I can only speak a little bit of French. I admire people who can speak multiple languages. It expands one's horizons hugely. Well done on the effort it would have taken to learn it. Also to you, Typhoon2013—I'm guessing you speak Filipino, as your talk page says you're originally from the Philippines. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Yes I am not a cat but she does. I'm just going to say any edit she does, just trust it and don't worry she's fine. :) -- Typhoon2013 08:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Haha yep but I had bad grades in Filipino. But I did Japanese in school two years ago but did not pursue it because ofc I choose subjects what is most important to me for my future. And yes, I am still in school. :) -- Typhoon2013 09:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The 'Dynamic Duo'

Hi Typhoon2013. I have made a dedicated page in my user space for our little image team thing (I'm calling us the 'dynamic duo'). On it I will place heaps of images of the storms, and you can decide which to use. Just re-read the 'Proposition' section earlier in your talk page to familiarise yourself with the process. I've also got more information on the actual page. Let's do great! ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Paracel and Spratly Islands

You may say we have 'discussed this before', but I did not agree with what you said, and you addressed none of my points, so it wasn't a discussion at all. All you did was present random, unrelated facts and repeatedly remove my additions. My opinion has equal weight to yours, and consequently you have no right to declare that what I'm doing is wrong when I have shown with multiple reasons that it isn't. Also, you cannot remove the Spratly Islands from the effects table and abbreviate the archipelago as part of the Philippines under the claim that they are part of the Philippines, just because you come from that country—a simple Google search will show that the ownership is disputed.

Now, if places like Wake Island and Midway Atoll can be included in articles, then so can larger and more populous islands such as the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands. If you're going to bother listing the places cyclones have impacted, don't do a half job of it—do it properly. As the Paracels and Spratlys cannot be 'summarised', as you like to say, they should be listed in full.

Also, I will say this emphatically, so make no mistake: the disputed status of the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands has absolutely nothing to do with their geological and topographical existence. Bringing up the fact that the islands are disputed is an example of ignoratio elenchi, and bears no relevance at all in our context as our usage purpose is to merely state land areas which were impacted by a cyclone. We are not stating, asserting or even implying in any way the superiority of one territorial claim over another, which therefore renders, from the very moment it was contended, the argument as extraneous and simply a distraction.

Anyway, there is something else I'd like to say on this matter. If there is no harm done by including a certain fact—that is, if it doesn't introduce incorrect or outdated information; if it doesn't break any rules in terms of spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, etc.; and if changing it in some way doesn't improve the article, whether that change may be through altering how something is written, or removing it entirely—then there is really no significant reason to change it in the first place. It just makes the person who added the content disappointed that his or her contribution was rejected simply because it doesn't fit some other person's glorified view of how the article should ideally be.

I understand that you will probably feel that this discussion of ours is now a battle and that your reputation is on the line, and therefore you will be reluctant to change your stance. Please be assured that changing your opinion will not in any way reflect badly upon you or make others see you as weak or anything, but will rather present you in a better light. Listening and acting based on valid reasons and changing one's opinion or stance on a matter—even one which they may have argued against vehemently—is a sign of strength of character. What I am saying is please don't refuse to change your mind simply because you think it will ruin your reputation or make you seem weak or something, because it won't. In fact, it will be appreciated. ChocolateTrain (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Just in case you may forgot about that topic it was in the 2017 PTS talk page. In my perspective, if a system has affected land there should be evidence (either in the news or possibly in the advisories from agencies). For the Wake Island, it is much different because this is way far off the continent and lies over the middle of the Pacific Ocean. The two island groups you are talking about, especially if a storm affects both the PH and VN, I would "summarize" it up to keep it simple, and JR did say that I did have concerns in the SE Chart because it becomes rather large by the end of the season. Also since PH has 3 archipelagos, then why not separate those too? Or what if a storm only impacts Luzon? For that I would still call it PH, and of course for my concerns over the chart, which is why I'm figuring out a new layout for this. -- Typhoon2013 06:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Doug, Enrique and 13W

Hi Typhoon2013, I brought this question to its talk page. I hope that you have some source to backup your claim, because I find strange that they doesn't even have 10-min winds. I coudn't find JMA data for them on either its Best Track or on IBTrACS database. ABC paulista (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Quick question

Do you have any proof aside from Wiki that Hattie 90, Gene 90, and Page 90 were named by PAGASA? I can only find what was named by PAGASA from 1963-1988 and 1991-present, unless they're listed in NDCC. YE 04:43, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: Hi and yes it was from the Manila Bulletin or see in Talk:1990 Pacific typhoon season as I have left a message there a few months ago regarding the naming issues JR was having back in 2009. Yes sadly your source only has it until 1988, though I have emailed the creator a few months ago whether to update it to at least 1997 so we can further prove it. -- Typhoon2013 04:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: If you want I'll try and contact PAGASA if they have previous records dating at least back 1989, because I have emailed PAGASA once regarding the retirement names for the 2016 season and luckily they reported the retirement names two days later, so fingers-crossed I hope this works. Also btw, I really love your efforts for these articles you recently made for the 90s typhoons, and you really are someone who wants PTS articles to be improved, hehe. -- Typhoon2013 04:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you point me exact links? Searching Google News hasn't been helpful, where I'd be inclined to think Manila Standard articles would be found. YE 05:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: First, I am sorry for not placing the sources there immediately after finding new information. But for one of the storms,here in page 104, there is a section that talks about TD Susang, which was one of the missing PAGASA systems of that season. -- Typhoon2013 05:18, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Good find but that doesn't really answer my problem. But in answer to your earlier comment, yes, you should get in touch with PAGASA. If they don't respond, those edits may have to be reverted I'm afraid. YE 05:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: Does that include TD Susang and other confirmed PAGASA systems from those sources? Because this is our only possible source just in case. Though, yes, I will keep in touch with PAGASA and will reply to you if they have messaged. -- Typhoon2013 05:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Page 104 mentions Susang and Ruping (Mike) only but not all the others. YE 05:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: Oh I'm talking about your quote "edits may have to be reverted I'm afraid". Which ones will be reverted? Just to note Susan (Tering) was confirmed in the same source (different date though). I'm just stating this just in case an edit war occurs in the future, which I hope it will not happen. -- Typhoon2013 05:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh I was referring to the edits you made to Gene/Hattie/Page's page. The others are fine. YE 05:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

1st Tropical low in the 2017-18 Australian season (01U?)

Hi Typhoon2013. I'm just leaving this message to clear up the confusion about the wind speeds for the Australian tropical low. It says in the citation I had: "...les dernières passes ASCAT montrent des vents de l'ordre de 15kt, 20kt dans le demi-cercle sud de la zone." Now, if my school French serves me well, this translates to "...the last ASCAT passes show winds in the order of 15-20 knots in the semicircle south of the area." As Météo-France at Réunion monitors the Indian Ocean using the same methods as the Bureau of Meteorology (that is, 10-minute sustained winds), this confirms the information I had there.

Also, where does it say that the tropical low has been designated 01U? I can't find it anywhere. On this note, you reverted my edit on the season buttons template when I changed your 01U to TL. You said that because we don't have any sources, we should designate it as 01U. Isn't that the opposite of what we should be doing? Shouldn't we be making it just a general 'TL' instead of an official designation that the Bureau of Meteorology has to assign? I'm just confused, that's all. I mean, I would prefer it to be 01U than TL, but I'm not sure we should. ChocolateTrain (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Oh thanks for the source and I really did not expect that to be an MFR source rather than a BoM source. Fine for that now.

Regarding to the designation thing, so as far as I know you are Australian right? I don't know if you know this, but the BoM is what I consider the "worst agency to designate systems" because we have problems since at least the 2012-13 season where we see a jump or a skip in their numerical designations. So by the beginning of the 2016-17 season, I just had a thought about it and to 'experiment' how the BoM classify and track these (unnumbered) TLs. Yes I know that this is OR (original research) which I am against as well to certain things, I'm just doing the logic. So in the 2016-17 season, there were 7 TLs within the basin I included which were unnumbered, and turns out I was 'accurate' with the designations.. then by the end of the season, we pretty much did not missed out a TL and have all numbered systems. This has been a goal for me since 2016 and I'm doing a second try for this season and hoping it does work and does relate on how they designate these systems. Again, I have said I love numbers and I really get annoyed when they miss something out. Plus, just to keep it safe, I only stated "01U" over in the template box instead of the article itself, until we have the first official and 100% confirmed numbered system. I hope this makes sense. -- Typhoon2013 09:22, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Also, I see what you mean with the tropical cyclone designations. I agree—we should stick with 01U. And yes, I'm an Aussie. :) ChocolateTrain (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Yep but then again, this is one of the reasons why I hate BOM (sorry) especially how I emailed them about this and haven't replied for a year now. Just to note, we can't fully say it's 01U but this has to be the first real TL that's why atm I'm only adding it in to the template instead of the article itself.

Just to give you early information, especially how it's not yet Nov, I believe the BOM 'designates' a TL if in their bulletins include 1) coordinates and/or 2) location/distance within, according to what I've seen during the course of the previous season. If none of these exist, then it really depends on the next TL. Also Keith has his own website for archived sources and I keep track on that just in case a TL was just mentioned in 1 day. This really is confusing so yeah. -- Typhoon2013 10:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:WPTC/T/A

Why did you remove the A class ratings? YE 04:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: Those articles contained a GA sticker thing at the top-right of the page. -- Typhoon2013 04:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

All A class articles have a GA sticker. YE 04:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Yellow Evan: Oh sorry I did not know that. Question: what's the criteria difference between an "A" and a "GA" then? -- Typhoon2013 04:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

A class is basically for articles near FAC and usually pass GAN with almost zero qualms. Not every project uses A class so for that reason there's no A class sticker. YE 04:18, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Franklin image

Hi Typhoon2013. I just wanted to say great work on the Franklin image. It's excellent! The colour is great, the definition is great, the sizing is great... everything looks really good! Well done! ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

“Indeed, Typhoon2013 certainly wouldn't agree, as he favours gallery images.”

Could you please explain this? It seems that lots of people here, even including yourself, want to object to my contributions. 🐱💬 10:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Regarding to that quote, I do NOT "object to your contributions", and literally, and personally, think the other way around where you make great images and are better than me. I am not going to reply in that discussion but you guys need to sort it out. I have literally no idea what is going on between both of you because I don't see any "problem" going around within the project. -- Typhoon2013 10:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC) (Edited)

As he said “do not change this again”... 🐱💬 11:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: But literally though, just imo, his images are still the same which I call it a 'low-quality' one and as discussed with you before, he has his own versions of my images which includes 1) a different time and 2) again, a weird and "low-quality" one. A little concerned about this but let's wait and see. -- Typhoon2013 11:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I thought the low-quality problem should have been solved. It was a technical issue that Wikimedia Commons cannot handle PNG images from NOAA View Data properly. What I concerned are not about quality. 🐱💬 13:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Now he acts like some member— uploading the similar satellite images with a different timestamp. I have forgot who also had had this behaviour before. 🐱💬 08:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: I thought you knew about this a few weeks ago and have noticed this since Noru and Sonca, and of course I am against it as I am a simple person. Yes I definitely do remember a similar situation before back in 2015 and it was Instalok (or Nino Marakot). After seeing Nino's progress and after several discussions before, tbvh Nino is much better and would rather have him than the current user now but sadly he is on a break from Misplaced Pages. -- Typhoon2013 08:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I don’t want to contribute to articles and images for typhoons that much, and we need much more editors who can write typhoon articles well. I really want to take more time on the articles about past typhoons or extratropical cyclones. Sadly, I still have to contribute to a lot of typhoon articles that I am bored to. 🐱💬 08:51, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Sadly that's true and I don't want this project to be 'dead'. I really love TCs and updating storms here in Misplaced Pages and have done so in the past 4 years. We really just need more users who can contribute and have good editing. There are only a few anon users who have shown that but they ever appeared again. -- Typhoon2013 08:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I don’t know how to talk about this... 🐱💬 09:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Meow: Smh. Really concerned as well on the way he stated it. -- Typhoon2013 09:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

So I decided to let administrators judge. 🐱💬 09:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)