Jump to content

User talk:Chicdat/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Undue move of Tropical Storm Rai (2021)

Do not move drafts which are not likely to pass general notability guidelines to mainspace. The article consists purely of non-notable meteorological background and routine preparations. By prematurely moving drafts which are not yet notable, you are risking the deletion of the draft and all content in it in an AfD. Chlod (say hi!) 17:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chlod: Contrary to what you were saying, it met notability just as much as 2022 Atlantic hurricane season does. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Hurricane seasons are a yearly (or bi-yearly) occurrence that is guaranteed to start almost every year. Is Tropical Storm Rai a yearly occurrence? That's quite a claim for you to make. Chlod (say hi!) 14:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I didn't mean that, I meant that their press coverage is both in the future (or was, yesterday). 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Like I said, hurricane seasons are guaranteed to happen with a 100% certainty. Storms are not. No matter if we use the world's most advanced forecasting system, forecasts will always be forecasts and will never be 100% accurate. Rai had not caused any impacts at the time, and as such there is barely any basis for notability. Rai was not a 100% definitely-will-happen event. Assuming that Rai suddenly came into contact with wind shears that tore it apart and made it dissolve, you would only have the meteorological history section to prove its notability and in such a case, it would instantly fail notability. Chlod (say hi!) 11:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
However, Rai is not getting deleted now, or moved back to draft, because most everybody believes that it will make landfall in the Philippines, if not in Southeast Asia. If you had opened an AfD the moment I moved Rai to mainspace, by now the AfD would have most likely been closed as speedy keep. Additionally, since creation the article has gotten 2,769 pageviews, showing that it's something our readers want to look at. I agree that I moved it to mainspace about a day too early, but the article is being developed a lot, and if not by now, it will be notable by tomorrow. However, I am sorry for violating WP:FUTURE and WP:TOOSOON. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I warned you on the 13th of December. It is now the 15th. The warning was based on the article's existence at the time. Even if the article as of now is (somewhat) notable, your page move was still problematic and you need to stop making those types of moves in the future. Chlod (say hi!) 12:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll stop, then. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Please stop adding pointless short descriptions

Edits like these are incredibly pointless and actually make the short description worse; you've overridden the actually descriptive Wikidata description for a generic description. Not only that, but if there wasn't a Wikidata description or local description, “Wikipedia list article” would be the default description that displays. Not only are your edits disruptively removing actual descriptions, but in some cases not even cosmetically, because they literally change nothing about how anything is rendered. I know better than to revert your hundreds of pointless edits with even more pointless edits but please stop making these pointless bot-like edits that make the reader's experience worse. — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I honestly think that you should go with Berrely's advice here, as you're getting into even more dangerous territory lately. You just got blocked for 36 hours because of edit warring (and even got topic banned last month), and I really think that some things you do here are something you're clearly can't do. I'm staying semi-retired here for foreseeable future though, so I can't watch over you for all things you do in the future. MarioJump83! 01:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@Berrely and MarioJump83: Should I disable shortdesc helper and ban myself from editing there? Most of my shortdesc edits are helpful. 🐔dat (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
You don't need to disable shortdesc helper - with these specific articles, just import the (more useful) Wikidata description or leave them as is. In future, please exercise more caution though - as stated above, things have gotten a bit uncertain for you as of late. Remagoxer (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Should I be doing Special:Diff/1061222213-like things? 🐔dat (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

  1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
  2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
  3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

  1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
  2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Weather 2022 C/B Class Drive

Hello Chicdat! WikiProject Weather is doing a drive during 2022 to get all new 2022 weather articles to at least C class, with the hope of B Class. I thought you might be interested in the WP Weather drive, so I wanted to drop a message about it. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: I actually cannot, see the ban above? 🐔dat (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Chicdat: Dang, just saw it. Well even though you cannot edit the drive's page, with adding yourself to the participate list or adding to the article list, you are more than welcome to watch it and improve the articles that get listed there. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip: Of course. 🐔dat (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Maria Brañas/Branyas Morera

Hey Chicdat, I see that you have reverted my change of spelling of her name. I was wondering why, when on the GRG she's Branyas and also on the Spanish page of verified oldest people. It's not extremely important, but I am curious. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Brañas is the Spanish spelling of her name (see ñ), and, as you may know, GRG always uses Americanized spelling. A source (probably not reliable, though) says here With Sutcliffe's passing, María Brañas Morera is now the oldest living person in the United States. Morera, who was born in Spain and now lives in California, is 114 years and 323 days as of this writing. 🐔dat (talk) 10:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Linter follow-up

Thanks for fixing Linter errors. I have tidied up after you in a few articles. Do you use LintHint to check articles after you have made your changes but before saving? It can help find remaining or new errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've installed it just now. Thank you. 🐔dat (talk) 10:57, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. It has some quirks – sometimes it reports more errors than actually exist, but in general, and especially in articles, when it returns a "green" result, you have fixed all of the errors. You can ask about it at Wikipedia talk:Linter. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I found it very useful; on one article I intended to fix only a missing end tag, but I also got to do an obsolete center tag. 🐔dat (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
If you get really excited about Linter error fixing, make sure you know about this page (a bot updates it many times per day), and Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC 551 dump (updated once or twice per month), and User:Galobot/report/Articles by Lint Errors (updated daily). Those are good places to find groups of articles that might fit your preferred editing style. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Newshunter12: I knew there was something strange about that editor. 🐔dat (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
One year!

Prayer for Ukraine --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022

  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine: War diary
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Please support me

Chicdat brother you are my biggest inspiration . Brother please support your junior brother to add the whole jma category to season article.Please brother WP:WPTC my discussion on this page please brother add your discussion on the page I need your support. Jupiter50 (talk) 20:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing HurricaneEdgar 03:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that according to Canvassing page If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, which may result in their being blocked from editing. Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning HurricaneEdgar 11:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jupiter50: I am very sorry. I want to support your proposal and maintain our Wikifriendship (Wiki + Friendship) – I really do, but I shouldn't be commenting based on what you want, or what I want. I should be commenting based on what Wikipedia's rules say. And if other people don't agree with you, it doesn't happen. I myself learned this two years ago when an admin removed some rights from me because I didn't use them well and I tried to ask Hurricanehink to give them back. But he didn't, and I'm glad he didn't. If he had given the rights back, I would have continued to use them badly and I might have gotten blocked. 🐔dat (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Two more things to say. First, Jupiter50, if the discussion keeps going badly for you, you can try to come up with reasons why it should happen (like Proposal X should happen because, per WP:EXAMPLE, ⋯), but if that doesn't work, there's noting you can do. Second, HurricaneEdgar, thanks for your comment! 🐔dat (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Ok my brother we will discuss this later❤️❤️❤️ Jupiter50 (talk) 11:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Brother I make all southern hemisphere Cyclone season draft please watch it. Jupiter50 (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes, thank you for your newly created 2022–23 drafts. I appreciate the work you do on articles. 🐔dat (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you brother ❤️❤️❤️ Jupiter50 (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: Weather by year

Regarding the revert, you still haven't completed the table. It's not a total by any means, since the table isn't anywhere near finished. If you don't intend to finish it, then I really think the article should be deleted. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

What year do you think it should start at, then? 🐔dat (talk) 09:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
It's not the years, it's that you don't have any information filled in for most columns. Also, I'm not sure the table format is good in general. Consider tornadoes, which can be produced by TC's or extratropical cyclones. Ditto floods. Also, what's the difference between extratropical cyclones and snowstorms? Basically, what is the article going to look like when it is eventually done? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the empty columns. Also I've filled up the windstorm rows. As I go further back, I'll still have List of European windstorms and List of major snow and ice events in the United States to consult. 🐔dat (talk) 10:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Chicdat! I am working on Indian artist Pritika Chowdhry's wiki page.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Pritika_Chowdhry Could you take a look?

In the art world, she is an accomplished artist which as you know is sometimes hard to translate on Wiki. So, I have cited many sources, with three being the most reliable covering the artist (The Indian Express references 7 and 16 and ABC reference 2) both outlets are listed as reliable in Wikipedia's Reliable Perennial sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. In addition, the page is now encyclopedic and neutral in tone.

Making this draft publishable and/or allowing this draft to be published will help Wiki's gender gap ^^ It was great working with you on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayana_Evans. THANKS!!!

Matriarch-info (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

It's good to see you again, Matriarch-info! You've done a lot of really great work on the draft since you started working on it, and now it looks a lot better than it did under the previous editor. There are no longer puffery terms and the sources are reliable, I agree. But I don't think readers need to know all the awards Chowdhry got. Maybe just remove that section. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Apart from that, the draft's looking great. Chowdhry's clear notability is proved by many reliable sources, and the draft complies with WP:NPOV. I am no longer a reviewer, so I can't accept it, but I'm not the only one in the world. Hopefully soon one will accept it, but if it's declined again, tell me, and together we can figure out what's wrong. And make sure to message me when you start your next project. Wikipedia needs more people who write about women, and the more articles you write, the more articles on women there will be. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much! The encouragement is much appreciated. Matriarch-info (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

RfCs

Just a heads up that you have to have a neutrally worded question following a RfC banner or else someone may come and remove the banner. If you look at prior proposals on the page, you will see the questions remain there even though the banners are now gone. See Wikipedia:RFCST for more information. NoahTalk 11:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Is what I just added a neutrally worded question? 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I believe that is neutral. NoahTalk 12:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Mentorship

Let's discuss the mentorship. As you might know, I've written several featured articles. I believe that writing content is the most important part of Wikipedia. I know you have some experience writing, and you worked on List of Alabama hurricanes. I want you to pick a few articles (five is a good start) that are not currently good articles or better. Make sure they are ones that you could see yourself finishing.

Also, as part of the mentorship, I'd like for you to try reviewing a current featured article candidate. It is important to understand what makes a featured article, and they are neatly laid out at the FA criteria. For this, I'd suggest don't pick an active weather FAC's, as you might be too close and familiar with the subject matter to be objective. I know you once edited chicken articles, so maybe check out Mandrill, which is an article on a type of mammal that is up for FAC. It is important for FA's to be understandable to non-experts, so be sure that everything makes sense to you. Don't leave anything up to guessing. The more thorough you are, the better off the article will be.

What do you think? Please respond with the list of articles, your thoughts on the FA review, and about the mentoring in general. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Here are the articles:
All recent (in the last five years) start or C-class Atlantic storms. Only Larry did not affect the Gulf Coast.
About Mandrill: Reviewing an article for FA seems fine. Not easy, but I think I could do it.
Finally, thank you for agreeing to mentor me! When do I start?
🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's start with Larry. It didn't have too much impact, and the met history is rather on the short side right now. I want you to compare Larry's MH to Igor. There is a lot more that can be added, using the TCR, tropical weather outlooks. For example, when was the precursor tropical wave first observed? When did the wave leave the coast of Africa? Why did it move the way it did? What conditions allowed for it to strengthen? What structural changes happened with the system? For example, when did the convection become organized, when did an eye first appear, and when did it become established in the center of the convection? How did it change as it moved northward?

As for Mandrill, I want you to read it through and compare it to the FA criteria. See if there's anything the article is missing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The five paragraphs in Igor's MH give extensive references to its TCR, but I didn't see even one source to Larry's TCR in the MH. Also, the TCR says Larry had five fatalities, while the article says eight - any reason for this discrepancy? I've already made one edit to Larry that clarified its origins: [1] 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Have you done the research comparing the TCR and the article to figure out the discrepancy? As for Larry, remember, the goal is to be thorough and to describe the meteorology history in detail. Your edit actually removed a piece of information, namely that the NHC was already anticipating development well ahead of time. Try adding information to the article. See if you can get up to when it became a hurricane, and be thorough in what happened, using Igor as a guide for what kind of information to include. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Now Larry's a hurricane where I left off. One paragraph for Origins–Tropical Storm, one for Tropical Storm–Hurricane, as with Igor. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Make sure you avoid using knots or nautical miles. They’re technical terms. In American-based articles (or default North Atlantic articles) we use miles/mph first, with metric units in parenthesis. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually @Hurricanehink: It is better that Chicdat and yourself used knots but used the convert template in the format {{convert|40|kn|mph km/h|round=5|order=out|abbr=on}}, so that we remain verifiable with our reports and consistent throughout the wiki! Jason Rees (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I have changed the knots to the convert template. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 09:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Be sure to do the same for nautical miles. Any questions on finishing the MH? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Also for Larry, be sure to include the basis for how its intensity was determined. Usually (but not always) it's satellite-derived intensity estimates, so be sure to link to the Dvorak technique. Also, be sure to discuss what broad scale factors caused Larry to move the way it did. Why did Larry avoid land instead of being another Dorian/Florence/Irma/etc. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Two more things. Be sure to avoid the nautical miles, and try having an even number of lines for each paragraph. Maybe have three or four bigger paragraphs than the seven you have. Also, I notice you cite the public advisory a few times. They're not really needed in the met history, since all they do is give the position, the intensity, watches/warnings, and other information of that sort. All of that info appears in the TCR. You should be using the discussions to document the changes. You kind of gloss over some of those changes. You talk about the improving structure as the wave left the coast of Africa, but then you don't say anything about what happened as it got stronger. To explain to the public how the storm got stronger, you should discuss the evolution of the convection/thunderstorms, rainbands, when an eye feature developed. Was the strengthening anticipated or not? (it seems yes, the NHC had the benefit of good agreement from the computer models that it would intensify) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

How do I remove the nautical miles? 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Just add km to the conversion templates that contain nmi & mi.Jason Rees (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Larry's MH looks like it's in better shape. Make sure every time you mention a unit (miles or whatever), you have a conversion. You're missing it for "1000 miles", the eye diameter, and the 4 feet of snow. Also, you don't talk much about the meteorology behind the storm. Why did it move the way it did? What allowed it to strengthen so much? What caused it to weaken? That all might be a bit advanced for you, so if you need help figuring those out, please let me know. Elsewhere in the article, I suggest you either write out what "EPIRB" is, or link it in a creative way like emergency signal. All acronyms need to be explained in every article. Next, the impact section isn't the best organized. A sentence like - "An elementary school was damaged,[22] and the performance tent near Quidi Vidi Lake, set up for the Iceberg Alley concert festival, suffered significant damage." - has two different ideas. A school is different from a performance tent. If the school was damaged, were kids out of school for a while? As for the concert festival, did that still go on? Also, you mention the damage total in the lead, but never mention it in the body of the article. Was the $80 million all in Canada? If so, try and get some more specifics.

Outside of Larry and writing articles for individual storms, there are lots of potential projects out there. I want you to try writing up the summary for a storm in a season article. Ideally a fish storm, and be sure it's in a season that isn't already a GA. Try citing the TCR (so it should be a season since 1998). Perhaps Hurricane Kenneth in 2017, which was a C4, and has a pretty small section that could be expanded to two paragraphs.

Otherwise, are there any lists that you think you might be able to handle? Those are good practice, since it requires some attention to detail, but it doesn't need to have as many words as another article.

Lastly, how have your interactions been lately with other users? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed the problems in Larry, everything I can do, anyway, which isn't the meteorology behind the storm. I'll try to expand the summary of Kenneth, if I can even find the TCR. And yes, there are lists that I think I might be able to handle. I've been writing List of Atlantic tropical storms since 2020, though I haven't worked on it in a long time. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh damn, keep up the work on Atlantic TS’s! Do you think you could find someone to collaborate with to help finish that list? Impressive you’ve gotten up to 1927, that’s almost halfway. Someone else will probably attempt that sooner or later, so might as well get some assistance. Try reaching out via user’s talk pages. It seems like you have the handle of such a list article. Just be sure that everything is referenced and formatted correctly, so you’ll be able to nominate it to become Featured list. For instance, the values should be sortable, so wind speeds, pressure, damage, and deaths. Check out some of Hurricane Noah’s great series of featured Pacific hurricane lists. Or check out the work Jason Rees has been doing to C2 Atlantic hurricanes. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Looking at List of Category 4 Pacific hurricanes, I see a two-paragraph lead, a five-paragraph statistics and background section, and a three-paragraph climatology section. I see that it isn't so much of a "List of Category 4 Pacific hurricanes" but "Category 4 Pacific hurricane", explaining what makes the storms, the most common tracks, the amount of damage, et cetera; not just the list of the storms, while my sandbox has nothing but a lead sentence, a blank "Background" section, and a "Climatology" section, which needs some text instead of tables. The Category 4 article also has a "Landfalls" section, but there are so many tropical storms that I don't really think that would be plausible. Then, while the sandbox has a duration section (following the precedent of the C3, C2, and C1 Atlantic articles) the Category 4 page has "Dates as a Category 4" and "Time as a Category 4" (though again that might be hard to figure out for the older storms). I definitely have a lot to do. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Sort of ignore List of Category 4 Pacific hurricanes for now, as I will probably polish it up to look and feel like the other intensity lists such as Category 2 Atlantic hurricanes at some point, which do not present a list of landfalls or columns for duration as a Category 4 does. As I have gone through the lists and developed them in the SHEM, I have felt that including the specific dates that a system was a Category X and how long a system was Category X is overly detailed and causes to many headaches trying to work them out. As a result, I would strongly urge you to look at the SHEM lists and follow the lead of them rather than Category 4 Pacific hurricanes. Jason Rees (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
User talk:Hurricane Noah#Help with my sandbox didn't go very well. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe try a user who doesn’t seem to be doing any other projects at the moment? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Jason Rees is already doing it. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Mentorship

Let's discuss the mentorship. As you might know, I've written several featured articles. I believe that writing content is the most important part of Wikipedia. I know you have some experience writing, and you worked on List of Alabama hurricanes. I want you to pick a few articles (five is a good start) that are not currently good articles or better. Make sure they are ones that you could see yourself finishing.

Also, as part of the mentorship, I'd like for you to try reviewing a current featured article candidate. It is important to understand what makes a featured article, and they are neatly laid out at the FA criteria. For this, I'd suggest don't pick an active weather FAC's, as you might be too close and familiar with the subject matter to be objective. I know you once edited chicken articles, so maybe check out Mandrill, which is an article on a type of mammal that is up for FAC. It is important for FA's to be understandable to non-experts, so be sure that everything makes sense to you. Don't leave anything up to guessing. The more thorough you are, the better off the article will be.

What do you think? Please respond with the list of articles, your thoughts on the FA review, and about the mentoring in general. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Here are the articles:
All recent (in the last five years) start or C-class Atlantic storms. Only Larry did not affect the Gulf Coast.
About Mandrill: Reviewing an article for FA seems fine. Not easy, but I think I could do it.
Finally, thank you for agreeing to mentor me! When do I start?
🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Let's start with Larry. It didn't have too much impact, and the met history is rather on the short side right now. I want you to compare Larry's MH to Igor. There is a lot more that can be added, using the TCR, tropical weather outlooks. For example, when was the precursor tropical wave first observed? When did the wave leave the coast of Africa? Why did it move the way it did? What conditions allowed for it to strengthen? What structural changes happened with the system? For example, when did the convection become organized, when did an eye first appear, and when did it become established in the center of the convection? How did it change as it moved northward?

As for Mandrill, I want you to read it through and compare it to the FA criteria. See if there's anything the article is missing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The five paragraphs in Igor's MH give extensive references to its TCR, but I didn't see even one source to Larry's TCR in the MH. Also, the TCR says Larry had five fatalities, while the article says eight - any reason for this discrepancy? I've already made one edit to Larry that clarified its origins: [2] 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Have you done the research comparing the TCR and the article to figure out the discrepancy? As for Larry, remember, the goal is to be thorough and to describe the meteorology history in detail. Your edit actually removed a piece of information, namely that the NHC was already anticipating development well ahead of time. Try adding information to the article. See if you can get up to when it became a hurricane, and be thorough in what happened, using Igor as a guide for what kind of information to include. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Now Larry's a hurricane where I left off. One paragraph for Origins–Tropical Storm, one for Tropical Storm–Hurricane, as with Igor. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Make sure you avoid using knots or nautical miles. They’re technical terms. In American-based articles (or default North Atlantic articles) we use miles/mph first, with metric units in parenthesis. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Actually @Hurricanehink: It is better that Chicdat and yourself used knots but used the convert template in the format {{convert|40|kn|mph km/h|round=5|order=out|abbr=on}}, so that we remain verifiable with our reports and consistent throughout the wiki! Jason Rees (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I have changed the knots to the convert template. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 09:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Be sure to do the same for nautical miles. Any questions on finishing the MH? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Also for Larry, be sure to include the basis for how its intensity was determined. Usually (but not always) it's satellite-derived intensity estimates, so be sure to link to the Dvorak technique. Also, be sure to discuss what broad scale factors caused Larry to move the way it did. Why did Larry avoid land instead of being another Dorian/Florence/Irma/etc. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Two more things. Be sure to avoid the nautical miles, and try having an even number of lines for each paragraph. Maybe have three or four bigger paragraphs than the seven you have. Also, I notice you cite the public advisory a few times. They're not really needed in the met history, since all they do is give the position, the intensity, watches/warnings, and other information of that sort. All of that info appears in the TCR. You should be using the discussions to document the changes. You kind of gloss over some of those changes. You talk about the improving structure as the wave left the coast of Africa, but then you don't say anything about what happened as it got stronger. To explain to the public how the storm got stronger, you should discuss the evolution of the convection/thunderstorms, rainbands, when an eye feature developed. Was the strengthening anticipated or not? (it seems yes, the NHC had the benefit of good agreement from the computer models that it would intensify) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

How do I remove the nautical miles? 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Just add km to the conversion templates that contain nmi & mi.Jason Rees (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Larry's MH looks like it's in better shape. Make sure every time you mention a unit (miles or whatever), you have a conversion. You're missing it for "1000 miles", the eye diameter, and the 4 feet of snow. Also, you don't talk much about the meteorology behind the storm. Why did it move the way it did? What allowed it to strengthen so much? What caused it to weaken? That all might be a bit advanced for you, so if you need help figuring those out, please let me know. Elsewhere in the article, I suggest you either write out what "EPIRB" is, or link it in a creative way like emergency signal. All acronyms need to be explained in every article. Next, the impact section isn't the best organized. A sentence like - "An elementary school was damaged,[22] and the performance tent near Quidi Vidi Lake, set up for the Iceberg Alley concert festival, suffered significant damage." - has two different ideas. A school is different from a performance tent. If the school was damaged, were kids out of school for a while? As for the concert festival, did that still go on? Also, you mention the damage total in the lead, but never mention it in the body of the article. Was the $80 million all in Canada? If so, try and get some more specifics.

Outside of Larry and writing articles for individual storms, there are lots of potential projects out there. I want you to try writing up the summary for a storm in a season article. Ideally a fish storm, and be sure it's in a season that isn't already a GA. Try citing the TCR (so it should be a season since 1998). Perhaps Hurricane Kenneth in 2017, which was a C4, and has a pretty small section that could be expanded to two paragraphs.

Otherwise, are there any lists that you think you might be able to handle? Those are good practice, since it requires some attention to detail, but it doesn't need to have as many words as another article.

Lastly, how have your interactions been lately with other users? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed the problems in Larry, everything I can do, anyway, which isn't the meteorology behind the storm. I'll try to expand the summary of Kenneth, if I can even find the TCR. And yes, there are lists that I think I might be able to handle. I've been writing List of Atlantic tropical storms since 2020, though I haven't worked on it in a long time. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh damn, keep up the work on Atlantic TS’s! Do you think you could find someone to collaborate with to help finish that list? Impressive you’ve gotten up to 1927, that’s almost halfway. Someone else will probably attempt that sooner or later, so might as well get some assistance. Try reaching out via user’s talk pages. It seems like you have the handle of such a list article. Just be sure that everything is referenced and formatted correctly, so you’ll be able to nominate it to become Featured list. For instance, the values should be sortable, so wind speeds, pressure, damage, and deaths. Check out some of Hurricane Noah’s great series of featured Pacific hurricane lists. Or check out the work Jason Rees has been doing to C2 Atlantic hurricanes. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Looking at List of Category 4 Pacific hurricanes, I see a two-paragraph lead, a five-paragraph statistics and background section, and a three-paragraph climatology section. I see that it isn't so much of a "List of Category 4 Pacific hurricanes" but "Category 4 Pacific hurricane", explaining what makes the storms, the most common tracks, the amount of damage, et cetera; not just the list of the storms, while my sandbox has nothing but a lead sentence, a blank "Background" section, and a "Climatology" section, which needs some text instead of tables. The Category 4 article also has a "Landfalls" section, but there are so many tropical storms that I don't really think that would be plausible. Then, while the sandbox has a duration section (following the precedent of the C3, C2, and C1 Atlantic articles) the Category 4 page has "Dates as a Category 4" and "Time as a Category 4" (though again that might be hard to figure out for the older storms). I definitely have a lot to do. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Sort of ignore List of Category 4 Pacific hurricanes for now, as I will probably polish it up to look and feel like the other intensity lists such as Category 2 Atlantic hurricanes at some point, which do not present a list of landfalls or columns for duration as a Category 4 does. As I have gone through the lists and developed them in the SHEM, I have felt that including the specific dates that a system was a Category X and how long a system was Category X is overly detailed and causes to many headaches trying to work them out. As a result, I would strongly urge you to look at the SHEM lists and follow the lead of them rather than Category 4 Pacific hurricanes. Jason Rees (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
User talk:Hurricane Noah#Help with my sandbox didn't go very well. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Maybe try a user who doesn’t seem to be doing any other projects at the moment? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Jason Rees is already doing it. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Bump. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 09:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

HURDAT

As I am editing the intensity lists, I am deliberately trying to get rid of references to HURDAT, as it is miles better that we use IBTRACS and point the reader to the data directly. Also @Hurricanehink: is busy in real life at the moment.Jason Rees (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

IBTRACS does not give pressure. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 09:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Since IBTRACS is a direct transcription of what is in HURDAT, it does give an estimate of the pressure where HURDAT does. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I will reevaluate my view. However, I do not want to have 500+ references to HURDAT when only a handful are needed. Jason Rees (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
So then where is the pressure here? Is it in the ID? 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok Chicdat, I took a look whats in the Atlantic hurricane database for the system with the ID AL131932, since I know that IBTRACS provides pressure estimates where they are available. Unsurprisingly HURDAT does not provide a pressure estimate for AL131932, so IBTRACS does not provide one either. If a pressure estimate was provided for AL131932 in HURDAT, then IBTRACS would list it in a separate column just like they do for AL01 1876, Andrew 1986, Katrina 2005.Jason Rees (talk) 10:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Okay, I will stop citing HURDAT. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I think you need to look carefully at what you are citing. There is no point in citing IBTRACS or HURDAT if we already have something else like the TCR. For now I would urge you to continue to add the systems in but be mindful that I am going through them when time allows to ensure that the data matches what is in HURDAT/IBTRACS. Jason Rees (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm currently editing the page to add storms from 1933. They will obviously not have TCRs. I am adding them in with their IBTRACS report and not with HURDAT or the Meta ref. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Why are you changing the Unknown in the pressure column to Not Specified? 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know @Chicdat: the project standard is to use Not Specified when we do not have a valid wind/pressure estimate. It also makes more sense than Unknown since the pressure could be known/estimated by the warning centre.Jason Rees (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted parts of your edits to the sandbox, including

  • the addition of endless Citation needed tags when there are already citations
  • removal of links to impacted areas
  • change of the format into a needlessly condense form
  • You will find that
  • turning the dates into sort templates
    • I have put dates into a sort template so that the list sorts properly and is constant with the season effects templates and other such intensity lists as well as Wikipedia standards.Jason Rees (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • switching around deaths and damage
  • change of "X Coast of the United States" to "United States X Coast" and
  • It is redundant to go X Coast of the United States" as it just adds fluff and increases the page size.Jason Rees (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • adding templates that have no effect on the page to readers.

I am currently working to restore the Not Specified in the pressure column and the IBTRACS refs, as well as your splitting of the sections into decades. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted your format changes back to the last edit that I performed to the sandbox since as I have explained previously, I am trying to go through it with a fine toothcomb to ensure that the list is up to scratch and consistent with other lists and season effects charts. This is so you don't throw your toys out with the bath water" when you finally publish the sandbox and we have to tell you that it's barely up to scratch. You allege that I am adding "endless citation needed tags when there are already citations," yet you haven't realised that the impacts aren't covered by the references provided and that the CN tags are added to ensure that we get the deaths and damages sourced at some point. Off course, these can be removed when sources are found that actually tell us how many were killed or what the damages were, however, if no sources are found then they will have to be removed and moved to Unknown. I am also trying to ensure that the list complies with Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS) which provides guidance on how things should be laid out, this includes Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking which says that we do not generally link countries, geographic features or locations. You also accuse me of changing the format of the list, however, this is to ensure we are compliant with the MOS, other intensity articles and season effects charts, which have damages and then the deaths as well as various bits and bobs. You also accuse me off adding in templates that have no effect on the page to readers and turning the dates into sort templates, both of which are needed to ensure that the list is up to scratch and sorting properly. As for the "X Coast of the United States" to "United States X Coast", you will find that the former is fluff, rather redundant and just increases the page size which per the MOS shouldn't be to large. Once the list is up to snuff, it will just be one list rather than the decades that it currently is in and you may not like my edits but please remember to assume good faith and that my intention is to try and get the list up to the snuff of FLC.Jason Rees (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh and we have to record other systems that are considered tropical storms by a warning centre or well respected researchers, the latter of which Michael Chenoweth is considered to be since he has published numerous journal articles and his systems appear in IBTRACS. We will work the proper format of it out later as I am hoping to find other authors/systems whose work has not been accepted by the NHC Best Track Committee. Jason Rees (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I'll look at my points:
  • the addition of endless Citation needed tags when there are already citations
    • I should have seen the reason explained there
  • removal of links to impacted areas
  • change of the format into a needlessly condense form
    • Of course the article should not be too long
  • turning the dates into sort templates
    • Obviously it's to sort them
  • switching around deaths and damage
    • This is the only one I don't fully understand. In this thread (putting my very childish comments there aside) Hurricanehink said, Good job so far on intense tropical cyclones. If you want it to make it a featured list, then you'll need to improve the table. Check out List of Category 3 Pacific hurricanes, and view it from the edit window to see how to sort the intensity, or damage, or deaths. No need to list injuries. And be to sure to cite every death and damage figure (you're missing it for Andry 83. You might have to change how you report 0 deaths. Otherwise, you're on the right track. I see you're up to the 90's. Just 83 more to add :P List of Category 3 Pacific hurricanes puts deaths, then damage. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • change of "X Coast of the United States" to "United States X Coast" and
    • Fluff, as you said.
  • adding templates that have no effect on the page to readers.
    • They do.

🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:12, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

    • I am glad that you have taken another look at your comments and realised that you were a bit harsh, anyway, there are going to be articles out there that use deaths then damages. However, what I would say is that all of the Category:Tropical_cyclone_areas_affected_templates and Template:Intensity lists (Top) present the damages and then the deaths rather than the deaths and then the damages.Jason Rees (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner, but I was busy working yesterday. Anyway, I don't know where the pressure estimates came from, however, because they are not in HURDAT, we can not use them to say that this is NHC's estimate of the pressure, which is what we are doing. You could raise an interesting argument about relying upon one source, however, there are things that you need to consider:

  • HURDAT stands for HURricane DATabase and is the NHC's database.
  • NHC is the official warning centre for hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico, per the World Meteorological Organization which in turn is the World's official weather programme per the United Nations.
  • There are no other official intensity estimates, that are either relevant or acceptable to use per NHC. This includes the Meta Data write-ups or Jose Partagas' work.
  • By inclusion of the other systems section, we are noting that others have compiled research into tropical storms and are not just relying on the NHC to call something a tropical storm. This will include any systems that Meteo France, the UKMO or others have noted were tropical storms.

In response to your latest message I would point out the following:

  • My edits are not disruptive or changing "every little thin in it" and are just pulling things up to the standards required by both the project and Wikipedia's MOS.
  • You allege that I am being disruptive by removing the pressure estimates and saying that they are "Not Specified" even though it is specified, just in a different source. However, my response to this would be that if they are not in HURDAT or IBTRACS then they are not official or acceptable to use per NHC and the project. In fact I would argue that they are not valid as they are not official.
  • You then allege that when IBTRACS gives pressure, you put it into a convert template with InHgs, something that is not done in the season articles or anywhere else. Yet it is done within the season articles as well as lists such as List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes] and has been for years and is better than converting it to just Mbar.
  • You then state that I should discuss all these changes on the project page, not just impose them unilaterally. However, what you fail to realise is that these changes are not being implemented unilaterally, but are project standards and have been implemented for years. If you wish to change them then maybe you should bring it up on the project page.
  • As a result, I wish to continue to edit the sandbox as these edits are helpful, are not implementing anything unilaterally and you have asked for help from people to get it up to standards.Jason Rees (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Jason, it is 14 July. Why are you adding cn tags from June 2022? 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 10:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

If the pressure estimate is not in HURDAT or IBTRACS then you wiil not put any pressure estimates in even if they are in the Meta Data, as if they are not in HURDAT then they not considered to be reliable by NHC. Also I dont think it matters too if the CN tags are from June or July, as they are just a reminder that we need to find the impacts, unlike this edit whuch suggets that you wish to undo the archiving of the previous colour discussions. Jason Rees (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Meta is literally titled "Documentation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Changes in HURDAT". 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I know the Meta documentation is literally titled "Documentation of Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Changes in HURDAT", however, that does not change the fact that the pressure estimates are not considered reliable by the NHC if they are not in listed in the database. Jason Rees (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
So Wikipedia should not include certain information if it is in one source, but not in another source? 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
As I have said in my comments above the fact that these pressure estimates are not in HURDAt, shows that they are considered to be reliable by NHC which means that we can not use them. I will ask around and see if anyone knows why they are not in HURDAT, but i suspect its because there is very little evidence that these estimates are correct, after all we did not have satellite imagery and very few if any observations from planes or ships, especially at the height of World War 2. Jason Rees (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
I have started a discussion about this at WT:WPTC. Please contribute there instead of continuing to revert my edits. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Mentorship Part 2

Hey Chicdat, sorry to take so long to write back. RL has been a little busy for me, but in a good way. I hope to find a better work/life/wiki balance in the near future. Let me ask you, how is your progress on Wikipedia lately? Are there any topics you think you've done a particularly good job at it? Are there any questions about what to do? You did a good job starting to add to the Larry article, but it seems like you ran out of steam looking for new information. Do you need help with how to research links and how to find more information? Have you seen the WPTC project resources?

Hope to hear back, and I'll try getting back a lot sooner. I thought the extended amount of time warranted a new topic. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Once you left I stopped working on Larry. Now I'm trying to finish User:Chicdat/sandbox (currently at 1943). 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chicdat/Archive_7&oldid=1104477463"