User talk:Jason Rees/Archive4

Storm scale on the template

Can you take a look at the template I've been fiddling with and see if you can see why nothing is showing up. I've stripped it down so that it should just say "Test" where I want the scale to show up, and even that's not working. I have a feeling that I must have a wrong bracket somewhere, but I've gone over the damn thing at least 50 times and I can't find what I've done wrong. Here's the template: User:Inks.LWC/Template:Sandbox, and here's the test page: User:Inks.LWC/Sandbox7. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2013 Pacific typhoon season may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• http://www.webcitation.org/6HtTBCmXn|title=Weather outlook for Thailand during Rainy Season (( Around mid-May to mid-October 2013)|accessdate=July 5, 2013|url=http://www.tmd.go.th/programs%
• |Prewinds=<

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I seem to get a better reception in WP than in certain other basins I could mention!--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 19:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Edkins Barnstar message

I don't take kindly to you assuming that I'm just an idiot Yankee of all things (Learn the Mason-Dixon line). The changes that I was trying to implement were minor and did not even affect anything. I don't know why he refused to compromise. And this: "as he is young and doesn't 100% realize, that there is more than 1 way to skin a cat" makes no sense. What do you mean by young? What makes you think I don't realize something? (By the way, unless that was how you were taught, there shouldn't be a comma after realize; I'm not sure where you are from and I am really in no position to judge that anyway.) I don't want Edkins gone, but things can't stay the same way forever and change (even if minor) must come sometimes. United States Man (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Anybody with rudimentary knowledge of international culture would know that a "Yank" is any American... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes change must come USM but there is a way of doing it that doesn't involve pissing off other editors especially one that does a lot for the project as a whole including the temporary storing the warnings from the majority of the various tropical cyclone warning agencys on his own website and subsequently webciting them and keeping of the warning logs outside NHC basins up to date. So dont moan at me for giving him a banister and telling him not to take what you said to heart while trying to boost his morale especially since you are the first to say that you dont express yourself properly at times. Also the phrase "as he is young and doesn't 100% realize, that there is more than 1 way to skin a cat" makes perfect sense and sums up the situation nicely in my opinion without referring to anyone as an idiot, try googleing the part "there is more than 1 way to skin a cat" it if your not sure what it means.Jason Rees (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I know how much he does for the project, and I greatly appreciate that. But I made a few changes a few weeks back, and he changed them back. I asked him to work with me, which he did at first but then seemed to get agitated (I suppose I would too if the shoe was on the other foot and someone was cramming it down my throat). I was very nice with him, but he kept making it harder and I finally had enough. I don't want to run him off. Also, I knew what the phrase meant, and (to Juliancolton) if you lived in my neck of the woods, you would know that down here in Tennessee, we are no "Yanks". United States Man (talk) 04:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Convert/flip with disp=tablecen

Now, {convert/flip} also allows the options for "disp=table" or "disp=tablecen":

• {convert/flip|7|m|ft|disp=table|near=5} → User:Wikid77/Template:Convert/flip
• {convert/flip|7|m|ft|disp=tablecen|near=5} → User:Wikid77/Template:Convert/flip
• {convert/flip|7|m|ft|disp=table|near=5|x3=~} → User:Wikid77/Template:Convert/flip

The format is about as condensed as possible for general options. That also allows option x3=~ to show a tilde with the original amount. -Wikid77 Wikid77 (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Re:Dates

That was your fault. I was scanning through and noticed that the season effects table had listed a dissipation date. I thought that since there was no current storms infobox, the infobox had been mistakenly left as currently active. There was no need to jump all over me. United States Man (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Cyclone Tia

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A Little Help?

How do I request a page to be move-protected? I know a couple of articles that have enough problems for me to make such a request. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

2013 Pacific typhoon season

I noticed that we have been having a lot of trouble with IPs in the article. Could we ask an admin to semi-protect the page, so only auto-comfirmed users can edit it? I'm sure that will eliminate most of our problems on the article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I just requested Hurricanehink to semi-protect the article. Now I'll have to wait and see if he decided to do it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I dont think weve been having that many problems with IP's - our biggest problem is the lack of editors willing to get their hands dirty and edit the MH's.Jason Rees (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that as well. Beginning in early or mid-July, I noticed that the editing activity (in terms of substantial, credible edits) seemed to have dropped off. I couldn't help but wonder had happened there. I had never seen editing activity from the other users slack off so much (including the 2013 Pacific hurricane season). Anyways, the IPs aren't making things any better, and I think that the article might be safer if it was semi-protected. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Some of the IP's are making decent edits while one or two are trying to wreck the article which always happens, so i think getting a block for them rather than a lock down for ips would be better. I may attempt to answer your question later.Jason Rees (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Cyclone Joy

Is the only article requiring improvement before 1990-91 SPAC is eligible for a GT.Jason Rees (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Snow in Florida

Hi Jason,

Thank you for offering to help get Snow in Florida ready for a main page slot. Its entry has been active since May. Do you see any remaining issues with the article?

Neelix (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:Sina

Gopher removing reference 15 and added a pic from that reference. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Name situation

The situation in this basin is unique. This is the only basin (unless there is one in the S. Hemisphere) that two different agencies issue names. When CPHC storms cross into WPac, they are not renamed, so there should be no problem there. The parentheses show that PAGASA named it, and not the JMA. Otherwise, one would think the JMA named it. We need to be consistent so we don't confuse people, and this is the best way I know how at the moment.

On another subject, if you can expand Bising that would be great. But, I think it already has enough to have its own section. The "Other storms" section is beginning to get crowded. United States Man (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Your argument there does make sense, and I was actually thinking about the problem with Phailin. Since Phailin wasn't named while it was in the WPac basin, should we really have it as "Tropical Depression Phailin?" Feel free to change Bising back. United States Man (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

That is fine. Just as long as it specifies when the system was named and in what basin (if you don't mind adding that bit to it). United States Man (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Re:2013 PTS Timeline

Everything seems to be in order. The part that it appears you have worked on has been properly written and sourced and times have been included. The SSHWS should probably be shortened to SSHS (a more common abbreviation). I think it is a good idea to keep the JTWC category changes on there, as many readers are probably more familiar with that scale than the JMA's. Overall, great job so far. United States Man (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:South Pacific Lists of tropical cyclones

Category:South Pacific Lists of tropical cyclones, which you created, has been nominated for merging to Category:Lists of tropical cyclones. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Rename

Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Tropical Cyclones in Samoa to Category:Tropical cyclones in Samoa Hugo999 (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Tia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclone Tia you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library's Books and Bytes newsletter (#2)

Books & Bytes

Sign up for monthly delivery

Welcome to the second issue of The Wikipedia Library's Books & Bytes newsletter! Read on for updates about what is going on at the intersection of Wikipedia and the library world.

Wikipedia Library highlights: New accounts, new surveys, new positions, new presentations...

Spotlight on people: Another Believer and Wiki Loves Libraries...

Books & Bytes in brief: From Dewey to Diversity conference...

Further reading: Digital library portals around the web...

Read Books & Bytes

The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

2013 Pacific Typhoon Season

You shouldn't rely on just one site to source for 2013 Pacific typhoon season losses. Let me give you an example: Typhoon Wutip killed 65 people in Southeast Asia, nearly $523 million damage when made landfall in Vietnam, so you take damage only $3.28 million, according to me, this update is damage in China, which is narrow and only vision for a national bias affected by the storm. Or Typhoon Utor caused damage in the Philippines and caused $2 billion for PAGASA to rename storm "Labuyo", so that you give only $35.2 million. You should repair the damage properly. 123.27.147.102 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Im not relying on just one site to source PTS losses, and when a source is provided that i can use to prove a system did x amount of deaths or damages i will update the articles accordingly. However until sources are provided i have to go with what i can find and reliably source per WP:Verification. Also while Nari did P2 billion worth of damage in the Philippines, it does not convert well into USD.Jason Rees (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Yasi

I don't know that. If you know it, it's better to mention it in the article, especially provide a reference.--Quest for Truth (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Tia

The article Cyclone Tia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cyclone Tia for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Phailin - JTWC

Shouldn't we note somewhere that JTWC stats are inaccurate? I don't think that we want people assuming that the storm is actually closer to the JTWC intensity, just because it is listed there. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Jason Rees. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Marine Bulletin

Set me a difficult one, why don't you?

http://www.webcitation.org/6Ly5YUDyo

--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 23:04, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Cyclone Rewa

This is a note to let the main editors of Cyclone Rewa know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on January 7, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 7, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Cyclone Rewa affected six countries and killed 22 people on its 28-day journey across the South Pacific Ocean in December 1993 and January 1994. It developed from a tropical disturbance on 28 December while situated south of Nauru. Crossing from the South Pacific basin into the Australian region, the system strengthened steadily as it paralleled the eastern Australian coast. Rewa initially peaked in intensity as a Category 4 tropical cyclone on 2 January, then weakened and returned to the South Pacific basin. Rewa re-entered the Australian basin on 10 January and reintensified to Category 5 severe tropical cyclone status by 17 January. Rewa transitioned into an extratropical cyclone on 20 January, with its remnants bringing heavy rain to New Zealand. Nine people in a banana dinghy en route to Rossel Island were presumed drowned after wreckage from their boat was found. In Queensland, three people were killed in traffic accidents caused by the storm, and another fatality occurred when a boy became trapped in a storm pipe. One death took place in New Caledonia, while flooding caused eight drownings in Papua New Guinea. Following the storm, the name Rewa was retired. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2014 WikiCup!

Hello Jason Rees, and welcome to the 2014 WikiCup! Your submission page can be found here. The competition will begin at midnight tonight (UTC). There have been a few small changes from last year; the rules can be read in full at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring, and the page also includes a summary of changes. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work, and nominated, in 2014 is eligible for points in the competition- the judges will be checking! As ever, this year's competition includes some younger editors. If you are a younger editor, you are certainly welcome, but we have written an advice page at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Advice for younger editors for you. Please do take a look. Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Hina

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclone Hina you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TropicalAnalystwx13 -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Cyclone Hina

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

PROD of 2014 PTS

Sorry about that; that was meant for the timeline. Cloudchased (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Retired storms

It's all right.

Still, I think that would be important the development of some kind of Aftermath and records section for Susan. ABC paulista (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There must be something useful and/or important out there, but since Susan didn't caused any major destruction it won't be easy to find.

Now, I think that we can find some good sources for KVC, since the damage that the cyclone caused is much greater than either Ron and Susan. ABC paulista (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The lack of an Aftermath and records section on Susan's article still bother me. For Ron, that section is complete, but the Preparations and impact section needs an expansion.

Now, KVC's article is kinda small for such long-lived and destructive storm. The Preparations and impact section needs some more info, and an Aftermath and records section is really necessary, since the destruction that the storm caused in the Eastern Australia an in the islands nearby was notable. ABC paulista (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Hina

The article Cyclone Hina you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cyclone Hina for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TropicalAnalystwx13 -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

review for 1995–96 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

Hey, I was wondering if you were ever going to finish the review for the aforementioned article? If not, I'm going to request another review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am still planning to do it soon, dont forget that patience is a virtue.Jason Rees (talk) 23:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yea, but the instructions page clearly says - IMPORTANT: Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it. Do not stop half way through and just leave it. If you are in a situation where you absolutely can't continue to review the article, please leave a note on the nomination talk page. You planning to do it doesn't help much if I have nothing else I can do. If you're not going to finish it in the next few days, I'm going to ask for another review, since it's been open for two weeks, and I've done everything you've asked. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I have not said anywhere that i am not committed to the review and am abandoning it and while you may not like it, Wikipedia has no deadlines.Jason Rees (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Just, your actions suggest otherwise, and WP:GAN/I clearly states what I said before. You continue to edit without finishing the review. I'm pretty close to asking for a second review, since it says "If a review stalls... you can ask for assistance at the help page or the nomination talk page." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Im sorry but just because i am editing things while i am in the mood too and have the time too does not mean i have abandonded a review. All it means is i cant be bothered to dig through all off your sources at that moment to make sure you are factually correct. Especially since i have already made you rework a section. Also as i said there is no deadline for this stuff that you can impose because Wikipedia has no deadline.Jason Rees (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems that way. I haven't rewritten any sections (I just remove one little bit of Jenna's section, whose information was factually true). There may not be a deadline, but generally GA reviews take place within seven days. If you didn't have time to finish the review, you shouldn't have done it in the first place :P Since you haven't touched it for 11 days, I'm just going to ask for a 2nd opinion. Feel free to comment here - Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Neglected review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Precious again

cyclones
Thank you for contributions to quality articles on cyclones and typhoons, such as Cyclone Keli and Typhoon Rusa, and for supplying timelies such as Timeline of the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 373rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Infobox hurricane

Thank you for answering to my problem of {{Infobox hurricane}} last month. I found a solution to it and I think you may be interested to know more about it at Template talk:Infobox hurricane.--Quest for Truth (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Hina

The article Cyclone Hina you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cyclone Hina for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TropicalAnalystwx13 -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 January newsletter

The 2014 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with, at time of writing, 138 participants. The is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2010. If you are yet to join the competition, don't worry- the judges have agreed to keep the signups open for a few more days. By a wide margin, our current leader is newcomer Godot13 (submissions), whose set of 14 featured pictures, the first FPs of the competition, was worth 490 points. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• 12george1 (submissions) and TropicalAnalystwx13 (submissions) were the first people to score, for the good article Tropical Storm Bret (1981) and its good article review respectively. 12george1 was also the first person to score in 2012 and 2013.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) scored the first ITN points for 2014 North American polar vortex.
• WonderBoy1998 (submissions) scored points for an early good topic, finishing off Wikipedia:Featured topics/She Wolf.
• TheAustinMan (submissions) scored the first bonus points of the competition, for his work on Typhoon Vera.
• Igordebraga (submissions) has scored the highest number of bonus points for a single article, for the high-importance Jurassic Park (film).

Featured articles, featured lists, featured topics and featured portals are yet to play a part in the competition. The judges have removed a number of submissions which were deemed ineligible. Typically, we aim to see work on a project, followed by a nomination, followed by promotion, this year. We apologise for any disappointment caused by our strict enforcement this year; we're aiming to keep the competition as fair as possible.

Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may be interested to take part in The Core Contest; unlike the WikiCup, The Core Contest is not about audited content, but, like the WikiCup, it is about article improvement; specifically, The Core Contest is about contribution to some of Wikipedia's most important article. Of course, any work done for The Core Contest, if it leads to a DYK, GA or FA, can earn WikiCup points.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 19:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Alan (1998)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclone Alan (1998) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cloudchased -- Cloudchased (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Americansamoa.gov

I won't undo the edit that you did, but please go onto www.americansamoa.gov, and let me know whether you get a Trojan virus or not. Thank you. Mitzi777 (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I just went there, and my antivirus program read that the site had the JS/Agent.NKW Trojan Mitzi777 (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Alan (1998)

The article Cyclone Alan (1998) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cyclone Alan (1998) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cloudchased -- Cloudchased (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edit in 2014 Pacific typhoon season

Hey Jason. Thanks for reverting my edit in the article. In PAGASA's website, the name listed in the "2014" column is Katring, not Kanor. Jose replaced Juan due to the drastic effects of typhoon Juan but Katring was not. I don't know if the one who added Kanor was the disruptive editor. The source is correct, but Kanor isn't. So would you mind if I change Kanor back to Katring as per the sources? I want to avoid another edit war, so I'm consulting you first before I make the edit. Again, thanks! Japanese Rail Fan (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Help with article for Cyclone Bebe

Thanks for help on Cyclone Bebe. meteorology is not my area. I am doing work on improving the Tuvalu pages and Cyclone Bebe is the major recent cyclone to impact on those islands so I thought it deserved its own page. (MozzazzoM (talk) 06:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC))

DYK for Cyclone Alan (1998)

The DYK project (nominate) 21:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 February newsletter

And so ends the most competitive first round we have ever seen, with 38 points required to qualify for round 2. Last year, 19 points secured a place; before that, 11 (2012) or 8 (2011) were enough. This is both a blessing and a curse. While it shows the vigourous good health of the competition, it also means that we have already lost many worthy competitors. Our top three scorers were:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer whose high-quality scans of rare banknotes represent an unusual, interesting and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Most of Godot's points this round have come from a large set of pictures used in Treasury Note (1890–91).
2. Adam Cuerden (submissions), a WikiCup veteran and a finalist last year, Adam is also a featured picture specialist, focusing on the restoration of historical images. This month's promotions have included a carefully restored set of artist William Russell Flint's work.
3. WikiRedactor (submissions), another WikiCup newcomer. WikiRedactor has claimed points for good article reviews and good articles relating to pop music, many of which were awarded bonus points. Articles include Sky Ferreira, Hannah Montana 2: Meet Miley Cyrus and "Wrecking Ball" (Miley Cyrus song).

Other competitors of note include:

• Hahc21 (submissions), who helped take Thirty Flights of Loving through good article candidates and featured article candidates, claiming the first first featured article of the competition.
• Prism (submissions), who claimed the first featured list of the competition with Natalia Kills discography.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions), who takes the title of the contributor awarded the highest bonus point multiplier (resulting in the highest scoring article) of the competition so far. Her high-importance salamander, now a good article, scored 108 points.

After such a competitive first round, expect the second round to also be fiercely fought. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2, but please do not update your submission page until March (UTC). 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 candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Wasa–Arthur

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclone Wasa–Arthur you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Wasa–Arthur

The article Cyclone Wasa–Arthur you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cyclone Wasa–Arthur for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

A question about tropical cyclone name retirements

Hello, since you're Wikipedia's local expert on tropical cyclones, I decided to ask you this question. As we know, particularly destructive cyclone names are retired. However, a thought recently came into my mind: can retirements be appealed? For example, during the meetings of the relevant agencies to discuss retirements, is it possible for people attending to, for whatever reason, appeal a request for retirement for a name? And if tropical cyclone names are retired, does this mean that, if in the future, a totally new list of cyclone names is created for that basin, the retired name will not be considered for inclusion? Finally, have there ever been cases of tropical cyclone names that were retired, but eventually "reinstated"? Thanks. 125.212.121.211 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess I can answer this one fairly quickly. As far as we're aware, names are never repealed once retired out of respect for the delegates that requested their removal. Though uncommon, when entirely new lists of names are drawn up (usually stemming from a change in the agency that oversees the basin), it is possible for retired names to be put back in the list. This has happened a few times in the Western Pacific when the Joint Typhoon Warning Center was naming storms. The most notable occurance of this was with the name Bess which was retired after a storm in 1974 but re-added after male names were incoprorated into the lists in 1979. It was used again in 1982 and subsequently retired a second time for damage it caused in Japan. I believe there are a few other cases, but I can't remember them off the top of my head. As for your last question, I do recall something about that being possible (I think it was again during the JTWC-era in the WPac) where names were only temporarily retired. I don't believe any agency has that sort of policy in effect now though. Hope this helps!

Best regards, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I believe that the relevant meetings have debates and a show of hands vote over which names to be retired, so i guess that would count as the so called appeal. Generally speaking once a name is retired it wont ever be used again, even in a brand new list for the basin, however, there have been some names retired and reused for various reasons. In fact in the Atlantic basin during the 1950/60s names were only retired for 10 years, before they were re-added if there was a suitable gap. Hope this helps.Jason Rees (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Brisbane TWO's for Hadi

I got your message but I can't seem to make additions to WebCite at the moment. I will keep trying.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 11:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

They're up now.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 14:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 March newsletter

A quick update as we are half way through round two of this year's competition. WikiCup newcomer Godot13 (submissions) (Pool E) leads, having produced a massive set of featured pictures for Silver certificate (United States), an article also brought to featured list status. Former finalist Adam Cuerden (submissions) (Pool G) is in second, which he owes mostly to his work with historical images, including a number of images from Urania's Mirror, an article also brought to good status. 2010 champion (Pool C) is third overall, thanks to contributions relating to naval history, including the newly featured Japanese battleship Nagato. Cliftonian (submissions), who currently leads Pool A and is sixth overall, takes the title for the highest scoring individual article of the competition so far, with the top importance featured article Ian Smith.

With 26 people having already scored over 100 points, it is likely that well over 100 points will be needed to secure a place in round 3. Recent years have required 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) and 100 (2010). Remember that only 64 will progress to round 3 at the end of April. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page; 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 candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup error

Hi there- this is just a quick note to apologise for a small but important mistake in the last WikiCup newsletter; it is not 64 users who will progress to the next round, but 32. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Dominic

Dominic was used again in 2009 --Andyman14 (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New Visiting Scholar positions
• TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
• Australian articles get a link to librarians
• Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

FA congratulations

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Cyclone Joy to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,307 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be).
You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. Bencherlite^Talk 13:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Sina

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclone Sina you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- Dana boomer (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

[1] --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Sina

The article Cyclone Sina you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cyclone Sina for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dana boomer -- Dana boomer (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 April newsletter

Round 3 of the 2014 WikiCup has just begun; 32 competitors remain. Pool G's Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Round 2's highest scorer, with a large number of featured picture credits. In March/April, he restored star charts from Urania's Mirror, lithographs of various warships (such as SMS Gefion) and assorted other historical media. Second overall was Pool E's Godot13 (submissions), whose featured list Silver certificate (United States) contains dozens of scans of banknotes recently promoted to featured picture status. Third was Pool G's ChrisGualtieri (submissions) who has produced a large number of good articles, many, including Falkner Island, on Connecticut-related topics. Other successful participants included Cliftonian (submissions), who saw three articles (including the top-importance Ian Smith) through featured article candidacies, and Caponer (submissions), who saw three lists (including the beautifully-illustrated list of plantations in West Virginia) through featured list candidacies. High-importance good articles promoted this round include narwhal from Reid,iain james (submissions), tiger from Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and The Lion King from Igordebraga (submissions). We also saw our first featured topic points of the competition, awarded to Czar (submissions) and Red Phoenix (submissions) for their work on the Sega Genesis topic. No points have been claimed so far for good topics or featured portals.

192 was our lowest qualifying score, again showing that this WikiCup is the most competitive ever. In previous years, 123 (2013), 65 (2012), 41 (2011) or 100 (2010) secured a place in Round 3. Pool H was the strongest performer, with all but one of its members advancing, while only the two highest scorers in Pools G and F advanced. At the end of June, 16 users will advance into the semi-finals. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email), The ed17 (talk • email) and Miyagawa (talk • email) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season

The article 1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Western Pacific typhoon season timelines

Hello, Jason Rees. I have thought that we should create the 2014 typhoon season timeline (or even 2015, 16, 17...) always on June 30. What do you think? If you agree, don't agree or change the creating date, go to my talk page. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, then. Bet just asking, we can create it right now? Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

So, you are saying we can create it when the next storm forms? Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any definitive date. Just don't worry yet, there's no need now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Jason, perhaps see

…this article needing approval: [2] Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I personally think its ready to be published.Jason Rees (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

NWS Guam

Good save at Typhoon Pongsona. I shouldn't edit when I'm tired. Thanks. Sprinkler21 (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Sprinkler21

No problem :).Jason Rees (talk) 12:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

• New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
• TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
• TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
• New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

1994 Pacific typhoon season

1994 Pacific typhoon season, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 02:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Shary

Hi Jason, long time no talk! I saw that you reverted my edit to the SSHWS article; I removed Shary from the list of Category 1 examples because the list explicitly states that it is of storms that made landfall at Category 1 intensity; since Shary never made landfall, I removed it from the list. --Dylan620 ^{(I'm all ears)} 00:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Economic damages???

Hello, again. I found a site that there was economic damages from Hagibis. Do you thin that you will be part of the seasonal effects on the 2014 Pacific typhoon season? Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes I will be watching the 2014 Pacific typhoon season very closely and editing it at times.Jason Rees (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitzgmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Kate_%281985%29&oldid=613813722&diff=prev

Oh, I get it. "latest in the year", not "most recent". Still, that's very ambiguous wording, and should be clarified. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

TC Article intro spacing

I had no idea that was how we were supposed to do it. But thanks for helping out anyways. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Joy

Thanks for today's Cyclone Joy, precious again, but what a name for a cyclone! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 June newsletter

After an extremely close race, Round 3 is over. 244 points secured a place in Round 4, which is comparable to previous years- 321 was required in 2013, while 243 points were needed in 2012. Pool C's Godot13 (submissions) was the round's highest scorer, mostly due to a 32 featured pictures, including both scans and photographs. Also from Pool C, Casliber (submissions) finished second overall, claiming three featured articles, including the high-importance Grus (constellation). Third place was Pool B's , whose contributions included featured articles Russian battleship Poltava (1894) and Russian battleship Peresvet. Pool C saw the highest number of participants advance, with six out of eight making it to the next round.

The round saw this year's first featured portal, with Sven Manguard (submissions) taking Portal:Literature to featured status. The round also saw the first good topic points, thanks to 12george1 (submissions) and the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. This means that all content types have been claimed this year. Other contributions of note this round include a featured topic on Maya Angelou's autobiographies from Figureskatingfan (submissions), a good article on the noted Czech footballer Tomáš Rosický from Cloudz679 (submissions) and a now-featured video game screenshot, freely released due to the efforts of Sven Manguard (submissions).

The judges would like to remind participants to update submission pages promptly. This means that content can be checked, and allows those following the competition (including those participating) to keep track of scores effectively. This round has seen discussion about various aspects of the WikiCup's rules and procedures. Those interested in the competition can be assured that formal discussions about how next year's competition will work will be opened shortly, and all are welcome to voice their views then. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Your revert

Did you not read my edit summary? It is of little use to have several {{CN}} templates stack right next to each other. They mess up the page's formatting as well, and they are absolutely terrible for the page aesthetics. One should be able to cover all. Dustin (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not care if you think that they are terrible for the page aesthetics or if you think it is of little use to have several {{CN}} templates. There is a very specific reason for them to be there since 1 does not show you that 1-3 references are needed to prove the the names were used.Jason Rees (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Southern Hemisphere cyclone articles

I've just noticed that some of the Australian region tropical cyclone season articles were redirects. I will fix them to point to the proper season. Then I'll check the South Pacific and South-West Indian Ocean to see if other redirects need fixing as well. I'll leave the ones that haven't been split for now. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright. I fixed some piping for the Australian articles. The South-West Indian Ocean articles did not require any fixing. Only the South Pacific is needed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

line breaks

Take a look at Template:Infobox_hurricane/testcases#Cyclone_Phalin. Your line break change might look OK on the one current storm article, but breaks the look for hundreds of historical storms. I'd suggest a revert, and perhaps test in the sandbox until it can look good on both. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the display to restore the look on the old articles, but also give you the look you wanted on the current storm. But please test future changes using Template:Infobox hurricane/sandbox before applying them to the main template. You can then check the Template:Infobox hurricane/testcases and be sure nothing got broken unintentionally. --Netoholic @ 20:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not revert war on templates being used. The coloration of the Current Status line was already in the {{Infobox_typhoon_current}} prior to the merge, so it appears now in the current storms. If you want to discuss a change, then discuss it (WP:BRD) but do not edit war on templates especially since your revert is actively breaking hundreds of articles for old storms. --Netoholic @ 20:10, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem isn't the BR anymore, now you're reverting for coloration, which was brought in from pre-merge. If you want to change it, discuss it on talk (I really don't care, all I care about is that you're reverting other things along with that, and your edits are not being pre-tested in the sandbox to uncover these kinds of errors. It is very bad to make edits to such a widely used template without sandbox testing, no matter how small you think the change is. --Netoholic @

That BR you added wouldn't fix the problem on older articles, because the winds line wrapped anyway, but made an ugly break between the km and mph. My change reinserts the BRs on old storms, but doesn't BR on current. It looks pretty good now on both. On the coloration, I don't really care if its colored or not, but that coloration was in the pre-merge template, so I preserved it, and I think its there to add to the "alert" aspect of the template on current storms. Bring it up on the talk page, get some feedback. I'll remove it myself if people agree to remove it. -- Netoholic @ 20:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Credo

Hello! You have received preliminary approval for access to Credo. Please fill out this short form so that your access can be processed. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

1976 Canary Island UFO Article on AFD

Please join the discussion about the fate of this article.98.174.223.41 (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 7

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 7, June-July 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• Seven new donations, two expanded partnerships
• TWL's Final Report up, read the summary
• Adventures in Las Vegas, WikiConference USA, and updates from TWL coordinators
• Spotlight: Blog post on BNA's impact on one editor's research

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Damages from Nakri/ 96W

Hi Jason, I've found this source: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cagayan-de-oro/local-news/2014/08/02/lpa-leaves-over-p5-m-damages-misor-357308 . It says about the damages from a LPA, which actually became Inday and then Nakri. An anonymous user doesn't agree with this, since he said that it is a different LPA, somehow. Do you think we should put it in the season effects in Nakri's section that it caused $116K in damages? Just saying that this section is the same in the talk page of the 2014 season. Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Links

2001 Atlantic hurricane season#Season impact (and wherever else this type of table is). -- Netoholic @ 20:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

That table needs to be changed from another reason as well. Since 2011, we no longer include landfalls on the table. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 20:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Storm Colour

Can you please advise on if the colours in "Template:Storm colour" were ok, as the were presented before this edit? Id rather not see such a significant change to the colours if we don't have too. Thanks.Jason Rees (talk) 11:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi ! I saw your message only a few days ago, I'm not very active on Wikipedia at the moment. It was complicated to follow all the discussions, but I think I managed to understand most of it... I do not feel it is necessary for me to participate in the debate because it's going in the right direction (from a technical point of view at least).

What I wrote in 2012 was still valid. We have to either remove the links that had "storm colours" as background color, or either change some colours (2 or 3 of them, I don't remember but I can check anytime if you want). Of course, removing the links is way easier.

It's still not perfect, because of the maps and some colours that are difficult to distinguish between themselves. I'd say our aim is to "improve" accessibility, not perfection. It's actually extremely hard to create perfectly accessible maps with 5 different colours. Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 20 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Timeline of the 2014 Pacific typhoon season page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

TS Lingling and the first TD in 2014

Lingling

I have done some investigation for TS Lingling and the first TD (91W) in 2014. NRL relocated 91W significantly and abandoned all positions until 12Z on January 13, but other agencies considered them as the same system. JMA analysed that the first TD degenerated into an LPA and developed back to a TD, but it was not significantly relocated at all. PAGASA and CWB also considered them as the same system. I have updated the track image, replacing the abandoned positions with JMA positions. Moreover, I am planning to write an article for Lingling, as the current description contains some mistakes. -- Meow 15:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 August newsletter

The final of the 2014 WikiCup begins in a few short minutes! Our eight finalists are listed below, along with their placement in Round 4:

1. Godot13 (submissions), a WikiCup newcomer, finished top of Pool A and was the round's highest scorer. Godot is a featured picture specialist, claiming large numbers of points due to high-quality scans of historical documents, especially banknotes.
2. Casliber (submissions) is a WikiCup veteran, having been a finalist every year since 2010. In the semi-final, he was Pool B's highest scorer. Cas's points primarily come from articles on the natural sciences.
3. Czar (submissions) was Pool A's runner-up. Czar's points come mostly from content related to independent video games, including both articles and topics.
4. Adam Cuerden (submissions) was Pool B's runner-up. Another featured picture specialist, many of Adam's points come from the restoration of historical media. He has been a WikiCup finalist twice before.
5. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) won the WikiCup in 2012 and 2013, and enters this final as the first wildcard. She focuses on biology-related articles, and has worked on several high-importance articles.
6. 12george1 (submissions) is the second wildcard. George's points come primarily from meteorology-related articles. This year and last year, George was the first person in the competition to score.
7. Sturmvogel 66 (submissions), the third wildcard, was the 2010 champion and a finalist last year. His writes mostly on military history, especially naval history.
8. Bloom6132 (submissions), the fourth and final wildcard, has participated in previous WikiCups, but not reached any finals. Bloom's points are mostly thanks to did you knows, featured lists and good articles related to sport and national symbols.

We say goodbye to this year's semi-finalists. Matty.007 (submissions), ThaddeusB (submissions), WikiRedactor (submissions), Figureskatingfan (submissions), Yellow Evan (submissions), Prism (submissions) and Cloudz679 (submissions) have all performed well to reach this stage of the competition, and we hope they will all be joining us again next year.

There are two upcoming competitions unrelated to the WikiCup which may be of interest to those who receive this newsletter. The Stub Contest will run through September, and revolves around expanding stub articles, especially high-importance or old stubs. In addition, a proposal has been made for a new competition, the GA Cup, which the organisers plan to run next year. This competition is based on the WikiCup and aims to reduce the good article review backlog.

There is now a thread for brainstorming on how next year's WikiCup competition should work. Please come along and share your thoughts- What works? What doesn't work? What needs changing? Signups for next year's competition will be open soon; we will be in touch. If, at this stage of the competition, you are keen to help the with the WikiCup, please do what you can to participate in review processes. Our finalists will find things much easier if the backlogs at good article candidates, featured article candidates, featured picture candidates and the rest are kept at a minimum. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

2003 Atlantic hurricane season

Since you seem to be eager to fix all of them, I will let you finish the rest. I have no time for the edit conflicts, and you seem to know what you are doing. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

2014 PTS Timeline

Hey, Jason. You haven't been editing in the 2014 PTS article for a while and I am the only one editing too much like admins. I was wondering that since I help and do the season timelines, I am testing the 2014 PTS one. I thought that the timeline is small so I added the "barset:break" after Neoguri and I thought it is right. Is it alright? I was saying this to you since the anonymous users don't agree with me and revert my edits. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014 September newsletter

In one month's time, we will know our WikiCup 2014 champion. Newcomer Godot13 (submissions) has taken a strong lead with a featured list (historical coats of arms of the U.S. states from 1876) and a raft of featured pictures. Reigning champion Cwmhiraeth (submissions) is in second place with a number of high-importance biology articles, including new FA Isopoda and new GA least weasel. Casliber (submissions), who is in his fifth WikiCup final, is in third, with featured articles Pictor and Epacris impressa.

Signups for the 2015 WikiCup are open. All Wikipedians, new and experienced, are warmly invited to sign up for the competition. Wikipedians interested in friendly competition may also like to sign up for the GA Cup, a new WikiCup-inspired competition which revolves around completing good article reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Land Depression discussion

Hi, this is Rishabh. I have created a discussion where your views will be greatly appreciated, regarding whether Land Depressions should be considered as "other storms" from now on. Pleae have a look at the discussion where I've explained everything. Located here. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 03:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixing-up the 2013 Pacific typhoon season timeline

Hi Jason. I was wondering that what happened to the Timeline of the 2013 Pacific typhoon season? Do you know who put the good information in there? I thought that it was good information, but it is too much. Also there are a couple of sentences saying about from the CMA agency, which is not official. Also again, I thought there is too much PAGASA names. (Example(s): Typhoon Haiyan (Yolanda) has made landfall or Tropical Storm Yagi (Dante) has intensified...) Want to help fix this article? Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 8

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 8, August-September2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• TWL now a Wikimedia Foundation program, moves on from grant status
• Four new donations, including large DeGruyter parntership, pilot with Elsevier
• New TWL coordinators, Wikimania news, new library platform discussions, Wiki Loves Libraries update, and more
• Spotlight: "Traveling Through History" - an editor talks about his experiences with a TWL newspaper archive, Newspapers.com

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

2104 PTS

The file you asked for is here: 2014-08-19, 0000z--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 15:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

2013-14 SPAC

Done, and thanks for moving the TWOs, my bad!--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 09:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic 2 about the Tropical Low in the SWio cyclone season

Jason Rees, do you remember the other topic about this TL that it has to be in the SWio instead of the AusR season? This one though is different, but it is about the same TL. This anon. user is reverting my edits of what you told me to do. You told me to put an "other storms" section in the SWio season and mention about the TL in the AusR season, if I am right. Can you please also keep an eye on this guy, too? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

changing LPA to tropical disturbance

I've seen your comment about your reversion in the Timeline of the 2014 Pacific typhoon season. Your comment says that "how many times I have to tell you...", although I am pretty sure that you didn't tell me 'how many times' (not being rude here). So if that's the case, then I will be doing some fix-ups in the timeline article and have thought to replace the LPA statements to a tropical disturbance statements. Is that OK now? Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No - the first mention of a system in PTS timelines has always got to be "The JMA (or whichever agency) reported that a tropical depression had formed about x km (x mi) to the x of land mass y. This is for various reasons which include that tropical disturbances/LPAs are not tracked by the JMA in a named storms BT.Jason Rees (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I get it now and thanks. So it always has to start with tropical depressions, not LPAs or tropical disturbances. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - we also do not put generic statements in. Like this one you added earlier: "03:00 UTC - Nuri had undergo rapid deepening from a pressure of 985 to 930 millibars, as a small eye started to develop" because its not relevant to the timeline and could be argued to be original research. We also do not put "*00:00 UTC - Nuri intensifies into a category 2 typhoon" since it is so broad. Just keep to the format that i have put in place please.Jason Rees (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup award

Awarded to Jason Rees for participating in the 2014 WikiCup. J Milburn (talk · contribs), The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 21:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014: The results

The 2014 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions), who flew the flag of the Smithsonian Institution. This was Godot13's first WikiCup competition and, over the 10 months of the competition, he has produced (among other contributions) two featured lists and an incredible 292 featured pictures, including architectural photographs and scans of historical documents. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), 2012 and 2013 WikiCup champion, came in second, having written a large number of biology-related articles. Casliber (submissions), WikiCup finalist every year since 2010, finished in third.

A full list of our prize-winners follows:

• Godot13 (submissions) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 181 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 65 did you knows in the final round.
• Casliber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for four featured articles in the final round.
• Czar (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Sturmvogel 66 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• 12george1 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• ChrisGualtieri (submissions) wins the GA prize for 27 good articles in round 2 and the review prize for 28 good article reviews in round 1.
• Caponer (submissions) wins the FL prize for three featured lists in round 2.
• Sven Manguard (submissions) wins the FPo prize his work on featured portals.
• Figureskatingfan (submissions) wins the topic prize for a nine-article featured topic in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for 28 in the news articles in round 3.

Congratulations to everyone who has been successful in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and a particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have participated this year. We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2014 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk · contribs) The ed17 (talk · contribs) and Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Please...

...provide evidence as to what way in which this is an actual usage which would ever be used in a formal setting, and also please provide support for why it should be used rather than a more understandable, frequent usage. Also, I never was arguing that "during" was not a proper word; I was saying that I cannot verify that it is a proper usage in that particular situation, and note the word "usage". Also, I must say that I disagree with you in that you think it sounds better; it sounds worse to me. I've neither seen nor heard "during 26 July", "during May 7", or "during August 27" or any other similar situations, regardless of date format (Day-Month vs. Month-Day). I've seen examples like "during the evening of 16 March" and "during the daylight hours of June 21", but nothing really beyond that. Dustin (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

‎Seasonal forecasts in 2014–15 Australian region cyclone season

Hey, Jason. I just translated that section into the German WP and found, that you messed up some of the citations (it semes you copied them from last year but forgot to actualize all datum). Also there is still some SPac stuff in it which I think should be put away. Regards, --Matthiasb (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and may we wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2015 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. We have a few important announcements concerning the future of the WikiCup.

• We would like to announce that Josh (J Milburn) and Ed (The ed17), who have been WikiCup judges since 2009 and 2010 respectively, are stepping down. This decision has been made for a number of reasons, but the main one is time. Both Josh and Ed have found that, over the previous year, they have been unable to devote the time necessary to the WikiCup, and it is not likely that they will be able to do this in the near future. Furthermore, new people at the helm can only help to invigorate the WikiCup and keep it dynamic. Josh and Ed will still be around, and will likely be participating in the Cup this following year as competitors, which is where both started out.
• In a similar vein, we hope you will all join us in welcoming Jason (Sturmvogel 66) and Christine (Figureskatingfan), who are joining Brian (Miyagawa) to form the 2015 WikiCup judging team. Jason is a WikiCup veteran, having won in 2010 and finishing in fifth this year. Christine has participated in two WikiCups, reaching the semi-finals in both, and is responsible for the GA Cup, which she now co-runs.
• The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. While it may be impossible to please everyone, the judges will make every effort to ensure that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk), The ed17 (talk), Miyagawa (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Figureskatingfan (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 7 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of retired South Pacific tropical cyclone names page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (December 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• Elsevier - science and medicine journals and books
• Royal Society of Chemistry - chemistry journals
• Pelican Books - ebook monographs
• Public Catalogue Foundation- art books

Other partnerships with accounts available are listed on our partners page. Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team.00:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message tool to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Reference Errors on 25 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of retired Australian cyclone names page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help) and a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Aus Region TWOs

I've added 3 TWOs as an entry for a Perth Low on Talk:2014–15 Australian region cyclone season/December. I will look into the other archiving issues you raised.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 20:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Date of dissipation

Jangmi officially dissipated at 00:00 UTC on January 2, so the official date of dissipation is January 2. As Wikipedia uses “dissipation” to describe when the system dissipated, it should be January 2 instead of January 1. This rule is also used to other storms. -- Meow 06:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 launch newsletter

Round one of the 2015 WikiCup has begun! So far we've had around 80 signups, which close on February 5. If you have not already signed up and want to do so, then you can add your name here. There have been changes to to several of the points scores for various categories, and the addition of Peer Reviews for the first time. These will work in the same manner as Good Article Reviews, and all of the changes are summarised here.

Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round, and one of the new changes this year is that all scores must be claimed within two weeks of an article's promotion or appearance, so don't forget to add them to your submissions pages! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs)
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 9

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 9, November-December 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations, including real-paper-and-everything books, e-books, science journal databases, and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, a new open-access journal database, summary of library-related WMF grants, and more
• Spotlight: "Global Impact: The Wikipedia Library and Persian Wikipedia" - a Persian Wikipedia editor talks about their experiences with database access in Iran, writing on the Persian project and the JSTOR partnership

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

cyclones
Thank you for contributions to quality articles on cyclones and typhoons, such as Cyclone Keli and Typhoon Rusa, and for supplying timelies such as Timeline of the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 373rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cyclone Nigel

Hello! Your submission of Cyclone Nigel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Jason Rees, it's been a week without a response, though you've been busy elsewhere on Wikipedia. If you wish to pursue this nomination, you need to respond now; the quid pro quo review you need to supply is long past due. Please give this your attention; I'd hate for it to have to close, given the work you've put into the article. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Just in case you didn't notice the ping, there is something you need to do on the nomination page. Please stop by soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer.

I know that but i wonder the ZODW weaker or stronger than TDis. Final-Fantasy-HH (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of several of Godot13's quality submissions during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. 64 competitors made it into this round, and are now broken into eight groups of eight. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups. Round 1 saw some interesting work on some very important articles, with the round leader Freikorp (submissions) owing most of his 622 points scored to a Featured Article on the 2001 film Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within which qualified for a times-two multiplier. This is a higher score than in previous years, as Godot13 (submissions) had 500 points in 2014 at the end of round 1, and our very own judge, Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) led round 1 with 601 points in 2013.

In addition to Freikorp's work, some other important articles and pictures were improved during round one, here's a snapshot of a few of them:

• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Bumblebee, a level-4 vital article, to Good Article;
• AHeneen (submissions) worked-up the Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 article, also to Good Article status;
• Rodw (submissions) developed an extremely timely article to Good Article, taking Magna Carta there some 800 years after it was first sealed;
• And last but not least, Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) worked up a number of Featured Pictures during round 1, including the 1948 one Deutsche Mark (pictured right), receiving the maximum bonus due to the number of Wikis that the related article appears in.

You may also wish to know that The Core Contest is running through the month of March. Head there for further details - they even have actual prizes!

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email)

Thanks for your assistance! Miyagawa (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiCup.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was send by Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Retirement

We can easily say that those are retired because the PAGASA mentioned that those typhoons are decommisioned, thus all except Jose have brought significant impacts to the Philippines. PAGASA said that except for a very few storms, names that have caused at least 300 deaths or at least PHP 1 billion ($22.6 million 2015 USD) - and the names were changed, are therefore considered as retired.

• [3] - Subtropical renaming

Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 10

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 10, January-February 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• New donations - ProjectMUSE, Dynamed, Royal Pharmaceutical Society, and Women Writers Online
• New TWL coordinator, conference news, and a new guide and template for archivists
• TWL moves into the new Community Engagement department at the WMF, quarterly review

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nadi

I don't think this was a problem with the upload, it's a fault in Webcite's retrieval. It won't currently retrieve anything, even things which have been retrievable in the past. Even the examples on Webcite's homepage don't work.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 12:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It turned out my uploads on 11 March had failed, as well as the retrieval problem for earlier files. I think it's all straight now.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 08:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

90Q.INVEST?

Can the need warning names 90Q.INVEST in South Atlantic with SS Cari? 123.27.153.191 (talk) 04:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No we do not need to be noting that it was called 90Q.Invest by the US forecasting agencies.Jason Rees (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Cyclone Nigel

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Jason Rees,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you were one of the very first testers of VisualEditor, back in 2012 or early 2013. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work better for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Regional Specialized Meteorological Center

Hi, I did some copyediting in the tropical cyclones section of the article – in the diff it might look like I only moved things around, but I did edit the text as well, so it would be great if you could check whether it's still factually correct. I hope I've made it a bit clearer and more readable. --filip (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, ive made a few tweaks to your wording since it to make it clearer that both TCWC's and RSMCs provide the warnings publicly and help NMHSS like Cuba, Malaysia, Mexico and Vanuatu. Otherwise it seems fine though it does expose a couple of weakness in the writing i think.Jason Rees (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Am I right or wrong about Maysak?

Am I right, Jason? As of right now and making this message (0800Z 07/04), Maysak is still active according to JMA, right? It's because 3 people don't agree with me and they declared that it had dissipated. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A new reference tool

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Cyclone Fran

The "Cyclone Fran" article is causing a Checkwiki high-priority error #5 "Comment tag with no correct end". The errant code is here:

As the system affected Vanautu
<!--

Given that you've been actively editing the article, would you mind handling this problem? Thanks. Knife-in-the-drawer (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Not again

Not again. You did made lots of edits in the 2014 PTS season article but one of those edits I didn't agree with and it was the edit with 2 storms which were named by PAGASA and designated by JTWC (04W (Caloy) and 14W (Karding)). First of all, I didn't agree with this 2 years ago when you edited 30W (Wilma) on the 2013 PTS article, then you explained it to me. So I agreed and you told me to do this to every season with these types of scenarios. But Meow and 2 other people disagreed with me so I explained it and they explained it. It is confusing to us, actually. Also that's why in the 2013 PTS article, it still states 30W (Wilma), unless you leave a message to inform other users about this. :| Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

At the end of the day @Typhoon2013:, there is no need for the JTWC designator to be there as it is redundant and just serves to confuse the reader.Jason Rees (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Only seen this message just today, sorry. Actually, what I thought that it's confusing to people that if it says only Caloy when the infobox states that the JTWC had warned it, which means obviously in the WPac basin, when the JTWC warns on a storm they designate it. But if it says 04W (Caloy) I don't really see a confusion there, unless we change in its infobox that PAGASA had warned on it most than the JMA to make it more sense. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

2014 PTS names

Hi again. I don't know why but you've been changing lots of stuff and is it ok if I could fix the table in the 2014 PTS article in the names section? Should I do it in the other seasons as well? Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Most of the changes i am making to the 2014 PTS article are in order to try and improve the quality of it, so that its something we can all be proud of and maybe have up on the main page one day but thats a long way off. Now for the naming lists i have no objection to using the format of names on other season articles, but we have to be careful while implementing it because the format i have introduced needs tweaking for each season.Jason Rees (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Re:Retired names

Two nights ago, I was just doing some extras and reading text of the Pacific typhoon seasons from 1990-99. The 1994's Katring made me investigate what caused the retirement of 2010's Katring. I compared the Katirng from 1987 and 1994 and found out that Teresa (1994) caused more damage and impacted the Philippines more, but Thelma (1987) did not really caused direct impact but did cause a storm surge which impacted the Philippines. So I thought that it was the 1994 one. Just my thoughts. Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Sorry for the late reply - been busy with other things. While it is great that you are researching things, we can not state that PAGASA retired Katring because of the 1987 based on the somewhat flimsy evidence you have found. I have a source that directly states Katring was retired because of 2010. Not that i believe it.Jason Rees (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine. I stated that Katring was retired because of the 1987 one because in the 2005 PTS article, it says that Undang was retired from the naming list because it was retired before and was replaced by Urduja and that's what I thought why Katring was retired. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thats news to me @Typhoon2013: - will check it out. Please let me know if there are any others around.Jason Rees (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean any others around? You mean storm names like this? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

As for the Isis one, in your rv comment in the 2010 PHS article, I don't understand about how is it not relevant since it is relevant. Actually in its view history box I made a comment about my edit of it saying something like 'is my wording ok', but thank god Cyclonebiskit reworded it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

oh. For the damages I put, I copied it from the storm article but I don't have a source sorry. Also for the dates, I did thought that if the dates were just in the PAR but I decided to the full dates because the other storm's dates in the table is full. But is it Ok for me to help you in the article? Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 May newsletter

C/2014 Q2 (Lovejoy) is a long-period comet discovered on 17 August 2014 by Terry Lovejoy; and is one of several Featured Pictures worked up by The Herald (submissions) during the second round.

The second round one has all wrapped up, and round three has now begun! Congratulations to the 34 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our second round. Leading the way overall was Cas Liber (submissions) in Group B with a total of 777 points for a variety of contributions including Good Articles on Corona Borealis and Microscopium - both of which received the maximum bonus.

Special credit must be given to a number of high importance articles improved during the second round.

• Coemgenus (submissions) was one of several users who worked on improving Ulysses S. Grant. Remember, you do not need to work on an article on your own - as long as each person has completed significant work on the article during 2015, multiple competitors can claim the same article.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) took Dragonfly to Good Article for a 3x bonus - and if that wasn't enough, they also took Damselfly there as well for a 2x bonus.
• LeftAire (submissions) worked up Alexander Hamilton to Good Article for the maximum bonus. Hamilton was one of the founding fathers of the United States and is a level 4 vital article.

The points varied across groups, with the lowest score required to gain automatic qualification was 68 in Group A - meanwhile the second place score in Group H was 404, which would have been high enough to win all but one of the other Groups! As well as the top two of each group automatically going through to the third round, a minimum score of 55 was required for a wildcard competitor to go through. We had a three-way tie at 55 points and all three have qualified for the next round, in the spirit of fairness. The third round ends on June 28, with the top two in each group progressing automatically while the remaining 16 highest scorers across all four groups go through as wildcards. Good luck to all competitors for the third round! Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · email) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 11

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 11, March-April 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - MIT Press Journals, Sage Stats, Hein Online and more
• New TWL coordinators, conference news, and new reference projects
• Spotlight: Two metadata librarians talk about how library professionals can work with Wikipedia

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Inflation/AU/dataset

Hi Jason,

This was last updated with 2008 data. Are you able to locate any recent data and update?

Regards. Moondyne (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I took care of this; it has now been updated through 2010, which is the last year for which there is available data. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of retired South Pacific tropical cyclone names page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Differences between TY and STY by PAGASA

Hi. For the article: List of retired Philippine typhoon names, you reverted my edit because I reverted this anon user about PAGASA strengths of typhoon and super typhoon. Well according to PAGASA, they added the STY strength just this year. Why don't we just put in the 2010's section that: in 2015, PAGASA added the STY category for people to not be confused? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of tropical cyclone naming

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article History of tropical cyclone naming you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Mariners Weather Log

Thank you very much for allowing me to view them. It looks like they have some information that is unavailable elsewhere, so I appreciate this. Dustin (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

• Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
• Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
• Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
• Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.

Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of History of tropical cyclone naming

The article History of tropical cyclone naming you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:History of tropical cyclone naming for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Special:Diff/671292367

How is this redundant to a decent summary? It seems like a useful addition in my opinion. Dustin (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

A decent summary would mention that the system moved in to the basin as tropical storm or tropical cyclone whatever. As a result i do not see the need to mention that it wasn't renamed especially when a tropical cyclone is never renamed now days. I also see that its not done in other basins so i do not see why CPAC->WPAC should be any different.Jason Rees (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"not done in other basins" is a WP:OSE-like argument. Renaming is still (in theory) done for ATL to EPAC crossovers, in theory, especially if it became a remnant low.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ill respond properly over at Talk:2014 PTS in a mo but i will note here that the WMO RA IV Hurricane Committee decided against renaming tropical cyclones, when they move from ATL to EPAC and visa versa back in the early 2000s. While in theory a remnant low could move basins and reintensify I think the NHC would treat it as a completely new system and give it a new name like what happened a few years back when a system moved from EPAC to ATL (Henreitta?).Jason Rees (talk) 19:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 12, May-June 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Taylor & Francis, Science, and three new French-language resources
• Expansion into new languages, including French, Finnish, Turkish, and Farsi
• Spotlight: New partners for the Visiting Scholar program
• American Library Association Annual meeting in San Francisco

Read the full newsletter

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

About category 5 in South China Sea

... Can you tell me ?... how many category 5 typhoon in South China Sea ? Final-Fantasy-HH (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Typhoon Nangka (2015)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Typhoon Nangka (2015) —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Typhoon2013 06:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What is the process of creating a page on Wiki?

I only ask because I'm not 100 percent familiar with the process. I know that the sandbox is for creating the article in ones own user space as their own version of the page, however how does one know when a page is of good enough quality (or whatever components are needed) for a page to be made? And does it take an administrator to undo the "redirect" component on the cyclone so that it doesn't keep redirecting to the main article when one tries to make the article? Undescribed (talk) 12:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Undescribed: Generally speaking a sandbox is not needed in order to create an article or override a redirect. However, in the case of Raquel, I felt that it would be better to collaborate on it with you in a sandbox and get it up to scratch before publishing it as it is system that is off marginal notability. Everyone has there own standards for a sandbox to become an article, however, in Raquel's case it will be when the MH is completed and the preps/impact are off a decent enough length. Hope this answers your question, if not feel free to ask away on this page and I will respond when I can since you do not learn without asking questions.Jason Rees (talk) 15:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: I should note that i am taking the information from the advisories stored in the logs on each basin page.Jason Rees (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that answered my question well @Jason Rees: and I do appreciate you collaborating with me in the creation of the page in the sandbox. I was able to expand the MH a little bit but with all the advisories it is rather difficult in deciding what information would be best for the article. Then again, I guess that's the whole purpose of the sandbox. (wink) As for the preps/impacts section, the information is a little more sparse, but I will do my best to find new information. I was wondering if there is a database which shows the tropical cyclone warnings issued for the Solomon Islands, like on what day the warnings where issued for each province and the severity of the warning? (I'm not familiar with the levels of TC warnings in the SHEM). I thought that might be something to add to the preps section. Undescribed (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this collaboration might be what i need to get back into Wiki so your more than welcome, and if all goes well maybe we can collaborate on some more of the SHEM TC articles. Anyway in response to your comments, I still find it tough to decide what should go in the article after all these years, but generally I am looking out for things that help me tell the story of the system like how it moved, intensity changes, land impacts etc. For Preparations and impacts we are looking out for things like how they prepared for the system and not just the warnings before moving on to what impact it had and not just deaths. Anyway I think it would be good if you just went through and found all of the sources you can and put them on the talk page like the example I have done. That way we can flip through them and see what they say before adding them to the article. Oh and for the Solomon Islands the tropical cyclone warnings were issued as media releases and we should be able to cite a few of them.Jason Rees (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Cyclone Ron page, your edit caused a redundant parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2008–09 South Pacific cyclone season page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

South Atlantic track map???

You make cyclone tracks right? So is a track map necessary to the article: South Atlantic tropical cyclone? I mean like a season summary track map like all other basins which includes all storm tracks? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a question ?

Why don't tropical cyclones regularly form in the South Atlantic and South-east Pacific ? What makes it different from the South-west Pacific and South Indian oceans in that regard? Thanks!Final-Fantasy-HH (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a tricky question to answer late at night so i wish to take time to consider my response, but first of all can you please define what you consider to be the South-West and South-East Pacific basins in terms of longitude.Jason Rees (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes... South-East Pacific is western ocean regions of Chile and Peru. I checked in Global tropical cyclone tracks and have not seen yet a tropical cyclone in this region and South Atlantic (excepted cyclone Catarina 2004).Final-Fantasy-HH (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok I wanted to check your thinking before i answered since i consider the Eastern Pacific to be the International Dateline (180) to America, while RSMC Nadi's basin is 160E to 120W. To the best of my knowledge conditions in the Southeast Pacific, closer to South America, are climatologically unfavorable for tropical cyclone development. The Peru/Chile current continuously brings cooler waters to the region which inhibits warm-core cyclones from forming. During El Nino years though you may find the odd system developing to the east of 120W but these would not be formallly named.Jason Rees (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks you very much. Final-Fantasy-HH (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Fold3 Wikipedia Library check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Fold3. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your Fold3 account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email me and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Gamaliel (talk) 19:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Post–2009 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Post–2009 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons. Since you had some involvement with the Post–2009 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter

The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far Casliber (submissions) in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was Coemgenus (submissions) at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:

1. Cas Liber (submissions), who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy. A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
2. Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points), second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
3. Cwmhiraeth (submissions), first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany. Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
4. Harrias (submissions), second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
5. West Virginian (submissions), from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
6. Rodw (submissions), from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
7. Rationalobserver (submissions), from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
8. Calvin999 (submissions), also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Raquel

@Jason Rees: I think we're pretty close to getting Raquel's article out. Just a bit more in the top and it'll be good to go. Izmik (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Izmik: , While i am flattered you think that its nearly ready to be sent out to the mainspace, i still feel that it needs more all roundbefore its published. This includes more impact and the MH being finished. You are more than welcome to help with this if you wish. :) Jason Rees (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

BoM BT

I was looking at the 1999-00 Australian region cyclone season for a non-wiki project but I figure I found something that requires addressing in the article. I found that the WMO tracks for Steve, Vaughan, and Tessi (in IBTRACS) were incomplete (seems to be an problem with Brisbane). I also found the very useful Wellington BT had... more complete tracks. The problem is, they match up very well in everything except wind speed (pressure matches just fine). Wellington does not have Steve ever reaching cat 3 intensity (and similar findings for the other two storms), and curiously enough, it doesn't appear BoM does either. this page, found from a source on the wiki article, as well as this map, the accompanying text, and their headers, do not appear to support the fact that Steve was ever a cat 3 severe tropical cyclone. So I'm not sure why IBTRACS hasn't been changed to reflect this but it seems Wellington is up to date on this. I'm not sure what should be done about it. Also, is there any online best track data from BoM?

Also, concerning the CPAC list on List of historic tropical cyclone names, it bothers me that the list doesn't align properly (or rather, that it's just one long list of names). Every other basin is effectively split into their lists, either alphabetically in NHC & SWIO, or because their seasons have many more storms than CPAC (WPAC, AUS, SPAC). I don't see why CPAC wouldn't be split into its lists either. It looks really weird and haphazard that it each name starting with, say, N, doesn't fit right next to the other three of them. The current format is basically one long concatenated list in table form, with years after each item, which doesn't make much sense. The width of the table is 10 columns as it is, 12 can't hurt?

-- atomic7732 22:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Steve, Vaughan, and Tessi are not systems I have looked into in great detail, but as a brief response for now BoMs BT Database online shows 77.8 kts and the offline version shows 42m/s or 81.6 kts for Steve. As a result this would point to a 10-min wind from Bom of 80 knots. I will look into these systems and respond further when im less drunk.Jason Rees (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Cyclone Namu page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Hello, I'm Alpha Monarch. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Tropical cyclone naming— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 18:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 13

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 13, August-September 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - EBSCO, IMF, more newspaper archives, and Arabic resources
• Expansion into new languages, including Viet and Catalan
• Spotlight: Elsevier partnership garners controversy, dialogue
• Conferences: PKP, IFLA, upcoming events

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Typhoon in 1985

Hello, Jason Rees.

In Main Page on Vietnamese Wikipedia, Typhoon Cecil (1985) is this week's featured article. Can you translate it to English (You can use the Google Translate on some difficult words)? I think it can be a good article on English Wikipedia. CVQT (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Similar output to Raquel

I just found a similar system to Raquel, it is 17F from 2001-02 season. One of the reasons why Raquel is more of in the 2014-15 season, is that its designation is continued from that season. Because of this, should 17F (at the moment, it's part of the 2002-03 season according to its season article) be apart of the 2001-02 season? Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

17F should not be considered to be a part of the 2001-02 season, because while the designation was strangely rolled over from the 2001-02 SPAC: It boils down to the systems formation date. In 17Fs case the system was first noted on July 3 and not before June 30. Raquel was first noted on June 27 and moved into the Australian region during June 30. In Raquels case we also know that it has been considered to be a system in 2014-15 by the BoM, rather than a system in 2015-16.Jason Rees (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning ACEs in summary?

Do we mention ACE calculations in each season articles summary and is it necessary? The source is from the JTWC trackfiles and JMA archives if you are wondering. If not, sure I'll rm the other similar sentences in other articles, but how about the ACE table in some EPac season articles? Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I do not particularly like using ACE in the seasonal summaries unless it is sourced back to an ATCR or some other document, so that we we can not be accused of committing Original Research over it especially when you stop and consider that its an American thing done using 1 min winds.Jason Rees (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results

WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points). All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. Cas Liber (submissions), a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to Rationalobserver (submissions). Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:

• Godot13 (submissions) (FP bonus points) wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
• Cwmhiraeth (submissions) wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
• West Virginian (submissions) wins the prize for fourth place
• Calvin999 (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Rationalobserver (submissions) wins a final 8 prize.
• Harrias (submissions) wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
• Rodw (submissions) wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
• ThaddeusB (submissions) wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · logs), Miyagawa (talk · contribs · logs) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · logs) 18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Updated names for Australian region

In this: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/about/names.shtml , it says that there is no replacement for Oswald and these names (Rubina, Lam, Marcia and Isobel) needed a replacement. I am confused, so does that mean that those names are retired? The names are marked in red and says "Cyclone names marked for replacement". Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Lando is now retired and replaced with Liwayway, as said in the recently-updated list of PAGASA TC names. Typhoon2013 (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia email re Newspapers.com signup

Hello, Jason Rees. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HazelAB (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

SPac and AusR storm infoboxes

You know how in storm infoboxes, it mentions the intensity at the top (Eg. Typhoon, Cat5 etc)? And also includes the agency in brackets? In the SPac and AusR basin articles, it doesn't say the agency but says "(Australian scale)". Should we add in the agencies? Because there is this thing saying WarningCenter and FMS and BoM. I'll give you an example in the 2015-16 SPac cyclone season article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The start date for the 2012 PTS/LateTD

I noticed there was a TD in both the 2011 and 2012 PTS articles. It says that the TD developed on 31/12 of 2011 and dissipated on 01/01 of 2012. However in the 2012 article, the same TD, which dissipated on that day, made the 2012 PTS start. So my question is, isn't the TD part of the 2011 season, not the 2012? Because it is a bit confusing because there was never a storm which dissipated on the next year which made the next season started. You know what I mean? So which means that the 2012 PTS started on January 13, not January 1 as the 2011 TD dissipated that day and part of the previous year.. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 14

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 14, October-November 2015
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Gale, Brill, plus Finnish and Farsi resources
• Open Access Week recap, and DOIs, Wikipedia, and scholarly citations
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref - a citation drive for librarians

Read the full newsletter

The Interior, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Joni

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclone Joni you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...

Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Cyclone Tia page, your edit caused an ISSN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!

We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Esau

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclone Esau you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

cyclones
... you were recipient no. 373 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Esau

The article Cyclone Esau you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Cyclone Esau for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Low vs TL

Well I saw the current bulletin from TCWC Brisbane about the current TL active today. It says a weak low instead of a tropical low, and this is the same for the weak low during Feb 5. I might be sure as well, when TCWC Perth started issuing bulletins of 07U, it formed on Jan 19 and states a weak low (it was mentioned a TL few days later when it was considered a moderate chance of developing). Also yeah, removing the low is ok, but as I said, let's wait and see as another TL might develop in the coming days. Depending on the designation of our next low, if it is 11U, then the Feb 5 low should only be mentioned in the Other systems section. If the next one is 11U, then totally rm the Feb 5 low and the current low should be recognized as 10U. However if it is different, then I'll think about it, I guess.

As i have said Typhoon2013, provide me with some proof that it was considered to be a tropical low then we can add it unitl that time we cant. The Brisbane TWO from Feb 6 mentioned that the system was a weak tropical low. However, we will see what happens over the next few days.Jason Rees (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The currently active TL is now confirmed designated as 10U. Therefore, he Feb 5 low should be 09U, as it was the only low forming from Stan. Also new low has a high probability of 11U. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh. Whenever I see in one the 3 minor basins (Perth, Darwin and Brisbane) and states there is a low or a weak low, I already think that the system is designated. We already have 2 systems that are right and can be a possibility to make the Australian region season articles better by filling in missing storms, and those 2 were 07U and *09U. That's why I wanted to find out if it works (I know and I said it many times). Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You are clutching at straws and until we find out for certain, that the Feb 5 low was a tropical low or 09U it stays out. Personally it would not surprise me to see the Perth Low currently active called 09U.Jason Rees (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise it's because they are different? They may classify lows as weak systems but I may be wrong. It is better if someone at least leave a message for BoM or a BoM agent is also a user here in wiki. I actually left them a message about this 3 weeks ago, but they still haven't replied. Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm going too fast here, but the BoM has now started tracking on our recent low in the IO and was designated as 09U. It is impossible and never happened before when we have 10U, then he next one will be a number before 10. So pretty much that Feb 5 low is 09U? Or did they make a mistake?Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop panicking and jumping to conclusions without looking at the evidence Typhoon2013 as you are the one making mistakes not the BoM. The Feb 5 weak low was not a tropical low or designated as such, so please just forget about that system and I have removed any mention to it on the Aus region page. Going through the TWO's for 09U shows that it was first noted on 8 Feb and that its struggled to develop until today when it is expected to become a tropical cyclone. I will look through Tait later but I strongly suspect that warning centers can chuck a designator on a system before it has become a tropical low or moved into their area of responsibility. This is especially true with Tait as it is located on the border of BoM/Nadi and thus it is highly probable that Nadi has assigned it the designator 10F. However, we are not going to write about each and every weak low and keep to the rule that when they call something a Tropical Low then we call it a Tropical Low and not before.Jason Rees (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 15

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs), Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
• #1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
• New branches and coordinators

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Jason. I'm just posting to let you know that List of off-season Atlantic hurricanes – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 18. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

AusR storms

I decided to put another talk section your talk page because I knew this is going to be long and I will be breaking it down. But I got three things:

First, as of right now since few hours ago, Tatiana is just sitting at the border of both basins (160E). Therefore, I have decided to also put Tatiana in the SPac article as the FMS is also tracking it.

Since we have evidence that the FMS is tracking it and its on 160E its fine to include it.

Second, for the formation of Tatiana, I put Feb 6 (I put sources and a summary in its section) because the precursor tropical low of Tatiana developed on the 6th, however as you said, that not to include weak lows that aren't tropical, I stated that the TL weakened to a LPA and re-intensified back to a TL on the 10th.

My gut is telling me that Tait didnt form on the 6th, but the mention of a weak tropical low is a mistake as a result i think for now keep it to the 10th. I have contacted the author of the monthly global tracks to check what his running track for Tait is.

Third, which also confuses me, so you said that 09U developed on the 8th, right? I did see the sources. However it says that "a tropical low is forming", which means that the TL has not yet formed within the 2 advisories/dates (Feb8-9). But on the Feb 10 advisory, it states a "tropical low was located/formed..." With this, 09U formed on the 10th. Because a TL which is still forming means that it hasn't happened yet/describes the future.

Notice how i said in prose: The system that became Tropical Low 09U was first noted within the monsoon trough, to the northwest of the Cocos/Keeling Islands on 8 February.Jason Rees (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

As a general note the dates will be probably be sured up further next week once both systems have dissipated.Jason Rees (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. One more thing, is the exact border of the AusR and SPac basins at 160.0E? Or the whole 160E (160.0 - 160.9)? It's weird because Tatiana is at 160.5E, and the BoM is still monitoring it. Otherwise it is because some models predict the storm to re-emerge back to the AusR basin. So does that mean the storm is at the SPac now? Or still in both basins? Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well where the basin boundaries lies is the ultimate question and something i have been curious, about for years and the answer is that there isnt one. In the case of Tait it is clear that the FMS and BoM have agreed that BoM should keep the primary warning responsibility for now. There are probably a range of factors behind this decision including the fact that its meant to be coming back into the Australian region, Victors threatening Fiji. This has also been done in the past and probably should have been done for Raquel. Personally I think Tait should be dumped into the Other Systems section of SPAC and the fact that it briefly moved out of the region should be ignored on the Aus page but we will see what happens.Jason Rees (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Tatiana still necessary for its own section or just leaving in the 'Other storms' section is fine. It is now confirmed that Tatiana is 10F, as 11F just developed yesterday. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It is better to have Tait in other systems imo, since it was it was barely in the basin.Jason Rees (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter

One of Adam Cuerden’s several quality restorations during round 1

That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by Cyclonebiskit (submissions), and two each by MPJ-DK (submissions), Hurricanehink (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), and Cas Liber (submissions). Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by Adam Cuerden (submissions) (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by Cwmhiraeth (submissions). Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with J Milburn (submissions) completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)

Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that Cas Liber (submissions) claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

SHEM cyclone project pages

Hello Jason Rees, I was wondering if you are still interested in my contributions to your sandbox pages on cyclones such as Raja, Namu, Fergus, and Raquel? I know it has been a while but just let me know! =) --Undescribed (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Undescribed, By all means feel free to jump in and edit them when you have time :) I had to publish Oscar the other day as it was a worthy see also for Winston.Jason Rees (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Been thinking over the last couple of days that it is probably better for you, if we tackle some of the more recent systems like Tuni together rather than the oldies. See if you can do anything on Tuni's MH using the sources contained here. :)Jason Rees (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you absolutely. Sounds good to me! =) Also, I was wondering if you think that Raquel is ready to be published or if it still needs more work? --Undescribed (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Raquel could do with some more work on the impact - its getting there but it just needs something more... However, as i suggested try working on Tuni's MH using the sources provided. :) Jason Rees (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that Raquel could use more detail on the impact section. And when the MH section is completed for Tuni then would you possibly be able to provide me with a link to Raquel's page? I can't seem to be able to find it anymore for some reason. Undescribed (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The sandbox for Raquel is here.Jason Rees (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Naming formats

I've been seeing previews of what you did in the 2015 PTS article and want to make a new format. Are you thinking to remove the 'Retirement' section and place the retired name sentences in both the International and Philippine name sections? Any why don't you like to make the retired and replaced names to be in italics? I just want to know so I could do it to previous season articles as well. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Yeah you are right, we should not put those 5 names already in the section about that they are retired and we need to wait for the real source from WMO. Also I agree about not putting a separate section for retirement names, but instead to put instead in the JMA and PAGASA names. I just separated the paragraphs for retirement and name info like what I did a while ago in the 2015 PTS article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

So are you sure about this format now? Because I like the same format for the past seasons. Also one more thing, is it necessary to start another paragraph about the retired international names like we've decided for the Philippine one? Typhoon2013 (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I have now copied the same format for some past seasons, especially in the 2011-2014 PTS articles. Would you like to look at them if there are any concerns etc? Typhoon2013 (talk) 21:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Re:How do you...

Thanks! I will start tomorrow! HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

TSR WPac forecasts and reports

So normally, the TSR issues forecasts in May, July and August, which the final report of the season is in January of the next year. Last year, TSR cancelled out doing the July forecasts, leaving it with 2 forecasts. Also TSR still has not (yet) issued their final report for the 2015 season, which I have been waiting for 3 months. I got a feeling that TSR is not going to publish forecasts soon with this, just like what they did for the Australian basin, which they discontinued forecasts since 2011. If this really happens, what do we do? Do we still add the season summary section with only unofficial agencies? Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There was a very good reason which I do not wish to divulge, why the July forecast was cancelled - so im not too worried about them dropping their forecasts. However, if it were too occur then we would just rework the section for this years season since it is not a fixed format and ig you go back through the years then you would find that CityUHK issued forecasts for the WPAC.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar

Actually, this is the first time in WP to give out a barnstar to someone. I just like to thank you helping me out and talking about TC stuff within the project. I know that there have been some ups and downs between us in WP, but still, you are such a rolemodel/leader here in WP. So here, and again, thank you so much for helping me since I started here as well. I am looking forward to talking about future things to help our articles get better and making things accurate as we provide information to the world about TCs. So thank you. :) Typhoon2013 11:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you @Typhoon2013: for the Barnstar. Its been interesting working with you over the last year or so and following some of your ideas to fruition including your latest regarding making the seasonal forecasts table consistent around the project.Jason Rees (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

El Niño

Ok, but I suggest you that in your futures article creations, reestruturations or reconstructions, you first make your changes inside your sandbox, to apply all of them in the article in one edit once they are finished. It's very confusing for someone who access those articles to see unfinished sentences and broken links or tools, and it happens often when you are making many major edits. So it's natural for someone to revert it to a more stable revision, which can cause a trouble for you and for the readers/editors. But, it's just a suggestion.

But, will you do the same for La Niña article? I think that that article is in a more dire situation than El Niño's one. ABC paulista (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I liked what you did to the article overall, though I think it lacks some info about its scientific and technical stuff. The article doesn't talk about how El Niño affects the Southern Oscilattion and SOI, what happens to the Walker circulation on El Niño, how Madden–Julian oscillation affects El Niño and vice-versa, and other stuff like (Pacific) Ocean Currents, Teleconnection Patterns, etc. And I don't understand why Antarctica subsection is located on Impacts on the global climate section.

Still, I think it's better than it was before. But, do you plan to apply the same changes on ENSO and La Niña articles? ABC paulista (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 16

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs)

• New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
• Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
• A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
• Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Added to the MH section on Tuni's sandbox page

Hello Jason Rees, hope you are well. =) Anyways, I have been very busy lately but have been editing Tuni's sandbox page in my spare time. Several days ago I added all the information I could find about Tuni up until dissipation. Do you think that there is anything else that should be elaborated on in that section? --Undescribed (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Cyclone season Southwest Indian Ocean

Hello Jason,

My explanation for the change I made in "Tropical cyclone" is as follows.

I noticed the difference in season of this region compared with the Australian and South Pacific region. One would expect the seasons to be more or less the same. So I checked reference nr. 41 esp. page I-5 "Cyclone season". From that I concluded that the period 1. July - 30. June is nothing more than an administrative period. This section also confirms that cyclones in the SW-Indian are most frequent in the southern summer.

I understand you are the specialist on this subject so it's up to you how to evaluate my remark. Best regards, Koos van den beukel (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Just a question: In the part Physical structure / Intensity
  

The last sentence mentions an upper-level anticyclone. Is reference nr. 17 used and interpreted in the correct way? Koos van den beukel (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Marilyn

Hello Jason Rees, I was wondering why you undid a recent edit I made to Hurricane Marilyn in regards to it being the first M name to be retired. A similar statement was already made with Hurricane Luis and several others, so I figured that mentioning it for Marilyn would add congruity. --Undescribed (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2016 (UTc)

I apologize if my edit seemed unconstructive due to it's trivial nature. Perhaps the similar statements should be removed from the other articles?--Undescribed (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter

FP of Christ Church Cathedral, Falkland Islands by Godot13

Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by Cas Liber (submissions) and one by Montanabw (submissions)), four Featured Lists (with three by Calvin999 (submissions)), and 53 Good Articles (six by Worm That Turned (submissions) and five each by Hurricanehink (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), and MPJ-DK (submissions)). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by Adam Cuerden (submissions) and five by Godot13 (submissions)). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. Cwmhiraeth (submissions) scored 265 base points, while The C of E (submissions) and MPJ-DK (submissions) each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with MPJ-DK (submissions) completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Cas Liber (submissions), broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jason Rees. You have new messages at Undescribed)'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Undescribed (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Date format for North Indian ocean

Hi Jason. If you may not know, the first system of the 2016 Nio season had formed, and I have seen that Meow said that "we use DMY format in this basin". But in previous years, or I should say all, the articles are used in MDY format. I know that you don't really edit that much in these basins but, what do you think? Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013 and Meow: Im currently working on another project away from Wikipedia, so am i only briefly popping in. My view is that we have built the North Indian Ocean cyclone season articles using MDY, so I wonder why we are suddenly switching to DMY.Jason Rees (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Nobody was aware of that mistake until Meow mentions. -- Meow 16:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Meow: What mistake? What Mention? The MoS says to retain the date format that the article has developed with unless there is clear evidence that it should be the other format. It is also worth noting that this issue was discussed just the other week Jason Rees (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Please tell me any country around the North Indian Ocean definitely using MDY. -- Meow 01:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It is true that we use DMY within India (though I don't think there is an official norm to use DMY), but except for the 2015 and 2016 NIO seasons, all NIO seasons have dates in MDY format. Modifying the ones in question will be a tedious job, and I feel its too much for something as trivial as using MDY or DMY. Rishabh Tatiraju (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tatiraju.rishabh: Actually it's just the 2016 article now with the DMY format. IMO, DMY is better and I am already used to that as to being here in Wiki for 3 years. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Revert?

Can you please give me some understanding to the reason behind the revert? It was a bad value, as the reference given shows. Additionally, it was a quiet change someone made in December 2015 that switched it from rapid intensification (used in most TC discussions and publications) to rapid deepening. I've been working on expanding the text for the section a bit to try to give a better idea why winds are used in TCs whereas pressure is used in ETCs and give it a tie to the explosive cyclogensis page... but if it's going to be reverted, perhaps I should just quit while I'm ahead instead of waste my time. But some kind of explanation would be most appreciated :-) Thanks JeopardyTempest (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Boy, I really do apologize, I'm not doing too well apparently, I entirely read past your reasoning :-( And also misread the NOAA page linked. Lot of wasted time there. Though, now the stranger thing is where they got that number. All the years of college and grad school, everything I came across was 24... or 48 if being extreme (maybe saw 36, perhaps even 30 some... but can't ever remember 42). The rapid cyclogenesis wiki page shows similar, but with adjustment for latitude (which would actually make the criteria less in the tropics). The first scientific article, I come across in AMS search, http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/MWR-D-10-05002.1, says "93% of the rapid deepeners of the Roebber (1984) dataset, defined as meeting or exceeding the 1-Bergeron criterion [latitude-adjusted storm central pressure falls of at least 24 hPa in 24 h;". So quite perplexing value.

But, just as important, as noted earlier, is the oddity of using the phrase rapid deepening at all on the TC page. A quick search of AMS abstracts shows the words rapid+deepening+tropical show up together just 27 times... while rapid+intensification+tropical shows up 154 times (and most of the rapid deepening hits... actually have rapid intensification in the title itself). And in experience, I think it's the same pattern with NHC discussions. The reasoning which I was looking to add in is basically that: pressure is used in most cyclones because it's more consistent in them... but in TCs, the small and warm cores, and smooth water surfaces end up causing fairly inconsistent pressure relationships, but much more consistent wind speeds (shown with the reasonable ability of Dvorak ratings, then further validated with time through RAPIDSCAT and recon). (Really pressure gradient, not min pressure, is what should be used, but that's a whole other topic). Anyways, sorry, didn't mean to talk your ear off or be a pest... I'm certainly not as active in meteorology these days, and maybe I've got it all wrong somewhere? Certainly weird that the article that brought me into this (about the El Farro ship sinking) and the rapid cyclogenesis wikipage both punt "rapid deepening" to the TC article... but NHC doesn't even list the term in their glossary (if I didn't miss it there too), and the research community seems to not use it that way either. But sorry to open up a can of worms on the definition and term choice :-( And real apologies on making the ridiculous mistake of not reading your explanation (or the reference) right. Time to get some sleep apparently. JeopardyTempest (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

+++

Coincidentally, I'm absolutely with you on the too technical part. Seems the page has just a bit too much obtuse technicality to it already, as most science\math topic pages tend to. I certainly struggle sometimes with keeping language broad and smooth (as I probably did on my discussion up above), but I'm absolutely with you that we've got to try. Perhaps I should run my proposed changes by you before posting them, as anyone who's championing for basic language on such a page is one we need to be hearing more. JeopardyTempest (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

TC map generator

Hello Jason Rees, I have been looking through the tutorial on how to generate maps of tropical cyclone tracks but having difficulty figuring it out. Do you need a specific coding device to use it? Also, is there a site that you can use to create hypothetical hurricane tracks for non-professional reasons? Thank you --Undescribed (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea or clues so am pinging @Keith Edkins and Cyclonebiskit:.Jason Rees (talk) 17:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Did they get back to you about it yet? --Undescribed (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on Season forecasts table format

Hi! Would you like to join in the poll/consensus/contribution of the Season forecasts table in the Wikiproject talk page? I would appreciate it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2014-16 El Nino

Could you give me a preview of what you are proposing? It should make it better for us to give opinions about your idea. ABC paulista (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Just like we called this El Niño as a 2014-16 one because JMA declared its start on that year, being the first one to do so and opposed to BoM and NOAA that stated that the El Niño only started on 2015, I think that we should only say that the El Niño ended when all of the 3 consider that it ended. Start when the very first agency declare its arrival and finish when the very last agency declares its dissipation. This way, we can avoid things like WP:WEIGHT and WP:POV. ABC paulista (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well we don't need to precipitate, or antecipate, a declaration since the article already cites BoM decision to call an end on this El Niño, and we shouldn't get used to such predictive actions, since saying that the El Niño ended when 2 of the 3 main agencies following ENSO developments would be kinda misleadig to the readers, and we can't quite forsee what action a agency would have, since these agencies use different methods and take into account different indexes when measuring ENSO. Different phenomena lead to different results. ABC paulista (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

01W

I have seen your edit/revert summary of 01W. "we do not have any" of what? 1-minute winds? NRL Trackfile states 1-min winds of 20kts. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the JMA did not give any winds for 01W, we should not have any 10-minute winds for 01W. As for the one minute winds of 01W, the JTWC has confirmed that it had 1-minute winds of 25 knots rather than 20 knots. It is also worth noting that the warning criteria is 25 knots rather than 20kts.Jason Rees (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Winston

That "source" is from a forum, isn't it? There's no way that pass WP:SOURCE, it doesn't even cite an BoM link. ABC paulista (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

• New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
• Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
• New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Dissipation of 01W

About a month ago, when 01W was active I was pretty much the only one updating anything about that system. According to the JMA's weather maps early on June 28, it declared the dissipation of 01W as it was absorbed by a front. The only problem as of now is that your said that you cannot find anything on the 28th, therefore it dissipated on the 27th. I just asked Keith to archive some sources to the recent 3 systems so I can add it in. Also I thought we use the RSMC for dates? Typhoon2013 (talk) 20:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Also what made you say it is an unreliable source? A lot of sites said the same thing. Even 1 site I am looking at now says 8. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

What do we call them??

If you may not know, I always update the Portal:Tropical cyclones/Active tropical cyclones article. If a TD is only tracked by JMA (not JTWC and PAGASA), what do we call them? Do we just simply call it as "Tropical Depression" or do we call it like "JMA Tropical Depression 5"? Please reply because somehow United States Man doesn't agree with me (check the view history box if not sure). Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: We just call them "Tropical Depression" since the JMA does not provide an official number for them. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Thank you! Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:JTWC Best Track Analysis

Template:JTWC Best Track Analysis has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tropical Storm Bavi (2015)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tropical Storm Bavi (2015) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tropical Storm Bavi (2015)

The article Tropical Storm Bavi (2015) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Tropical Storm Bavi (2015) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 12george1 -- 12george1 (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Storm data feed discontinued

The data feed at http://weather.noaa.gov appears to have been discontinued. Do you have any ideas on alternative sourcing? Best to reply on the discussion thread at Talk:2016_Pacific_typhoon_season#Houston_We_Have_A_Problem--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 23:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

• New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
• Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
• TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
• OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Perth TWO's

Done.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 09:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hurricane Bob

For what reason don't we need a retirement section on Hurricane Bob? Angela Maureen (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Dianmu (2016)

I wish you would write it more. 113.186.239.204 (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I have tried to expand it further this evening but have now run out of time. It hsoudl be in a lot better shape though. Feel free to contribute if you wish :) Jason Rees (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Storm information

Remember when you sent me information about Typhoon Abe last year via LexisNexis? And the Mariners Weather Log? Do you still have access to these sources? Thank you. Dustin (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Dustin V. S.: I don't remember it, but in response to your question I do not have access to Lexis Nexis anymore. However, the Mariners Weather Logs are on my Google Drive and I think I have shared them with you if your real name is what I think it is :).Jason Rees (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I think Google deleted my account I was using for Wikipedia or something. I'll try to email you with a new account I just created. Dustin (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I just sent you an email with the aforementioned account I created. Dustin (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok i have invited you to view my TC folder, which the MWL's are stored in.Jason Rees (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay; thank you for allowing me access! :) Dustin (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 19

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by Nikkimaria, Sadads and UY Scuti

• New and expanded donations - Foreign Affairs, Open Edition, and many more
• New Library Card Platform and Conference news
• Spotlight: Fixing one million broken links

Read the full newsletter

19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Cas Liber (submissions)
• Second Place - MPJ-DK (submissions)
• Third Place - Adam Cuerden (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
• Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
• Featured List – Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
• Featured Portal – SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
• Featured Topic – Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
• Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
• Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
• In The News – Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
• Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Transient TLs?

So in accordance to TCWC Brisbane's latest bulletin, it says that "a number of transient tropical lows have developed". What does it mean by that? In animations, I only see 1 possible TL, not a number. I'm just confused with this and I don't even know what to say about it. Should this be added to the season? Or do we just wait? Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Transient means short lived and as a result I would add the lows in to OS for now, with just a short little sentence and see what happens.Jason Rees (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, copy that. Though TCWC Brisbane also stated "a number of transient...", which means that there are more than 1. That's what I kind of got confused. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jason Rees. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

June STWAs

I've linked them to 96W.INVEST on Talk:2016 Pacific typhoon season/June--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 17:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

2017 Atlantic hurricane season listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2017 Atlantic hurricane season. Since you had some involvement with the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017

On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):

• First place – $200
• Second & Third place – $50 each
• Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.

After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Storm summary suggestion?

Hi, Jason. You know how I add in storm summaries in the 2016 PTS? Am I doing a great job? Because I think I have figured something out and I might change some things. So whenever I add in storm info in their sections, I noticed that there are a lot of sources I've used (reason why 2015 PTS has like 600 refs and 2016 PTS has 400). I think that information should be used for the storm article itself and therefore, I should reduce the info I put in and more of the effects info. I'll start doing that soon. You should know my goals, I like some of the PTS articles to have a GA rating. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Typhoon, What you need to do is too stop rushing and take your time to properly look at what you are putting into the article. For example nothing about Aere's impact should be in the tropical depression article if that should even exist. You also have to remember that each section is a story in itself and that there's no need to add 20 sources when 1 will do. The ideal section in the season has about 1 paragraph of MH and one of impact, however, there are exceptions to the rule when we have systems like Haiyan. Also there is no need to note when the JTWC first opened an invest or when it had a low medium or high rating just use the met details. Jason Rees (talk) 01:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, though I recently did Nepartak's section, and I'm planning to cut it down like that. Otherwise, this may be a risky move, but what if for PTS articles, we copy the format of the 2005 Atl article. Like create a separate article about "List of storms of 20__ PTS". It would be much better if you're talking about size, I guess, but I do not know, it's just a suggestion/opinion. But if so, we do need a lot of research and effort to put in. :| Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The biggest problem with the section on Nerpartak, is what you have selected to put in and how you present it @Typhoon2013:. In an ideal world the season section should entice the reader into wanting to read more about Nerpartak and thus serve as an advert for the main article. Yes this means putting in the time and effort, but it has its own rewards and you want a PTS season to be a GA. As for the format I personally think the way we are doing them is the correct way but we need to make sure that there are not 600 references and the summuaries are written in a decent way without any information that isnt needed liek TCWC Perth thought that it had a chance of developing into a tropical cyclone when they havent.Jason Rees (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Also @Typhoon2013: I want it on record how much some of us elder members of the project including myself and @Hurricanehink: appreciate your hard work over the last year in keeping the Pacific typhoon and other seasons up to date.Jason Rees (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh thank you so much, Jason, and was not expecting that! I just love to edit and I really love Tropical cyclones. Wikipedia even makes me practice my writing skills from you guys! :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll echo, I'm very appreciative of the work you've done maintaining the articles on the other side of the world! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Sorry just seen this right now and thanks, too. Also JR, I'll try and start doing a new-layout for PTS articles. Yes of course I really like adding in lots of info for storms, but for both 2015–16 PTS articles, the ref section is like "big". As I said before ^^, I'm thinking of a layout similar to the 2004 and 2005 AHS, where there will be a separate article for the storms and its summary. I'll also try and bring back in the Season timeline article, though, possibly it would be in a different layout as well where we may merge it in to the real PTS article. I'm sorry but I have a lot of ideas, and you know me right, as I said it many times, I like the PTS articles to look good as the AHS articles. I just wanted an upgrade in the project. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Do not waste your energies on creating a new style for the PTS - just focus on cleaning each section up using as fewer references as you can as that will resolve your problem with the references.Jason Rees (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I concur with Jason, Typhoon2013. The layout should be the same as other PTS articles, like 2002 Pacific typhoon season (a featured article). That means, every section needs references, nothing is overly detailed (so not too much focus on any one warning center - remember, it's about the storms, not the agencies). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Ok so maybe go to plan B, if there is. If I may ask, are there like tropical cyclone reports for each storm? In the Atlantic and Aus, I see like only 1 source for its meteorological history and the source is like a report of the storm. Are there similar reports in the WPac? If so, it would "definitely" help a lot. If not, then what/how? We can't just put 1 source which is the BT because it would not summarize the lot. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Those reports are available for older storms (pre-1998) from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center. Otherwise, you'll have to search various sources to get the info you're looking for. Take a look at some good and featured articles - that'll give you a good feel for how to make a good article in that basin. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Storm durations?

If for example there is a system where the JTWC has tracked it from December 3-4, though the JMA has only tracked it during December 3, which storm duration do we use? Is it just the #1 rule where we always follow RSMC? Merry Christmas, btw. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Typhoon2013:, In an ideal world we would follow what dates the JMA as the RSMC use, however, there are going to be exceptions to the rule and we should just apply common sense.Jason Rees (talk) 13:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Because the reason why is that lately I've been interested in JMA TD BT as I did to the 2013-15 PTS articles, where during 2013, 33W was monitored by JTWC for 2 days, while JMA monitored it or like a few hours or something. That's why I came to see you. Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, about TD 10/12/2016

Hello Jason, long time no see, i have problem with a guy Typhoon2013. Hope you and your family have great night and Merry Chrismas. Truơng Huy Salvatore ^{- Thảo luận} 14:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Trương, Its nice to see you around the Wiki again and I hope that you and your family have a merry Christmas despite all the flooding of recent months in Vietnam. Anyway after taking a look at your contributions, I assume that your problem with @Typhoon2013: is him removing the December 10, JMA TD to other storms. Can you confirm that this is right? Jason Rees (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

That's right Jason, this TD caused even greater rain, flood and big wind than the November Vietnam TD, total damage reached $53.2 million (đ1.210 trillion). 30 people of my country have been killed. Truơng Huy Salvatore ^{- Thảo luận} 14:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

To be honest Trương, I need to do a bit of digging into the situation in Vietnam, as it may be better to relegate both the November and December Tropical Depressions to OS whol but at the same time create an article dealing with the flooding there. However, I will need time to look into it.Jason Rees (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Final-Fantasy-HH: Perhaps change the Nov 2016 Vietnam TD article? And rename it to 2016 Vietnam flooding etc... I could help change it for you. Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

This would be an interesting idea to pursue @Typhoon2013:, however, I would be very curious to hear Trương's thoughts on the impact as he can help shape our thinking in this matter.Jason Rees (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. He's apparently Vietnamese so he should know more about the impacts of the systems. Because to be very honest, an article is the only possible way to sum it up. Either mention both TDs in 1 article, or have separate articles for both. Though, some reason it just feels weird for having 2 Vietnam TD articles in the same year, or maybe it's just me. I would also love to help on these TD article. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:54 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Need help please

There is a discussion right now. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Using JMA weather maps to extend western Pacific storm tracks needs to stop. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

TC Naming tables

Hi and first of all Happy New Years. So of course, 2016 is over and is it right to remove the 2016 lists of the Atlantic and EPac sections in Tropical cyclone naming? Because that is what you did last year and I'm just confirming it to you just in case. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 20, November-December 2016
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs)

• Partner resource expansions
• New search tool for finding TWL resources
• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:US Inflation

Template:US Inflation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Samsara (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Moderate Tropical storms

A tag has been placed on Category:Moderate Tropical storms requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 219.79.127.179 (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. 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 a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Jason. I'm just posting to let you know that Tropical cyclone naming – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 27. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

separate systems? (again)

Hi. For sure we keep talking about this (sorry if annoying), but there was a TD that developed east of PH during 20/3 and dissipated that same day. Though the system re-developed on 21/3. The JMA did not downgrade the system to a LPA but it just re-developed. So these are two separate systems right because we have no source that this is the same system? Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Its not annoying because i suspect that there isnt anyway to have consistency with these systems and we have to take them on a case by case basis. However, in this case @Typhoon2013: I may not be the best person to be asking about it, as I haven't been around on the current systems much recently, but from a quick look at the JTWC STWA's and the WWJP25s that the JMA only dropped it for one WWJP25 before readding it. As a result, I would keep it as one system until @Supportstorm: finds the BT for the system in a few months time.Jason Rees (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 21

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 21, January-March 2017
by Nikkimaria (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs), UY Scuti (talk · contribs), Samwalton9 (talk · contribs), Sadads (talk · contribs)

• #1lib1ref 2017
• Wikipedia Library User Group
• Wikipedia + Libraries at Wikimedia Conference 2017
• Spotlight: Library Card Platform

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Cyclone Raquel

I just thought I'd notify you of this. Master of Time (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Master of Time: - @Hurricanehink: Can you do a history merge please? Jason Rees (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Fina

Hi. Is the 2011's Cyclone Fina, was it declared as a Cat1 (Aus) cyclone or just a TL? The database only declared it as a tropical low (with "no name" for some reason), but from this, or the TCR, states that Fina "managed to reach to a TC for a short period of time". So what? Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

It would have been downgraded to a Tropical Low during post analysis, however, i do not currently have a source for this. But per this we are correct in saying that it was downgraded. Jason Rees (talk) 10:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hurricanes

After I fixed the page, why does everyone keep changing it back to its broken state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.20.57 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, Thanks for your edits to try and improve the way the dates were sorting on the List of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes. However, changing the format of the dates to 1870, October 5–14 or whatever doesnt help the sorting and goes against Wikipedia policies on the dates. Anyway the problem with the sorting was the middle code didnt always have the century on it, so for example it was sorting as {{Sort|701005|October 5–14, 1870}} which is why you saw Jeanne 04 before San Marcos 1870. However, it was quite an easy fix to make once I had RV'd your edit as the way it should sort is {{Sort|18701005|October 5–14, 1870}}.Jason Rees (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Storm names in SPac?

Hi again, Jason. So @Jasper Deng: has been reverting me because I removed the "Storm names" section (the season had already ended) as you said a while ago. Are you still on to this, or do you want me to plan a similar situation to the PTS seasons where we put a table of the used names? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Please link that discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: What do you mean? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: You mention "as you said a while ago" (referring to Jason). What did he say, and where did he say it?--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Assuming that it was not in his previous archive, he should have mentioned something in an edit summary or something. I am sure about this because for sure I did not make this up and this has been a "thing" since the last SPac season. Also I would wait for JR because sometimes he just changes things up without notice. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Good Morning @Jasper Deng and Typhoon2013: I strongly feel that we should not be including a whole section on how the names were assigned in the South Pacific seasons historically for a number of reasons. Firstly I feel that a full blown section that says something along the lines of "Within the Southern Pacific basin in the Southern Hemisphere between 160°E – 120°W, a tropical cyclone is named when observations and/or Dvorak intensity analysis indicate that a system has gale force or stronger winds near the center which are forecast to continue. The Fiji Meteorological Service (FMS) names systems that are located between the Equator and 25°S, while the New Zealand MetService names systems (in conjunction with the FMS) that develop to the south of 25°S." is seriously redundant to Tropical cyclone naming which contains all of the information on when a system is named. I also do not think that the I also feel that listing three or four names in the section is seriously redundant to above, when we generally note if a system moves into the basin as a part of the story and is named by the FMS or MetService. I also note that as we go back historically that we will find that Wellington was not allowed to name systems until around 1998, that the gale force wind has changed a lot and that Nadi was not the only naming centre with New Caledonia and French Polynesia ending their naming schemes during the 1980's. Also comparisons to the WPAC naming list are not appropriate since the WPAC uses a hell of a lot more names than the SPAC and also has an annual list of names from PAGASA which should be recorded in the article imo. I also note that it is has been done for the Australian and SWIO seasons but not as quick as this seems to have been.Jason Rees (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is that tropical cyclone naming does not fully replace it, because it does not adequately explain how that particular season's names were chosen. We can trim down the text itself to merely say "The storm names used this year, listed below, were drawn from a set of rotating lists". Also, comparing to the western Pacific is a very valid comparison, as you know well that the southern hemisphere basins can be much more active than this, and we should be consistent across all the different basins (and @Yellow Evan: agreed off-wiki).

And the very fact that naming responsibilities have changed is even more reason to have that section, at least for seasons which happened before the current setup.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I personally would think that its obvious how the names for the season were chosen by running through the list of names, but if we really need to include that information then I think it is better to have it in the seasonal summary rather than have a one or two line full blown section. I also disagree that we need to be consistent along basins as they are all unique in their own way - for example we can not have currently have a seasonal forecasts section in the NIO, while we could in theory have an entire article on them in the NATL. Also naming convention changes should be covered within history of tropical cyclone naming and the respective overall basin article.Jason Rees (talk) 20:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Though, Jason, I have made a new format to the AusR articles where I pretty much made a similar one to the PTS articles. What do you think about that? We could use the same for the SPac. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that the new format for the tropical cyclone names in the Aus is redundant to tropical cyclone naming etc and the sections.Jason Rees (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It might be obvious to us TC followers, but not casual readers.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that non tc followers have no common sense like you seem to be implying, as it is obvious that we have a list of names. Even then i think the seasonal summuary would be better of handeling a line or two about the names then giving it a fullblown section.Jason Rees (talk) 09:48, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IMD small

Template:IMD small 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) 15:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Categories to speedy rename =

Please refer to the speedy renaming section Hugo999 (talk) 14:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

• Category:1972-73 South Pacific cyclone season to Category:1972–73 South Pacific cyclone season
• Category:1973-74 South Pacific cyclone season to Category:1973–74 South Pacific cyclone season
• Category:1974-75 South Pacific cyclone season to Category:1974–75 South Pacific cyclone season
• Category:1975-76 South Pacific cyclone season to Category:1975–76 South Pacific cyclone season
• Category:1976-77 South Pacific cyclone season to Category:1976–77 South Pacific cyclone season

Possible tropical disturbance

@Jason Rees: Hi Jason Rees. I hope you had a refreshing, rejuvenating and revitalising Wikibreak! I have a question, and as you are a long-time and experienced editor on Wikipedia, especially in the field of tropical cyclone articles, I thought I might ask you.

There is currently a low pressure system in the central Indian Ocean, located at about 10°S 87°E (on the eastern edge of RSMC La Réunion's area of responsibility). The Australian Bureau of Meteorology noted the system in a tropical cyclone outlook for the western region of the Australian region, referring to it as a tropical low, not just a low (meaning the system is of significant magnitude). The BOM assessed its minimum central pressure as 1005 hPa, but did not give an indication as to the system's windspeeds (though, by looking at the 00:00 UTC gradient level wind analysis for 2 June, 15-30 kn winds are present around the system, with 30-45 kn winds in the southeastern quadrant). Despite the BOM's assessment of the system, La Réunion has not as of yet (as far as I can see) made any mention of the low. I am wondering whether or not I should include the system on the 2016-17 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season article. If I did, I would classify it as a tropical disturbance, as I'm pretty sure the system meets the criteria for this classification.

Thanks in anticipation for your advice. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @ChocolateTrain:, thanks for the compliments and yes i did have a nice wikibreak, while i was away at a music festival. Anyway my personal view is that within the articles, we are trying to catch any significant tropical lows that occur within that articles scope. That means if the JMA says that a tropical depression has developed in the CPAC, then we should add it to the Pacific hurricane season. The same goes for the BoM where they say that a tropical low in either the SWIO/SPAC has developed, however, we do not analyse it on that basins scale and just use the language and anaylsis presented to us by the RSMC/TCWC concerned. In this specific case RSMC La Reunion are talking about the system as an area of low pressure within their TWO which is placed on their website as the "ITCZ bulletin." So i think we need to add it in but write the blurb within other systems carefully, so not to judge either the BoM or RSMC la Reunion but present the facts. Thanks for bringing the system to my attention.Jason Rees (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Hi again. Thanks for that. I created the 'Other systems' section on the SWIO page and put the information there. You can have a look if you'd like. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The only comment ill make for now is that areas of low pressure dont count but tropical lows do - so we have to mention that it was considered to be a tropical low by BoM.Jason Rees (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: I have done a basic rework of the section and I have done it so that there is a lot of details that could be added in from the TWO's. However, there isnt too much a need to go over the top and mention every single detail about a system and I would strongly recommend that you just keep to what's in the TWO's by each centre rather than going into each and every bulletin or weather map.Jason Rees (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 22

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

• New and expanded research accounts
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

WPac season effects table

Hi Jason. I just want to discuss this here at the moment before making moves. First, imo I think we need to change the layout for the season effects table quite a bit for the WPac. The layouts for the PHS and AHS are much neat, I should say. Also, for example, take a look in the 2016 PTS article, the table is huge and I did discussed this to you about how large that article is. What do you think? Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly feel that we do not need to change the layout of the SE Chart, but just need to clean it up and make sure that any references used are already in the article. Anyway I will listen to any comments or suggestions you have on them but will not allow anything to go live until I'm happy with it.Jason Rees (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Timelines

@Jason Rees: AFAIK, timelines should only include tropical cyclones monitored by the official RSMC/TCWC of their respective basins. There was some change on this subject? ABC paulista (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I have never heard of that one and have always included all systems in the timeline, when going back in time with the SPAC season irrespective of who monitored them. There is also no harm done in including them in the timeline images.Jason Rees (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I do feel that there is some harm because the timeline follows the official basin's scale and color scheme, and including unofficial ones on them might imply thet they were assessed by the official agency of there, which can be misleading. And putting them under the base's intensity scale color scheme is downright WP:OR.ABC paulista (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Too side step this issue in timelines, we could always include a colour to indicate that the system was unofficial (A Gray colour sounds good to me).Jason Rees (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that might work. But this should be adopted in all timelines. ABC paulista (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

But how we should procede when both official and unofficial agencies monitor the same system, but disagree in their date of formation/dissipation? Or disagree on TD vs. TL status?

There is no consensus on this subject when reading the season articles, since some include unofficial storms and some don't. The lack of standarts for this kind of stuff is something that really bugs me, and I really think that we should put them to discuss within the project so we can adopt a standard to all articles. I feel that currently our handling on official vs. unofficial data and status is considerably messy.ABC paulista (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@ABC paulista: Just some random thoughts for now:

• I feel that we should be including each and every system monitored by the warning centers within the basin regardless of official/unofficial. This is one of the reasons why the Other systems section has been introduced to the season articles.Jason Rees (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

As long as there is a way to differentiate unoffical ones form the rest, I see no problem at all. ABC paulista (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

However, there are some exceptions to this rule, we shouldn't be putting last months TD in the NIO article, as it was overland at all times despite being in the Indian Ocean.Jason Rees (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

If it was monitored by some agency, why not? ABC paulista (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Because it was the JMA and it never technically never entered the NIO, as they literally last noted it on 100E.Jason Rees (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be the same case with 2015's Hurricane Loke, so I kinda agree. ABC paulista (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

• Duration - I feel that we have to take this one on a case by case basis. There are times when it is wiser to go for the unofficial durations rather than the official ones. Vamei for example left the JMA's AoR when it crossed 100E, but was not picked up by the IMD because it wasnt in their AOR. (At the time it was 45E - 100E but 5N and above). So this is a good example of where we can and should follow the unofficial duration.Jason Rees (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Vamei's case doesn't apply here because it was never assessed by the offical RMSC. I was asking about cases when a system is assessed officially, but there are disagreements over it's formation and dissipation, like the disagreements between BoM, FMS and JTWC over Winston, for example. Regardless, I really don't like case by case basis because that's what make things all messy and contribute to confusion and misleading. I do like standarddization and it should be applied whenever possible. ABC paulista (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I like standardization and we have always been told to use RSMC dates, unless there is some clear reasoning as to why we shouldn't. As a result Vamei is a good example of the exception to the rule. Winston is also one of the reasons why i feel that we have to go on a case by case basis, as its meteorology is a tricky case to get right. In BT Wellington cut Winston's extratropical transition at the border of AUS/SPAC, while BOM has not given us any BT to play with but have told us that the remnants of Winston impacted Queensland in its end of month report. However, the JTWC decided to call Winston a subtropical cyclone in their BT and give us a full blown report, but I suspect that its probably better to go with remnant low from when it left Nadi's AOR based on what BoM are saying but i might send an email to BoM to check if i get around to writing the MH of Winston article.Jason Rees (talk) 14:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that we should always go with the official data every time the unofficial ones disagree with them, including dissipation and formation dates. But, if tere is a way to make a timeline bar having 2 or more colors, it would be possible to include unoffical data at the same storm on the timeline. ABC paulista (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• TD vs. TL status - By this I assume you mean when BoM disagrees, with Jakarta over a systems classification.Jason Rees (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but also between JTWC and official agencies over the actual existance of a cyclone. Sometimes JTWC classify a system when the RSMC not, and vice-versa. ABC paulista (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

It is very rare that there is a disagreement, over the existence of an actual cyclone these days, however, if the JTWC were to initiate advisories then we would include them in the season article.Jason Rees (talk) 10:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Not rare at all, JMA and JTWC disagrees almost every time if some cyclone really formed or not, and when it formed. ABC paulista (talk) 16:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is rare as the JMA follow tropical depressions within their marine bulletin initially! As a result I can not remember the last time besides last year that we had a system that wasnt monitored by JMA but was by JTWC operationally.Jason Rees (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, I do count as a disagreement when the JMA monitor a tropical cyclone but the JTWC don't, or when they dsagree over the system's intensity. ABC paulista (talk) 02:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Well it maybe a disagreement when the JTWC and JMA dont have the exact same winds as each other, but we have to bear in mind that the JTWC uses 1-min winds rather than 10. I would also remind you that the JTWC has higher standards than the JMA as too what constitues a tropical cyclone and that they are completely unofficial.Jason Rees (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, disagreements between the offical RSMC and a unnofficial center. That's the whole point of this discussion. How we should treat the disagreements between one saying that a depression/storm formed, and the other saying that it is still a invest/low? How we should treat the disagreements between one saying that the system dissipated/transitioned/degenerated and the other saying that it is still going on? How we should treat the disagreements between one saying that the system is a hurricane/typhoon and the other saying that it is still a storm? ABC paulista (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The way we deal with it is looking on a case by case basis at whats going, after all both the JMA and JTWC issue reasoning's for their forecasts in the WPAC. Sometimes you will find that the JTWC stand up because its landfall, while others because its going through the extratropical transition process. I personally feel that we are going around in circles here and that it would be beneficial to you if you wrote an article on a semi-significant TC, as that would help answer any major questions you have.Jason Rees (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I've already done that, and I didn't found that useful at all to answer all these, because I believe that a storm article should contain info from all significant agencies, but always give preference to the official ones. One thing that I've been defending for some time is that we should get rid of this case by case basis as much as possible and always give preference to official sources, using them as a base for all info with the unofficial ones having secondary or supportive roles. ABC paulista (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW (and let me preface this with my longstanding belief that we don't need the timelines for season articles as they are essentially forks), I use the official agencies even outside of their jurisdiction (JMA recognizing something in CPAC territory) as well as any other storms that meet Wiki's verification policy, namely that they are cited by a reputable source, such as Gary Padgett or David Roth, or NOAA/Canadian Hurricane Centre/other national weather center. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink:I do agree with you, but I believe that all unofficial and outside-jurisdiction sources should have secondary roles in storm's and season's articles, giving preference to all official ones regardless the situation, unless when they don't exist to some system. I do think that we should abandon this case-by-case basis practice and starting adopt more standarditation. ABC paulista (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

That is true that the official storms should get preference. We do that already with the named storms, that they are given the main sections. Quite often, the unofficial storms go into an "Other storms" section (unless they caused a lot of impact). I'm not sure why we should stray from going case-by-case. Every season is different, and we should treat them accordingly, presenting the information in the best possible way for the reader. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Because case-by-case is prone to creating many inconsistencies between articles. Some season articles present unofficial storms and/or unofficial dates in timelines, some not. Some season articles present unofficial storms and/or unofficial dates inside infoboxes, some not. Some season articles present unofficial storms and/or unofficial dates inside Season effects' tables, some not. These cases here are far from uncommon, and in the majority of the times these are accompanied by little to no criteria at all. This kind of treatment can be very confusing and misleading to a reader who navigate in more than one article, leading him to believe that one storm is official when it isn't and vice-versa. So there must be some kind of standard to control such cases, what a case-by-case basis cannot do. ABC paulista (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 23

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 23, June-July 2017

• Library card
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Combating misinformation, fake news, and censorship
• Bytes in brief

Chinese, Arabic and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Simple sources

Hi, Jason. As you already know that may main concern in PTS articles is the length of the article and becomes "too big", especially for the Refs section, I have decided that we should use sources just based on JMA and JTWC BT. This is just to reduce the number of sources stated in a storm section. I did some editing in the 2014 PTS article a while ago and used JMA BT for sources. Although if a storm has an article for itself, then we could be free with sources and put as many as we want, I guess. This is just to let you know and your thoughts of it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Typhoon2013:, Can I ask a couple of questions? How are we going to cite deaths and damges to the BT? How are we going to cite things like it developing an eye to BT? Anywho, I like the fact that you want to get the PTS article down to a reasonable size, but there are a couple of ways to do it without resorting to just using the JMA and JTWC BT's like you are suggesting we do. One of the better ones is too make sure the references, that we are using in the season efffects chart are the same ones as in the blurb fro a system. Also we have ATCR's from the JMA and JTWC that can take some of the strain and unoffical sources like Steve Young's tracks, which you might see me slip in rather than another WWJP25 warning at times. However, the best tip I can give you is start writing the blurbs like a story and reworking them at the end of the systems life and we remember that we do not have to include each and every upgrade and cna at times get away with lines like During that day the JMA and PAGASA reproted that the system had developed itno a Tropcial Depression Auring. it woudl also be good if we could get a couple of others to help with the writing especially as i am currently away from home and am gonna be on an SPAC run for the next few days. Jason Rees (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh I should've described more. I'm more talking about the storm's MH. Its effects has its own articles and I'm fine with that. Yep you're right and agree about using the same refs for the SE table. We could share our thoughts more and try to use it in the 2014 PTS article since that one, I would say, is a pretty good article by the looks of it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

From a quick glance 2014 needs gutting overhauling but i think 2016 is a better one to chose for now.Jason Rees (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. 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 reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

ACE for MDs?

If we count ACE Indices for subtropical storms too, then do we count 'monsoon depressions' with 35kts? I am currently finishing the 2015 PTS ACE Indices from JTWC and found out that in Dujuan's BT, there was a period where it had 35kt winds, but it was classified as an 'MD'. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Very sorry. After finding that Choi-wan had the same situation, I also found out that Supportstorm stated that "MD which is = to disturbance". Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

climate of Houston, Texas

Hi, I see that you have reverted some edits in which I changed the unit of measurement of rain in Houston from mm to cm. What I don't understand is your edit summary, which says "the record is measured in mm not cm." Only problem is that the actual record is measured in inches or hundredths of an inch, not in metric units at all. If you can please cite specifically to where the official record is in millimeters, that would be much appreciated? Thank you. 2600:1003:B004:C864:0:9:8E97:3201 (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

At the end of the day rainfall is measured around the world in mm and on wiki we put it in mm, so i dont see why we should put it in CM and thus confuse our readers.Jason Rees (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Category 5 atlantic hurricanes edit

Hey Jason, on an edit you made to List_of_Category_5_Atlantic_hurricanes, back in April, I believe you introduced a few uncited references that still exist today (they show up as the red text in the references section). Did this content originally come from another article or something? If I could get a hint, I could figure things out and fix the missing citations. This mistake usually happens when references are abbreviated with a name, defined at the beginning of an article and as a result when later text is copied to another article, the name doesn't point to any actual citation. I'd appreciate your help! -Verdatum (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Verdatum:, Ill see what I can do over the next couple of days to improve the list, but if you look at their entries on List of retired Atlantic hurricanes you should be able to find the references i think.Jason Rees (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 24

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 24, August-September 2017

• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Star Coordinator Award - last quarter's star coordinator: User:Csisc
• Wikimania Birds of a Feather session roundup
• Spotlight: Wiki Loves Archives
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Kiswahili and Yoruba versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Southeast Pacific TCs

If its true that other TCs and Sub TCs have formed in the Southeast Pacific region, can you please update the article draft with that info? It would be really helpful, especially given the notability of the storm in question (Katie). Also, you should note that the tropical cyclones article currently says that Katie is the first-ever tropical/subtropical system ever observed in the Southeast Pacific. If this is not true, then you should change it, and add in the sources. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I have been unable to find sources/publications on further occurrences. This video was the only thing so far I could find on a "possible" occurrence in June 2017 (which is still after 2015). Could you please provide some links/reports if you have any? Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: Define what the SE Pacific is please as i am not aware of any official/formal defintions and consider it to be within the Eastern Hemisphere and the South Pacific Ocean to the east of 180. In which case all I need to do is to point you to IBTRACS or read our articles on 82-83 91-92 & 97-98 SPAC amongst others. I also note that there is an unofficial system in the 82-83 season, which formed near 110W and will be added to SPEARTC when it is next updated.Jason Rees (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

By "Southeast Pacific", I am referring to the region of the South Pacific Ocean that lies outside the boundaries of any official tropical cyclone agencies' areas of responsibility, namely the areas east of 120°W. Katie was such a storm that formed and remained east of the line throughout its entire existence. BTW, I am unfamiliar with IBTRACS and where to find archived seasonal data reports on the site. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah the problem with using the term SE Pacific is that there are at least 3 different defintions, which we could apply for it, which are the International Dateline (180), 140W (based on NHC's AoR) or 120W (No RSMC's). I personally prefer the international dateline since it neatly avoids any issues with OR and would probably be the most common definitnion. Either way Katie is not the only (sub) tropical feature in the SE Pacific, since as i mentioned there was a tropical depression near 110W in 82-83, which was outside of Nadi's AoR. As for IBTRACS, I find that its easier to use this version of it since it provides BT data from all of the warning center's that warned on a system.Jason Rees (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I have reworded part of the lead in the Katie draft to be much more specific as to the location. Concerning Katie's area of development (outside of official basin lines), I think that Katie would be the second such system. If the June 2017 system was tropical or subtropical, that would make 3 systems forming east of the basin's boundaries. LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that they are the only two systems to have existed outside of the SPAC boudries but i do not have any evidence to confirm or deny this. I would also be very surprised if "Katie" justifies a full blown article, rather than a paragraph in other systems in 2014-15 SPAC. After all it is just an independent researcher (Steve Young) who stated, that it "appeared to meet the definition of a subtropical cyclone." If you must give it an article at least carefully include some of the report that was written on pg S129 about the system.Jason Rees (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000: to ensure he sees this message.Jason Rees (talk) 01:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Most of the data on the Subtropical cyclone is on Page 149. Anyway, I do plan to include info from the report in the draft. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Haikui

As we now have Haikui, should we add the year for Typhoon Haikui (2012)? Especially how I'm making a 2017 Haikui article. Typhoon2013 (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I think we should wait and see what happens and see if this years Haikui reaches typhoon intensity. If it doesnt then we do not need to bother moving the 2012 version imo.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018

So the 2017 WikiCup has come to an end. Congratulations to the winner, to the other finalists and to all those who took part. 177 contestants signed up, more than usual, but not all of them submitted entries in the first round. Were editors attracted by the cash prizes offered for the first time this year, or were these irrelevant? Do the rules and scoring need changing for the 2018 WikiCup? If you have a view on these or other matters, why not join in the WikiCup discussion about next year's contest? Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

SHEM ACE considered as OR?

How is the calculated ACE of SHEM cyclones considered as OR? If all NHEM basin articles states about its ACE, can't we do the same for the SHEM? Also should it be OR, it will of course be from my own calculations, but I use the JTWC/NRL trackfile for this, as usual. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The whole project needs to get out of the habit of calculating ACE, as it is a useless stat that is only used by NHC and the IMD to describe the whole season. Outside of the Atlantic and NIO it is not directly sourced back to anyone post season and we are calculating it differently to the rest of the international community which is original research imo. As a result i do not see the point in adding it in and making more work for ourselves when our article quality isnt the best it could be. You are also using the RSMC boundries rather than the JTWC boundaries to calculate it which isnt right. Jason Rees (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

As long as we calculate it the same way the agencies do, I struggle to see why it's OR or useless. This historically has been a hot topic, but I don't see a good reason not to use ACE for other basins, given that it's calculated for all systems worldwide within the meteorological community. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:42, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

As per YE. Also the ACE must be measured by the JTWC (or 1-min winds) am I correct. Which is also a reason why we warned Keith for doing the PTS ACE using the JMA trackdata instead of JTWC a few months ago. I'm sorry if I didn't notify you about this, if you didn't know about it, which is why we switched to JTWC trackdata of course for all basins. Typhoon2013 (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We are not doing it the same way as the agencies though, since most of the RSMC/TCWCs including the JTWC do not calculate it.Jason Rees (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Also @Yellow Evan: If its calculated for all systems worldwide by the meterological community, where are the ACE Calculations for Cempaka or TC 22U?. Until they are included and the calculations publically done by Nadi, BoM and Reunion, I will always consider it OR, trivia and a uselss stat, since it doesnt really tell us how active a season was when significant systems are missing. Jason Rees (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I really find this confusing because ACE is not really OR. I don't know but I oppose, we should be mentioning ACE Indices for all basins. Otherwise, perhaps we could use both ACE by the JTWC and RSMC, though ACE states that it uses winds of 1-min sus instead of 3 or 10. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I want other users to be aware of this discussion as well. I would separate this to another talk page. Typhoon2013 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: We shouldnt be including ACE by either warning center, when we are calculating it ourselves and telling our readers that it is X, when we dont know that and are missing out significant systems such as Cempuka and 22U. It is also a useless stat that isnt even calculated, by any of the warning centers except the IMD and NHC. As I pointed out earlier in response to @Yellow Evan:s comment, wheres the ace for Cempaka or TC 22U? Also which systems do you include? how about the depressions with 35 kt or 50 kt winds? That is why we need it coming from the warning centers themselves and not us calculating it based on what the NHC thinks it should be. Also im fairly sure that the MOS says keep the discussion in one place.Jason Rees (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jason Rees. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 25

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 25, October – November 2017

• OAWiki & #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: Research libraries and Wikimedia
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Korean and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Jason Rees. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this weird?

Hi, JR. I don't know if this is weird because we all know that Wikipedia is Wikipedia and we edit articles. But I don't feel comfortable with this user anymore and this user thinks she is better than anyone else and just attacks people instead of kindly saying it. I went to you instead because you're absolutely fine and do trust you a lot. Thanks so much. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I know the editor you are talking about and what has happened to make you concerned, however, I'm not sure I feel comfortable commenting publically about it at this stage. This is because I have had had various uncivil interactions with her in the past off-wiki. I also note that @Yellow Evan and Jasper Deng: have already commented on this discussion. However, if you still wish to seek some support then I would advise you to go to the WP:Administrators Noticeboard.Jason Rees (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Jason Rees. AfC submissions Random submission ~7 weeks 1,460 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Hilda

I should've told you this earlier, but per BoM's forecast map, it showed that the system had reached cat2 intensity, though it was only a cat1 per its bulletins. Should we just stick to cat1 as that is our only source? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Stick to Cat 1 for now since your the only person who has seen higher than 45 kts . When the PTCR comes out then we will review it.Jason Rees (talk) 12:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Cat 2 for Hilda is now confirmed in the TC Database.Jason Rees (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Raquel pt2

Just realized this. So we pretty much sorted Bolaven out already as it was considered to be part of both the 2017 and 2018 seasons. Then should we do the same for Raquel? Typhoon2013 (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No we do not count it towards both seasons because while it is a part of both seasons it is only counted for 2014-15 by the WMO/BoM, since it reached TC intensity just inside the SPAC at 18z on June 30. It is only the fact that the JMA considered Bolaven to be a tropical depression in 2017 that we include it in the 2017 PTS other systems.Jason Rees (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Besides which you really need to stop thinking that the PTS is a season, it runs year round and never really ends.Jason Rees (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

inclusion of a storm?

Hi JR, I noticed that this storm on IBTrACS was a 35 kt unnamed tropical storm in the 1968-69 SWIO season, but that it was not on the article. Although, it has no track from Reunion listed in IBTrACS, Neumann cites Reunion as the source for his data. I was wondering if you knew anything about it and whether we should include it in the season article. atomic7732 21:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the system, however, a look at the tracking data for the system, reveals that it would have been in the Australian region when it was active. However, I cannot see anything in the Aus or Reunion DB's for such a system.Jason Rees (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking through the global tropical/extratropical cyclone atlas we have available to us, I found this report which seems to be relevant and calling the system a tropical depression.Jason Rees (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't believe it is Berthe. This is the data for Bettina-Berthe, note the difference in location and timing. 12S existed east of Berthe after it already formed. Also, do we use the 80E boundary for the seasons when that was the boundary? I thought we used the current bounds. atomic7732 01:51, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

While we use the current boundaries for all seasons there is no harm in potentially including this system in an "other systems" section in Aus 68-69. We also have to bear it in mind when dealing with cases like this as BoM may have information that Reunion doesn't.Jason Rees (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

If BoM has information on it, it's not in their best track. I would guess it was probably 06U. atomic7732 03:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

BoM would have had information on the system at the time since they were the warning centre in charge of the system not Reunion. Anyway I’ll have another look at that data tomorrow, when I have a fresh pair of eyes.Jason Rees (talk) 03:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

IABot Revert

Re: this edit. Please see this for an explanation. He requested I revert all of his bot's edits within a certain time frame, anticipating that some false positives would be reverted. Thanks. Nihlus 00:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 26

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 26, December – January 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• User Group update
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: What can we glean from OCLC’s experience with library staff learning Wikipedia?
• Bytes in brief

Arabic and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Cyclone Gita

On 14 February 2018, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cyclone Gita, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T♦C 00:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary editions

enlace=

Hello, JasonRees. I'll appreciate it if you do not arbitrarily edit the pages; other editors lose valuable time by reversing your actions and tarnish the image that an occasional Wikipedia visitor can make. In addition, arbitrary editions can be considered an act of vandalism (which would force us to block you). You can visit the help page to get information and you have the test area to do editing tests. Thank you.--TheHurricaneEditorMaker (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@TheHurricaneEditorMaker: Please do not accuse me of being arbitrary editing, when you have randomly come on to Wikipedia and removed a decent SE chart without explaning why that contained references and complied to important policys like WP:Verification and WP:MOS. It also allowed us to sort the data in various ways and has the same format as the tables in other regions like the WPAC, NIO and SHEM. If you dont like that then feel free to raise your issues.Jason Rees (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi

I wanted to let you know that on 2017 Pacific typhoon season#International names I tried to make the text disappear. Not make it visible. Also both you and the other editor actually made the text visible. So I fixed it. Sincerely, IP user 2602:306:8BB9:4E20:3CC6:3B6D:0:4E10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8BB9:4E20:3CC6:3B6D:0:4E10 (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. With 53 contestants qualifying, the groups for round 2 are slightly smaller than usual, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining users.

Our top scorers in round 1 were:

• Aoba47 led the field with a featured article, 8 good articles and 42 GARs, giving a total of 666 points.
• FrB.TG , a WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points, gained from a featured article and masses of bonus points.
• Ssven2, another WikiCup newcomer, was in third place with 403 points, garnered from a featured article, a featured list, a good article and twelve GARs.
• Ceranthor, Numerounovedant, Carbrera, Farang Rak Tham and Cartoon network freak all had over 200 points, but like all the other contestants, now have to start again from scratch. A good achievement was the 193 GARs performed by WikiCup contestants, comparing very favourably with the 54 GAs they achieved.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. 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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) and Vanamonde (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Cyclone Hola

Can you start the MH on Hola since I put an article up for it? You seemed to do pretty good with the MH for Gita so I think some of your work could be appreciated there too. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 27

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 27, February – March 2018

• #1Lib1Ref
• New collections
  • Alexander Street (expansion)
  • Cambridge University Press (expansion)
• User Group
• Global branches update
  • Wiki Indaba Wikipedia + Library Discussions
• Spotlight: Using librarianship to create a more equitable internet: LGBTQ+ advocacy as a wiki-librarian
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I need help Jason, Please

Hi Jason I’m new here and I have been getting blocked for no reason lately.

I got unblocked by another administrator though because he saw my request and then spoke to the person who blocked me. But then he did it again. I got unblocked again by the same user and then the other user tried to block me again. I feel like I being abused. I just a kid too. Can you help. I feel mad and stressed about this guy. New person ~ 17:59 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:8400:5210:C081:8F62:A618:5ECB (talk)

Jason um I need help. Can you help me out? ~ 18:17 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:8400:5210:19C0:587:93FD:1C2E (talk)

Hi, I have only just picked up these messages and will look into seeing what I can do to help.Jason Rees (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Favonian: Can you shed any light on whats going on? I notice from your user page that your keeping tabs on a user from Massachusetts who you think is disrupting several hurricane-related articles. However, from what I can see most of the edits that are going on are minor stuff like the removal of white spaces and windspeed changes which can be dealt with by educating the user a little bit about how things work.Jason Rees (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. This person is a recurring problem, editing primarily from the ranges 2601:18A:8280:47C3:0:0:0:0/64 and 2601:18A:8400:5210:0:0:0:0/64. Check out their contributions. "Confused" would be the mildest description, including among other things Gollum/Smeagol act. Favonian (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Looking through the edits the editor appears to be rather confused about things but is understandable when you consider that the person is apparently just a kid and that hurricanes are one of those topics which seem to attract young editors. As a result, I think that the best solution is to try and engage with the user and educate them rather than accuse them of being a troll or blocking them.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Mitch

Hi Jason So today a unknown person edited Hurricane Mitch on Wikipedia. HurricaneMichael99 (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

So what? Anyone can edit Wikipedia and any article in theory.Jason Rees (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia tropical cyclone project

Ok I want to join this group as I love hurricanes and tropical cyclones. I know them Alot.

How do I join the project and get some help? Tardis 9:59 AM (EDT)

@Tardis459: - check your talk page! :) Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 May newsletter

The second round of the 2018 WikiCup has now finished. Most contestants who advanced to the next round scored upwards of 100 points, but two with just 10 points managed to scrape through into round 3. Our top scorers in the last round were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with three featured articles
• Iazyges, with nine good articles and lots of bonus points
• Yashthepunisher, a first time contestant, with two featured lists
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with seventeen good topic articles
• Usernameunique, a first time contestant, with fourteen DYKs
• Muboshgu, a seasoned competitor, with three ITNs and
• Courcelles, another first time contestant, with twenty-seven GARs

So far contestants have achieved twelve featured articles between them and a splendid 124 good articles. Commendably, 326 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2018 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. As we enter 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 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met; most of the GARs are fine, but a few have been a bit skimpy.

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 28

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 28, April – May 2018

• #1Bib1Ref
• New partners
  • Rock's Backpages
  • Invaluable
  • Termsoup
• User Group update
• Global branches update
  • Wikipedia Library global coordinators' meeting
• Spotlight: What are the ten most cited sources on Wikipedia? Let's ask the data
• Bytes in brief

Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 July newsletter

The third round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Courcelles, a first time contestant, with 1756 points, a tally built largely on 27 GAs related to the Olympics
• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three GAs on natural history and astronomy topics
• SounderBruce, a finalist last year, with a variety of submissions related to transport in the state of Washington

Contestants managed 7 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 120 good articles, 1 good topic, 124 DYK entries, 15 ITN entries, and 132 good article reviews. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 458 GA reviews, in comparison to 244 good articles submitted for review and promoted. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process; several submissions, particularly in abstruse or technical areas, have needed additional work to make them completely verifiable.

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk), Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Tropical Cyclones in 2010

For the Tropical cyclones in 2010, I was adding each storm that had some impact on land (deaths and damage) or set records. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 12:59, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I narrowed down the 2010 Systems section on the page to 22 storms that either killed a large amount of people or caused a lot of damage (there were a few that did both). In the case of Darby, I just added it because it affected 60,000 people which makes it notable. I would like ideas for other things that can be included on the page. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 19:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Hurricane Hector (2018) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hurricane Hector (2018) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hurricane Hector (2018) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Hector (2018)

Hey, was just wondering what you think about the Hurricane Hector (2018) article. I have been working hard to get a decent article developed for Hector over the last week. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 23:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

RE: Well... Hector did set 2 records along with the highest ACE since John in '94. It also resulted in 90+ people needing to be rescued due to high surf. Additionally, it is somewhat rare for a hurricane to reach category 4 status 3 times.

I also removed one category mention and a mistake someone else made. No need for Cat 5 to be mentioned at all since it wasn't reached.Figfires^{Send me a message!} 16:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

RE: Well... I am going to AfD Hector. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 17:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

RE Appears the majority disagrees thus far. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of User:Jason Rees/PAGASA

There was a corresponding talk page with what appears to be reference links. I assumed you wanted the talk page deleted, too, but if you want it back, I can restore it for you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Gogo Dodo: - I'm in the midst of having a clear out and don't want it back.Jason Rees (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

ACE Table

Do you think that this could be of use somewhere? I got tired of calculating ACE so I made a table of values. Figfires^{Send me a message!} 22:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm personally wondering why your wasting your time on such a useless metric that is only used by NOAA and the IMD to judge how active a season. By calculating it for areas other than the 3 basins that are defined you are assuming that the calculations for the WPAC, SPAC Aus etc are the same which is OR especially since the pierod used for maximum sustained wind speed changes from 1 to 10 minutes. However, I am only wasting my time by telling you that your wasting yours here and you are free to wase your time however you wish.Jason Rees (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Cook and Donna

Both tracks are finally updated – I converted the Wellington winds from 10-min to 1-min to match the JTWC best track points. :) — Iunetalk 18:45, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 29

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 29, June – July 2018

• New partners
  • Economic & Political Weekly–10 accounts
• Wikimania
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

Hindi, Italian and French versions of Books & Bytes are now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 September newsletter

The fourth round of the 2018 WikiCup has now come to an end. The eight users who made it to the final round had to score a minimum of 422 points to qualify, with the top score in the round being 4869 points. The leaders in round 4 were:

• Courcelles scored a magnificent 4869 points, with 92 good articles on Olympics-related themes. Courcelles' bonus points alone exceeded the total score of any of the other contestants!
• Kees08 was second with 1155 points, including a high-scoring featured article for Neil Armstrong, two good topics and some Olympics-related good articles.
• Cas Liber, with 1066 points, was in third place this round, with two featured articles and a good article, all on natural history topics.
• Other contestants who qualified for the final round were Nova Crystallis, Iazyges, SounderBruce, Kosack and Ceranthor.

During round four, 6 featured articles and 164 good articles were promoted by WikiCup contestants, 13 articles were included in good topics and 143 good article reviews were performed. There were also 10 "in the news" contributions on the main page and 53 "did you knows". Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best editor win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Irene retirement

There is nothing wrong with my edit. It is relevant regardless. Irma was retired in the 2017 season. Even if I put the sentence in parentheses it still gives the information.

In rhetoric, a parenthesis (plural: parentheses; from the Ancient Greek word παρένθεσις parénthesis 'injection, insertion', literally '(a) putting in beside') or parenthetical phrase is an explanatory or qualifying word, clause, or sentence inserted into a passage. The parenthesis could be left out and still form grammatically correct text.[1] Parentheses are usually marked off by round or square brackets, dashes, or commas. -Wikipedia, Parenthesis

Other articles say the same thing I said. Hurricanes Allen and Mitch said what I was trying to say. So please understand that it's not fair that I can't edit what ever I want to edit.Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok. If Idalia get retired in the 2023 Season then I will say it on the Irma page. I will not go back to Irene and say it because you are getting further away from the topic. One sentence should be enough on each page. So yeah I would not go that far anyway.Flasty Jam 2 (talk) 16:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Allen

Why would you do that? Maybe I shouldn't have told you. Now you ruined it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flasty Jam 2 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

STC Katie and Lexi

Why only Lexi deleted, what difference about them ? 116.105.225.59 (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Lexi went through the articles for deletion process and it was decided to merge/redirect it to the South Pacific cyclone season. I may propose Katie for the same process but first, I want the project to look at exactly what we are monitoring and adding in as unofficial systems.Jason Rees (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why Katie is more important and has to have an article and Lexi doesn't wny don't you just merge or something Northatlantic320 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

See Talk:Subtropical Cyclone Katie#Merge ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Northatlantic320: I dont think that either are notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, yet alone take the view that Katie is more important than Lexi.Jason Rees (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Apparent confusion/​conflation between Naval Research Lab and JTWC

The "claim" that JTWC designated and tracked "Q" systems in South Atlantic came from whoever wrote (or last edited) Invest (meteorology) before I joined Wikipedia. After reading South Atlantic tropical cyclone, I found out the truth: it wasn't JTWC, but Naval Research Laboratory-Monterey's Marine Meteorological Division who tracked 90Q systems. Since both JTWC and NRL fall within the command of the U.S. Navy, it appears that the article's author conflated/confused the two. So I fixed the table template, and also fixed the flawed claim on the invest article to avoid any further confusions. SilSinn9821 (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone numbering

Thankee for expanding the table, although I had to clean up formatting a little bit for self-consistency. Can you also provide references supporting the numbering scheme used by non-US warning centers? SilSinn9821 (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ill have a look around over the next few days for specific references to the numbering schemes - ive got a few in mind but need to double check them first. However, if your in a rush then look at the various season articles for references to the numbering schemes.Jason Rees (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I discovered another suffix, this one by UK's Met Office. They use "T" instead of "Q" for S Atlantic, even though for everything else, they use the JTWC letters and the "L" that NHC omits for its N Atlantic systems (but not for invests). SilSinn9821 (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 30

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 30, August – Septmeber 2018

• Library Card translation
• Spotlight: 1Lib1Ref spreads to the Southern Hemisphere and beyond
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available in meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Who is Euston?

You mentioned that name when discussing what could happen if the cyclone number limit of 30 observed by the NHC version of ATCF (which apparently differs somewhat from the JTWC version which goes up to 49) was ever exceeded. Who is Euston? (BTW we already have TC-31W aka Yutu, or shall I say TY-31W or even ST-31W?) SilSinn9821 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of the famous line ie: Houston we have a problem l. However, I ended up spelling it as in the train station without really thinking about it.Jason Rees (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ex-Tropical Cyclone Liua

@Jason Rees: Hi Jason. I just wanted to address a couple of things regarding our disagreement over whether or not Liua was an ex-tropical cyclone in the Australian region.

Firstly, the 00 UTC 29 September MSLP chart from the Bureau of Meteorology supports my position. The low-pressure system associated with Tropical Cyclone Liua is displayed at around 13°S 159°E, which is within the Australian region by a margin of 1 degree of longitude. The system is represented by a capital 'L' to denote the existence of a low-pressure system. This fact is significant, because the Bureau of Meteorology denotes systems of tropical cyclone intensity with a separate tropical cyclone symbol, replacing the 'L'. This is exemplified here with both Severe Tropical Storm Bouchra and Cyclonic Storm Gaja (referred to as merely 'tropical cyclone' in both cases). I don't know how much you know about the Bureau of Meteorology, but I am Australian, so I am pretty familiar with most of their products and services, and I can vouch that this is always the case. Additionally, above the 'L' in the 29 September MSLP chart I provided, the text 'Ex-TC Liua' is visible, although the letter 'E' is obscured by the low-pressure system symbol. Another example of this, just to show that it isn't a coincidental occurrence, is with Tropical Cyclone Iris in April 2018. This chart shows Iris as a category 1 cyclone, and the next chart (six hours later) shows that it has weakened to a tropical low, with the label 'Ex-TC Iris'. Note that during the time that the BOM still considers the system a tropical low, the 'Ex-TC ___' label is usually present on MSLP charts accompanying the 'L', rather than just the 'L' by itself like in any normal low-pressure system. As a result, I believe it is clear that my reference to the tropical low form of Liua as 'Ex-Tropical Cyclone Liua' is accurate and in accordance with the BOM's usage.

Secondly, Liua was not considered a tropical low between 25 and 26 September by the Bureau of Meteorology. No mention of this was made in the daily Tropical Cyclone Outlook for the Eastern Region on these days (the daily outlooks can be found here). Unfortunately, no archives of these outlooks exist, so you'll have to take my word for it that the system wasn't mentioned (and believe me, I wanted it to be mentioned, because I really wanted to be able to begin the 2018-19 Australian season). Further evidence of the fact that Liua was not a tropical low in the Australian region is that the designation of the system was 01F, not 01U, meaning it was classified by the Fiji Meteorological Service, specifically when at coordinates 10.0°S 160.1°E (so almost in the Australian region, but not quite). The advisory from the FMS that supports this is here. Even if it had been classified as a tropical low while in the Australian region, that would not preclude it being an ex-tropical cyclone later on, as you stated in your edit summary.

Thirdly, it's not really useless trivia. If that was the case, then most of what cyclone articles are is useless trivia. This is because damage totals, maximum sustained wind speed, sea surface temperatures beneath the system and things like that aren't really that useful after the event. They're just interesting things to know. The only real non-trivial information in cyclone articles is 'what happened' in a human sense. That is, the actual destruction it caused, or impacts it had, on human communities. It isn't necessary to remove a two-line point about an interesting note regarding Ex-Liua. It doesn't detract from the article; rather, I would contend that it actually adds more good content. I do, however, acknowledge your assertion that it is at present unsourced. I will rectify that issue as best I can.

Hopefully all of this makes sense. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask! ChocolateTrain (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jason Rees. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Greetings

Good to meet at WMUK just now. Andrew D. (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed @Andrew Davidson:}.Jason Rees (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to join WPTC project

I would like to have my username added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Participants, but it says I must first be invited via {{WP:WPTC/Invite}}. I have previously improved articles on some ancient hurricanes hitting Puerto Rico, like Great Hurricane of 1780 and 1928 Okeechobee hurricane, plus improved Invest (meteorology) to the point that it was no longer considered a stub article, and I would like to draft an article on Tropical cyclone numbering (basically a spin-off of a section within Tropical cyclone) and also translate some of the articles to Spanish. --SilSinn9821 (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Convert errors

FYI regarding your recent edit to 2016–17 South Pacific cyclone season, the use of disp=5 is no longer supported by {{convert}}. Checkout what happens when you preview {{convert|210|km|mi|disp=5|abbr=on}} and you will see that there is an error message. I saw this because it populated Category:Convert errors. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Yeah i was aware of the change to the convert template - im just so used to typing disp=5 that its just second nature to me.Jason Rees (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool. No biggie, just wanted to make sure. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 31

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018

• OAWiki
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Raja

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclone Raja you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricane Noah -- Hurricane Noah (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Raja

The article Cyclone Raja you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cyclone Raja for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Noah^Talk 18:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 32

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 32, January – February 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• New and expanded partners
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

• Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
• Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
• Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
• Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, Ceranthor, Lee Vilenski, and Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter 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 14 days of "earning" them.

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

TFA

This is to let you know that the Cyclone Raja article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 11, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 11, 2019.—Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Veronica article

Hi Jason. I see what you're saying with regards to not hiding the main article link. However, I can't move the stub Veronica article to draft space because a redirect exists at Draft:Cyclone Veronica. Regardless, the current article is lacking severely in several areas, and it certainly does not warrant being called the main article, or even to be in mainspace. I discussed this on She-Hulka's talk page, as that is the editor who created the article, but I am yet to receive any acknowledgement regarding this or my numerous edit summaries to that effect. Perhaps you could help with moving the article somewhere? ChocolateTrain (talk) 12:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi @ChocolateTrain:, I cant move it to draft space either as I am not an Administrator of Wikipedia. (HurricaneHink, Cyclonebiskit and Juliancolton have each received the mop). Also, I realise that while it is a good idea for articles to be well developed before they are published etc, we are allowed and are encouraged to create articles that are shall we say not so well developed. I have done it plenty of times in the past, hell even the season articles are not well developed and are obviously lacking a lot of information when they are published.Jason Rees (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Yeah, that is true. I suppose we can leave the links in. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Ann affected areas

@Jason Rees: Hi there again. I'd just like to discuss the affected areas for Cyclone Ann and see what your opinion is. Early in the cyclone's lifetime, there was a significant amount of convection over the southern semicircle of the system's circulation. This extended down to northern New Caledonia (see here). At the time, I checked on the Météo-France New Caledonia website, and it showed sustained winds in the mid to high 30 km/h range in areas on the northern and northwestern coasts, and these winds may have increased later on. Admittedly, I didn't archive the website, so I don't have a surviving source for this. It may also be the case that the increased winds were due in part to a trough that was located nearby around the same time. Regarding Papua New Guinea, as far as I know, there is no way of checking weather observations on the PNG National Weather Service's website. The reason I added the country to the list of affected areas (it should really just be 'Southern Papua New Guinea') was because the cyclone came within about 400 km of the coastline, so it is likely that there was at least a swell or some higher waves along the coast at some point (400 km is not a very long way on a geographical scale in terms of cyclones). Also, in the peak intensity image in the infobox, the outer rainband can be seen actually crossing southeastern Papua New Guinea. As such, there may have been some showers or increased winds in the area. I don't really mind if they're taken away as affected areas. I'll leave it up to you. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: My feeling has always been to be very very careful about areas affected and would prefer to have a written source for areas affected unless its obvious so that we can satisfy WP:Verification. In this case as you have admitted it isnt clear clear that Ann affected PNG or New Cal while i would wonder about Vanuatu.Jason Rees (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 WPTC Newsletter

Volume XIV, Issue 39, May 31, 2019 The Hurricane Herald is the arbitrarily periodical newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The newsletter aims to provide in summary the recent activities and developments of the WikiProject, in addition to global tropical cyclone activity. The Hurricane Herald has been running since its first edition ran on June 4, 2006; it has been almost thirteen years since that time. If you wish to receive or discontinue subscription to this newsletter, please visit the mailing list. This issue of The Hurricane Herald covers all project related events from April 14–May 31, 2019. This edition's editor and author is Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs). Please visit this page and bookmark any suggestions of interest to you. This will help improve the newsletter and other cyclone-related articles. Past editions can be viewed here. ← 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 →

Article of the month, by Jason Rees History of tropical cyclone naming - The practice of using names to identify tropical cyclones goes back several centuries, with storms named after places, saints or things they hit before the formal start of naming in each basin. The credit for the first usage of personal names for weather systems is given to the Queensland Government Meteorologist Clement Wragge, who named tropical cyclones and anticyclones between 1887 and 1907. This system of naming fell into disuse for several years after Wragge retired, until it was revived in the latter part of World War II for the Western Pacific basin. Over the following decades, various naming schemes have been introduced for the world's oceans, including for parts of the Atlantic, Pacific and the Indian Ocean. The majority of these lists are compiled by the World Meteorological Organization's tropical cyclone committee for the region and include names from different cultures as well as languages. Over the years there has been controversy over the names used at various times, with names being dropped for religious and political reasons. For example, female names were exclusively used in the basins at various times between 1945 - 2000 and were the subject of several protests. The names of significant tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and Australian region are retired from the naming lists and replaced with another name, at meetings of the various tropical cyclone committees. Storm of the month and other tropical activity Cyclone Fani was an extremely severe cyclonic storm that made landfall in Odisha, India on May 3. The storm achieved peak intensity as a near Category 5-equivalent cyclone with 3-minute sustained winds of 215 km/h (130 mph), 1-minute sustained winds of 250 km/h (155 mph), and a minimum central pressure of 937 hPa (mbar). Fani caused over $1.8 billion (2019 USD) in damage in India and Bangladesh and killed at least 89 people. Since the last newsletter, twelve systems have formed. Southwest Indian Ocean In the Southwest Indian Ocean, Cyclone Kenneth made landfall in Mozambique approximately 1 month after Cyclone Idai, causing widespread flooding and destruction. Overall, Kenneth killed at least 52 people and caused more than $100 million in damage. Additionally, Tropical Cyclone Lorna formed over the eastern portion of the basin in late April and dissipated in early May without affecting land. Australian Region In the Australian Region, cyclones Lili and Ann formed in early May and both affected land. No deaths were reported, although Lili caused moderate damage in the Maluku Islands and East Timor. South Pacific In the South Pacific, a tropical depression formed in mid-may, but failed to intensify and dissipated a few days later. South Atlantic In the South Atlantic, Subtropical Storm Jaguar formed in late May and lasted for approximately two days before becoming extratropical. Western Pacific In the Western Pacific, three weak tropical depressions existed during the first half of May. North Atlantic In the North Atlantic, Subtropical Storm Andrea formed on the same day as Jaguar, but failed to intensify and dissipated on the next day. The Eastern Pacific hurricane season began on May 15. The Atlantic hurricane season will begin at 2:00 AM EDT on June 1. The Central Pacific hurricane season will begin sometime after 12:00 AM HST on June 1. Recent storms of the month Edition Storm 36 Cyclone Idai 35 Typhoon Wutip (2019) New WikiProject Members since the last newsletter in April 2019 More information can be found here. This list lists members who have joined/rejoined the WikiProject since the release of the last issue in April 2019. Sorted chronologically. Struckout users denote users who have left or have been banned. Super Typhoon Eden (talk · contribs) SaiTheCyclone (talk · contribs) To our new members: welcome to the project, and happy editing! Feel free to check the to-do list at the bottom right of the newsletter for things that you might want to work on. To our veteran members: thank you for your edits and your tireless contributions! Editorial for welcoming new users, by Hurricanehink Every year, editors new and old help maintain the new season of season articles. The older users are likely used to the standards of the project, such as how to Wikilink and reference properly. Newer users might make mistakes, and they might make them over and over again if they don't know better. If anyone (who happens to read this) comes across a new user, please don't bite, because with enough pushback, they'll decide that this group of editors is too mean, and unfun. This is all a volunteer project; no one can force anyone to do anything. We're all on here because of our love of knowledge and tropical cyclones. If you find someone new, consider using the official WPTC welcome template - Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Welcome. I also encourage that if you know any tropical cyclone researchers, please speak up and try recruiting them to edit. Veteran editors can't keep editing forever. Life gets busy, and the real world beckons! Member of the month (edition) – Yellow Evan Yellow Evan has been involved with WPTC since 2008. Since the last newsletter, Yellow Evan has taken 5 typhoon articles to good article status as well as created 2 more. Overall, he has created and/or significantly contributed to more than 130 good articles. Your work in the Western Pacific Basin is invaluable... Thank you for your contributions! Latest WikiProject Alerts The following are the latest article developments as updated by AAlertBot, as of the publishing of this issue. Due to the bot workings, some of these updates may seem out of place; nonetheless, they are included here. Article alerts Articles for deletion 02 Dec 2024 – Hurricane Severity Index (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by ChrisWx (t · c); see discussion (2 participants) Templates for discussion 02 Dec 2024 – Template:Most intense landfalling Atlantic hurricanes (HSI) (talk · edit · hist) was TfDed by ChrisWx (t · c); see discussion Featured list candidates 22 Oct 2024 – Timeline of the 2019 Pacific typhoon season (talk · edit · hist) was FL nominated by JCMLuis (t · c); see discussion Good article nominees 01 Dec 2024 – Typhoon Ampil (2024) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by HurricaneEdgar (t · c); start discussion 29 Nov 2024 – Typhoon Surigae (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by JayTee32 (t · c); start discussion 25 Nov 2024 – Tropical Storm Prapiroon (2024) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by HurricaneEdgar (t · c); start discussion 18 Nov 2024 – Tropical Storm Maria (2024) (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by HurricaneEdgar (t · c); start discussion 24 Oct 2024 – Hurricane Wilma (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by 12george1 (t · c); start discussion 09 Apr 2024 – 1873 Atlantic hurricane season (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by 12george1 (t · c); start discussion Good article reassessments 06 Nov 2024 – Hurricane Allen (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by JCMLuis (t · c); see discussion Articles to be merged 28 Nov 2024 – Tropical Storm Katrina (1999) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 1999 Atlantic hurricane season by Zzzs (t · c); see discussion 18 Nov 2024 – Hurricane Hernan (2002) (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to 2002 Pacific hurricane season by Zzzs (t · c); see discussion 05 Nov 2024 – Tropical Storm Agatha (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Effects of Tropical Storm Agatha in Guatemala by 74.101.118.218 (t · c); see discussion 05 Nov 2024 – Effects of Tropical Storm Agatha in Guatemala (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Tropical Storm Agatha by 74.101.118.218 (t · c); see discussion 21 Nov 2024 – Typhoon Rex (talk · edit · hist) proposed for merging to 1998 Pacific typhoon season by Accordthemusician (t · c) was closed; see discussion Articles to be split 19 Nov 2024 – Hurricane Helene (talk · edit · hist) proposed for splitting by Ponyo (t · c) was closed; see discussion Updated daily by AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature? Click to watch (Subscribe via  RSS  Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics! Featured Content This section lists content that have become featured, articles and lists, since the past newsletter in mid-April 2019. From April 14–May 31, 2019, 1 featured article was promoted: Cyclone Raja Featured article reviews are currently open for the 1900 Galveston hurricane and Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018) Featured list review is open for the Timeline of the 2018 Atlantic hurricane season WikiProject Tropical Cyclones: News & Developments An awards program for the project began on May 31. It involves 25 levels that may be gained by earning points for completing various actions such as getting good or featured articles. Additional awards will be added in the future. As of this news letter, there are more articles ranked a good article or better (1317) than articles ranked B-class or worse (1272), for the first time in the project's history. Every Atlantic hurricane season from 1945 to 2007 is rated at least a GA. That is an impressive feat, and an incredibly body of work among many editors. Cyclone Raja became the 150th featured article in the project. Thanks to all of the editors and their tireless edits for writing 2.7% of all of Wikipedia's featured articles. In the 24 hours after Hurricane Michael's TCR was released, the article on the hurricane was edited 82 times by 18 different users. In March 2019, the most popular article in the project was Cyclone Idai, viewed 231,969 times during the month. The generic cyclone was 2nd most popular, with 131,080 views. In 3rd place was Hurricane Katrina with 112,283 views. Included in the top 20 were the 2018 and 19 Atlantic hurricane seasons, hurricanes Michael, Florence, Irma, Maria, and Harvey, and the 1896 Cedar Keys hurricane, which was TFA on March 20th. New articles since the last newsletter include: Cyclone Veronica List of Eastern Pacific tropical storms (2000–present) Tropical cyclones by year - from 2000 to present, there were 2,490 tropical cyclones of various intensity, causing a collective $1 trillion in damage and 200,000 deaths Tropical cyclones in the Mascarene Islands Typhoon Percy (1990) Tropical Storm Rolf Cyclone Ann Cyclone Lili (2019) Cyclone Savannah Typhoon Eli (1992) New GA's include: 1900 Galveston hurricane 1974 Atlantic hurricane season 1977 Pacific hurricane season 2015 Pacific hurricane season Effects of Hurricane Floyd in Florida Hurricane Dora (1999) Tropical Storm Carlotta (2018) Tropical Storm Irving (1992) Typhoon Janis (1992) Typhoon Kent Typhoon Ofelia Typhoon Robyn (1993) Current assessment table Assessments valid as of this printing. Depending on when you may be viewing this newsletter, the table may be outdated. See here for the latest, most up to date statistics. As of this issue, there are 150 featured articles and 69 featured lists. There are 142 A-class articles, but that number is subject to change, depending if we mandate that all A-class articles have an A-class review first. There are 956 good articles, meaning it is possible we get to our 1000th GA by the end of the year. There are only 61 B-class articles, perhaps because because most articles of that quality already passed a GA review. There are 350 C-class articles, 720 start-class articles, and 141 stub-class articles, with 29 lists and 8 current articles. The number of lists may decrease further as the "Tropical cyclone X" articles continue to be reclassified as set index articles. These figures mean that nearly half of the project is rated a GA or better - including the lists/current/future articles, there are 1272 articles that are below GA status, versus 1317 that are GA or better. About the assessment scale → From the Main Page From the Main Page documents WikiProject related materials that have appeared on the main page from April 14–May 31, 2019 in chronological order. Today's Featured Article May 4 - Tropical Storm Nicole (2010) May 15 - Tropical Depression Nineteen-E (2018) Did you know...? WikiProject To-Do Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Original-content tropical cyclone articles: 1936 Mid-Atlantic hurricane, List of Eastern Pacific tropical storms and other intensity lists, Typhoon Yancy (1990), 1971 Odisha cyclone, Cyclone Gervaise, Cyclone Sid, Cyclone Keni, more Wikify: Make sure tropical cyclone lists, such as List of Texas hurricanes, have storm articles properly linked Cleanup: Hurricane Rita, Hurricane Wilma, Tropical Storm Fay (2002), Tropical cyclones in 2017 Expand: Indianola Hurricane of 1886, Typhoon Nina (1975), Typhoon Durian, Tropical cyclones in 2016/2015/2014, List of Category 1 Pacific hurricanes, Pacific hurricane season timelines Stubs: 1876 Bengal cyclone, 1978 Sri Lanka cyclone, Cyclone Prema, List of off-season Australian region tropical cyclones, List of Texas hurricanes (pre-1900), Typhoon Fred (1994), more... WPTC 15th Anniversary push: some goals for the 15th year of WPTC include the creation or improvement of many other articles listed in the first section on the WPTC talk page. Project Goals & Progress The following is the current progress on the three milestone goals set by the WikiProject as of this publishing. They can be found, updated, at the main WikiProject page. 250 featured pages: 87.2% complete 150 featured articles: 99.3% complete 1500 good articles: 87.2% complete All articles to C-class or better: 66.8% complete Write the next issue of The Hurricane Herald →

Noah^Talk 21:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you for Cyclone Raja, a severe tropical cyclone which impacted the South Pacific over the New Year of 1986/87! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion

@Jason Rees: Do you reckon you'd be able to give me a little help defending the templates that I made for the C2, C3 and C4 Australian region cyclones? B dash has nominated them for deletion, unfortunately. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I will try since im working on the articles.Jason Rees (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
• Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
• SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
• Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Barbara and solar eclipse

Hi Jason. I was wondering if you know how to download an animated clip of several satellite images from the RAMMB/CIRA slider image viewer. The path of the shadow of yesterday's total solar eclipse across the southern Pacific Ocean is clearly visible south of Hurricane Barbara nearing peak intensity. It is a very cool series of images, and it would look great in an article, but I have never been able to download images or clips from that website. Here is a link for you to take a look. ChocolateTrain (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

(in)Civility

Take your smarmy edit summary and shove it up your ass. DrKay (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@DrKay:, I only saw your talk page comment above, not the original edit summary, but please use less heated words if you have a dispute with another editor. After the Fram debacle, the last thing we need is to push more editors away. Also, as an LGBT Wikipedian, I’d like to remind you that some people enjoy shoving things up their ass ;) Let’s just maintain a nice civil atmosphere here and engage in productive dialogue, alright? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@DrKay: The point was that it would have been really easy for you to edit the tropical cyclone article and update the reference. Instead, you chose to take the easy way out and RV my edit that updated the reference, which is something that needs challenging in my opinion if we really want to develop a successful encyclopedia, especially since I notice in hindsight that your edit would have caused the exact same ref error on Tropical cyclone scales. Jason Rees (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

• Partnerships
• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. 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 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Template work

Thank you for your ongoing work with tropical cyclones. Unfortunately, a relatively recent edit you made to a template "broke" existing uses of that template. Because others have used the current version of the template, I did not "just revert it." See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Cleanup needed for all uses of Template:Australian areas affected (Top) for the discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

• Wikimania
• We're building something great, but..
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• A Wikibrarian's story
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

1. Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
3. Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
4. Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
5. SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
6. Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
7. Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
8. HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

• Casliber (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 7 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 14 GAs in round 5.
• Yashthepunisher (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 4 FLs overall.
• Adam Cuerden (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 91 FPs overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 7 articles in good topics in round 2.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 14 did you know articles in round 5.
• Muboshgu (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 7 in the news articles in round 1.
• Ed! (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 56 good article reviews in round 1.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2020 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

• #1Lib1Ref January 2020
• #1Lib1Ref 2019 stories and learnings

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC) oh okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnynick2590 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Waterspout

Why this edition: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Waterspout&oldid=prev&diff=933841890 THe IP user did not improve on the article, in fact he/she remove information and instead added useless details. You provided no reason for your intervention.

Pierre cb (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Pierre cb: I didn't perform the edit deliberately and think that I must have pressed the wrong button while browsing on my phone this morning. Sorry.Jason Rees (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Pierre cb (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Seasonal summary/Season timeline

@Jason Rees: Hi there. How are you doing? I just wanted to see what you thought about the name for the timeline section in the season articles. I know that all of the other articles use "Seasonal summary" as the section heading, but in reality we rarely actually make a summary for the Australian seasons. It is almost always just the timeline. In some other basins, specifically the Atlantic, East Pacific and West Pacific, we do indeed make summaries. For that reason, "Season timeline" is a more logical heading for the Australian articles. If you still want the "Seasonal summary", though, I think it should be amended slightly to "Season summary". The word seasonal has a slightly different meaning. ChocolateTrain (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Yeah I'm good just trying to get Sarai under an article at the moment. Anyway I am going to refuse your request to rename the seasonal summary section to Season Timeline as in a way I think it's in your best interests. Confused? I'll explain.. The whole point of the section is to talk about conditions across the basin as a whole during the season and is something that you started to do within the seasonal forecasts section earlier in the year. It shouldn't be restricted to a discussion of the systems but should cover things like the Australian Monsoon being late or the natural conditions. Have a look at 1997-98 South Pacific cyclone season for an example. Jason Rees (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

TD 06F Pressure

Hi Jason. I just wanted to let you know where I got the 1000 hPa pressure value for TD 06F from. The Bureau of Meteorology is officially responsible for issuing high seas forecasts and marine warnings for the region of the northern Coral Sea extending from 142E to 170E, rather than just to 160E like the cyclone region (although, it would probably make sense for the Australian region to actually extend to 170E in the northern Coral Sea and to 80E in the Indian Ocean). The BOM's North Eastern Area High Seas Forecast for 18:00 UTC on 6 February gives the pressure of the low as 1000 hPa, with the system located at 14S 162E. It's strange that this would conflict with the FMS. By the way, where did you find an 18Z advisory from the FMS? I am not completely familiar with where the FMS publishes all of their advisories, and the only one I can find is the Tropical Disturbance Summary for 06Z on 6 February. ChocolateTrain (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Cyclone article infobox formatting

Hi again Jason. Perhaps it is just my computer, but even with the infobox header saying "Aus scale", the intensity category always gets split into two lines when the system is Category 3 or above due to how long "severe tropical cyclone" is. For that reason, I think it would be better to have "Australian scale" rather than "Aus scale", given that the split-line formatting issue exists anyway. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Just jumping in, it works fine for me. So it could just be your computer. That said, this could be an accessibility issue for other users. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Hmm, OK. I tried zooming out in my browser (I was at normal 100% zoom) to see if it would snap back to a single line, but the proportions all stayed the same and it stayed split into two lines. I'm using a fairly standard laptop with a 14" screen, so I wouldn't expect that it is too small to display things properly. I haven't tried it on a desktop computer because I don't have one, but I might have a look on a university computer when the semester starts in a few weeks' time. ChocolateTrain (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

South Pacific activity spike

@Jason Rees: Have you seen what the GFS is forecasting for the next three days around the International Date Line in the South Pacific? It is showing no less than four tropical cyclones developing all in a line, one of which is shown to reach hurricane intensity and the other three to get winds of at least 50 knots. It also shows two other short-lived gale-force systems in the mix. So, we could conceivably see six tropical cyclones develop in the same place within the space of a few days. Incredible. If that were to happen, this season would already become the equal-ninth most active season in the last half century, and it's only mid-February. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I have briefly looked (been traveling/dealing with Dennis today) while @TheAustinMan: brought it to my attention this morning via FB. I would be very surprised if all 6 systems developed into full-blown tropical cyclones, but it is a weird situation with the JTWC mentioning that 93P (07F?) isn't pure tropical and is more hybrid then anything else.Jason Rees (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

On a side note @ChocolateTrain: the complex interaction is the sort of information that would be great to include in the Seasonal Summary section.Jason Rees (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Yeah, they probably won't all develop. I'd say there'll still be at least three, though. The GFS has been showing several systems developing out of that massive area of convection and low-level convergence and rotation consistently for the last few model runs. The BOM talked about an active pulse of the Madden–Julian Oscillation tracking into the Pacific (the JTWC also mentioned it) and convection also being enhanced by a Kelvin Wave. In addition, we've also got the monsoonal weather pattern established at this time of the year, which always creates a fertile breeding ground for tropical systems. Also, despite ENSO being neutral, tropical waters in the NINO3.4 region (around the International Date Line) are warmer than normal, which will of course support more convection. Everything's coming together for a lot of activity, and it will certainly be interesting to see what ends up happening! ChocolateTrain (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
• Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
• Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
• Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
• CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
• The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included L293D, Kingsif, Enwebb, Lee Vilenski and CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit 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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Esther

@Jason Rees: I have no idea what the BOM and the JTWC are doing at the moment regarding Ex–Esther. Firstly, the BOM showed Ex–Esther's pressure as 1001 hPa in their MSLP chart at 12:00 UTC on 29 February, when at the very same time, there was an actual pressure observation at the Derby automatic weather station showing 990.0 hPa. Unless I am missing something, that seems beyond incompetent. Then, at 22:00 UTC on 29 February, the JTWC cancelled their TCFA for Ex–Esther claiming that "Minimum sea level pressure is estimated to be near 998 mbar." Well, clearly that estimate is useless and they need to devise a new technique, because the actual physical observation at the Curtin AFB automatic weather station at that time was 991.4 hPa. They also claimed that "Maximum sustained surface winds are estimated at 25 to 30 knots." Once again, this is a ridiculous estimate. The 10-minute sustained winds were measured at 28 knots at Derby at 22:00 UTC, and had been as high as 30 knots in the previous three-and-a-half hours. These speeds correspond to roughly 31–34 knots one-minute sustained (not 25–30!), which is what the JTWC uses. This should be high enough to reclassify Esther as a TS, considering these wind speeds would have been slowed from the actual maximum winds by the frictional effects of land, and it is extremely rare that an observation station actually records the peak winds in a system. Furthermore, the JTWC indicated sustained winds of 35 knots while the system tracked across the entire Northern Territory and most of the Kimberley, despite not a single observation station showing winds anywhere near that. So, when the Derby weather station actually indicates one-minute winds of 34 knots, they should absolutely be classifying the system as a TS, with winds of at least 35 knots. What also annoys me is neither the BOM nor the JTWC seems to have recognised, or couldn't be bothered to document, the significant redevelopment that Ex–Esther underwent while near the coast. The system developed a curved band of deep convection wrapping most of the way around the system and into the centre, with widespread cloud top temperatures of less than –60°C and -70°C, and less than –80°C in places as well. Additionally, an MSL pressure reading of 988.8 hPa was made at Curtin AFB at 15:00 UTC on 29 February, when the centre was not even over that weather station (so, the actual central pressure at that time was probably 988 hPa, or maybe even 987). I don't know what planet we are on when 988 hPa and massively increasing convection does not correspond to AT LEAST a 35-knot tropical storm. The estimates that the JTWC gave in their TCFA clearly show that they weren't even looking at actual ground observations to inform their decisions, and honestly, I have no idea what the BOM was doing.

Sorry about all this. I just needed to rant to someone! ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Interesting rant and your welcome to rant to me on my talk page or FB at any time. TBH I haven't paid much attention to Esther as I have been busy in real life. However, in preparing to reply to your rant, I noticed that Esther was informally classified as an Agukabam just after landfall, which is something I'm curious to dig into further. I also noticed that Esther moved off WA for less than 12 hours, which is probably not enough for either agency to reinitiate advisories and classify it as a TC. In the BoM's case, we have to remember that a tropical cyclone is a warmed cored, non-frontal synoptic-scale low-pressure system, which originates over tropical or subtropical waters with gale-force winds more than half-way around the near centre for at least six hours. As for the JTWC they never warn on systems over land and actually stands up when they are in warning mode and a system has made a significant landfall (China, India, WA etc) though there are exceptions to that rule for island nations such as the Philippines, Fiji, Vanuatu and Japan. So their TCFA/C was more for formality purposes and probably belongs in the garbage can.Jason Rees (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter correction

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Archived sources

Hi and it has been a while. I just wanted to know if there are users out there who archive sources like what Keith did in the past? The TCWC Perth actually tracked a weak TL on April 3rd but was only mentioned in one bulletin, but one user took my edit out and scrapped it. Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Typhoon2013:, unfortunately noone has jumped up to fill the void left by @Keith Edkins: and archive the advisories on a regular basis and it is missed a lot. In terms of the Tropical Low that the BoM (Please forget about TCWC Perth, Darwin and Brisbane and regard it as just the BoM since they are merging together and technology means that Brisbane can issue for Perth and visa versa), I would suggest to you that it wasn't numbered and thus probably got taken out. However, @ChocolateTrain: has taken the lead on Aus these days and would be better able to reply. Regards, Jason.Jason Rees (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: I have been checking the TC outlooks from each TCWC every day for quite a while, and I don't recall any systems being labelled as tropical lows on 3 April. There were several low pressure systems mentioned (off the coast of WA), but I don't believe there was ever a tropical low. ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Also, I'm not sure why you're asking people to archive a source that has already been overwritten. If the source is to be archived, it must occur before the page's contents change. You are referring to a product issued on 3 April that is updated daily, so clearly the 3 April version can't be archived on 7 April. ChocolateTrain (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

TC Blake was the first system of the 2019–20 Australian region cyclone season

@Jason Rees: If you recall, we were wondering a while back whether or not Tropical Cyclone Blake was the 2019–20 Australian region cyclone season's first system. None of us knew of any previous systems, and yet we recognised that Blake had received the identifier 02U, which suggested that there may have been a system before then. We decided to hold off on saying that this season was the latest start on record until we knew that there were no other systems before Blake. Well, I can confirm that Blake was indeed the first system. I have been in contact with a meteorologist at the Bureau of Meteorology several times over the past few months. He has been providing some clarification on various details which we have been unsure about. He confirmed that 02U (Blake) was the first identified tropical low of the season; 01U was mistakenly assigned to the disturbance that became Tropical Cyclone Rita in the South Pacific basin. I will update the lead section of the article to reflect this new information. I just thought it would be good to let you know first. ChocolateTrain (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Thanks for letting me know that TL 01U was Rita, it is interesting though that you call it a mistake despite it officially developing near 8.1S 165.6E or unofficially at 6.5S 162.9E. I think we can solve some of the BoM's problems, with missing lows at times by looking outside of the region at other systems. Anyway, I looked at the Australian TC database the other day and noticed that Uesi developed on 160E on February 4, before next being noted .2 of a degree inside the Aus region at 13.7S 159.8E 18 hours later. It is then noted 24 hours later at 13.9S 160.8E, by which time I think Nadi had initiated on it and the rest they say is history. As a result, I will try and proceed with the MH over the next few days once I have finished Harold's, which a system you must have enjoyed despite the heavy impact which we are all very sorry about.Jason Rees (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Yes, it is a little odd. The meteorologist's exact words were: "...the 01U identifier was erroneously allocated to the disturbance that became TC Rita in Fiji's area of responsibility." Administrative errors happen, I guess. What do you want to do about Uesi's peak intensity? The BOM's TC database lists it as 70 knots, whereas the FMS's operational analysis only peaked at 65 knots, if I remember correctly. The BOM is obviously not the RSMC for the SPac, so I'm not sure what to do in that regard. Also, yes, Harold certainly was an exciting system, and one like which we haven't seen in quite a while in the region. The impacts in the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji and Tonga are absolutely devastating, however. The COVID-19 situation may also prevent some humanitarian aid that is usually provided by Australia in natural disasters like this. It really does make me angry that 27 people died unnecessarily because a ferry captain decided to ignore the BOM's tropical cyclone warning and high seas warning. I believe there is now a criminal investigation into the matter in the Solomon Islands. Anyway, I hope you're staying safe during these trying times. It must be quite frightening being in the UK at the moment, what with the rapidly increasing COVID-19 infection count. It is very alarming to me that the death toll in your country is more than 12% despite your first-world health system. I mean, think about that—there is a one-in-eight chance that someone would die if they were to contract the illness. I hope Boris Johnson is on the mend as well. Chilling times, indeed. ChocolateTrain (talk) 16:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: I have been off work all week because I have symptoms of the coronavirus (Cough/Temperature/exhaustion), which is why I have been around and able to work on Harold. I don't think, I had it though and am feeling a lot better, as is Boris who is on the mend, out of intensive care and able to take short walks apparently. As for the death toll, I wouldn't read to much into it as they are not declaring all of the deaths straight away, several have underlying health conditions and I believe that the death toll is beginning to flatten. As for Rita, I thought it was you who was calling it a mistake, not the BoM, however, these things happen - back in 2010-11 they designated Bune out near the dateline as TC 24U. As for Uesi, I am happy to use the BoM's 70 kts/970 hPa since while they are not in charge of the SPAC for TC's, they were handed Uesi early. As we have discussed previously I also feel that there is always a bit of flexibility around these things. In fact, I believe that the BoM would rather talk with Reunion/Jakarta/Nadi/Wellington/BoM/PNG and have one BT then several. As for the ferry - we will see what comes out of the investigation, I would ask you to consider though how often you listen or check the severe weather warnings from Brisbane. As for the humanitarian aid, you will almost certainly find that the FRANZ agreement will have been activated for Harold, which will consider what resources Australia, France and New Zealand have and how to use them.Jason Rees (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@ChocolateTrain: Just been looking through the SIMS warnings for Harold and saw this line on their first warning and wondered what it means to you? "Sea Travellers are Urged to consider safety action as such heavy rain can reduce visibility".Jason Rees (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

• New partnership
• Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
• Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
• The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
• Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
• Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Hog Farm with 801, Kingsif with 719, SounderBruce with 710, Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read

I am not edit fake data. I am edit real information. The data source JTWC and windy weather. The depression making in 9 may Vala keep (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

New depression making West Pacific. real data Vala keep (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This is real data from windy and JTWC weather new Tropical Depression making 01 w near Ngerulmud Island. The system making 48 Hours Tropical Storm Vala keep (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Windy is a weather model and not a forecasting agency that designates weather systems as tropical depressions. The JTWC hasn't said that a tropical depression exists in the western Pacific and neither has any of the other weather agencies around the Pacific responsible for the Western Pacific.Jason Rees (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

• Library Card Platform
• New partnerships
  • ProQuest
  • Springer Nature
  • BioOne
  • CEEOL
  • IWA Publishing
  • ICE Publishing
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:List of named tropical cyclones start

Template:List of named tropical cyclones start has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TheImaCow (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
• The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
• Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

New message from Nikkimaria

Hello, Jason Rees. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season/archive1.
Message added 21:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Your country is four days away from abject uncertainty - you could use this

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

@Hurricanehink: I think we need another one :P. Jason Rees (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The AN Discussion and the GA review

Excuse me, Jason Rees. Why did you think that I was a troll? Remember, Bbb23 was not happy three days after he retired. I'm not a troll. I'd like you to take a moment and look at my contributions. And yes, I've tried to look at my past mistakes. Here's a timeline.

• APRIL 8, 2020: My not-so-much-of-an-RfA.
• APRIL 14, 28, 29, and May 1: WP:EWLOing.
• EARLY MAY, 2020: Misuse of page mover right.
• MAY 14, 2020: Misuse of rollback in an edit war.
• MAY 16, 2020: An "FAR" for 2005 Azores subtropical storm.
• MAY 22, 2020: WP:Articles for deletion/Tropical Depression Ten seeing the results almost made me cry.
• LATE MAY, 2020: A bunch of reverting and warning non-vandals cluttering up my talk page.
• JUNE 2, 2020: Nominating Cyclone Nisarga for A11.
• JUNE 5, 2020: Repeatedly submitting Draft:Tropical cyclones in 2011 for AfC.
• JUNE 7, 2020: Closing the AfD for Tropical cyclones in 2010.
• JUNE 14, 2020: Reverting not-vandalism (sorry not-vandals whom I reverted).
• JUNE 15, 2020: Indirectly requesting rollback by saying "Huggle is cool".
• JUNE 16, 2020: Merging Cyclone Sigma.
• JUNE 18, 2020: Sockpuppet investigation for an innocent IP.
• JUNE 18, 2020: Giving Yellow Evan an improper warning.
• JUNE 18 – 19, 2020: WP:RFP/C messages to withdrawn users.
• JUNE 19, 2020: The Bbb23 barnstar disaster.
• JUNE 19 – JULY 1: I disappear. During that time, I learn how to make edits without them being immediately reverted. Or so I thought.
• JULY 4, 2020: Moving an RfA.
• JULY 9, 2020: Unlinking List of Pacific hurricane seasons.
• JULY 28, 2020: Relisting.

In my edit summary: "... Talk:Cyclone Owen/GA1 will soon be created", I was right, but I didn't know that so many things were wrong with it. I thought it would just be like "Your hard work looks great! It's a GA now." But NO! You make a month's hard work look like a stub! I'm sorry if I'm being rude, but I guess that something that I put a whole lot of time and work into will just be another start-class. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 10:39, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I'm following your advice. 🐔 Chicdat ^ChickenDatabase 11:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: Before you try and throw mud at me, get your facts straight as I didn't call you a troll, but wondered if Bbb23 was on to something when he called you either a sockpuppet or a troll, but I apologise if you didn't like my comment. As for the GAN being rubber-stamped, I hate to pop your bubble but that's not how the process works and nor you were offered the chance of a soft review before the GAN and told by Hink that it might need some work before it was a GA, however, you ignored those warnings. Now I was very tempted to fail it straight out but I decided to play nice and give you a chance to try and improve it under my guidance because you have put a lot of hard work into it. As for your previous lists/articles, unlike your school work you do have the chance to improve the article/lists to achieve a better raiting.Jason Rees (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

For the stubbornness of the British people, whether insisting on having a say in every continent (which brushed off on the US), or because of your recent independence streak (resulting in the possible loss of Northern Ireland and Scotland), I award you this goat. May your stubbornness be used for good, especially if you're the only one that thinks you are right. Cheers mate.

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Question

One person spoiled the article of the 2020 Northern Indian Ocean cyclone season and please take action on it. Janm 7 (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

All sorted.Jason Rees (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

ABPW10

I'm thinking about archiving JTWC outlook warnings and TCFAs via my backup email to lessen the burden on Meow. Because JMA and JTWC TC warnings are being archived everyday by the MT Archive, so it would be helpful to know some websites that emails the archived JTWC warnings day-to-day. Regards, 👦 05:18, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

WX Trop is the mailing list that sends me the JTWC warnings amongst others.Jason Rees (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I just thought of creating an FTP server for these warnings for easy navigation, but that's for an another topic. Regards, 👦 11:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@Nino Marakot: If you wish to create an FTP server for the warnings then that would be great, especially if we could email warnings from previous years to it.Jason Rees (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I'm just creating a FTP server via VSFTPD, but because of my concerns on users (I don't wanna email everyone for the username and passwords and everything), might take a while to set up the server. So, I'm searching for alternatives that can work on my Ubuntu 20.04. Regards, 👦 02:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

Jason, I have a question and/or request. Is there a specific way to join the WikiProject Tropical cyclones? I've been wanting to join for a few years now and haven't really been sure on how to do. I would love to help out on the project in anyway I can. Thanks, --Gumballs678 (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Gumballs678: Just add your name to WP:WPTC/MEMBER and you're in! 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Gumballs678: There are no specific requirements to join WPTC bar an interest in tropical cyclones.Jason Rees (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you! I've gone ahead and added my name. I appreciate it! Gumballs678 (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"Pre-1945 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pre-1945 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Pre-1945 North Indian Ocean cyclone seasons until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit revert at Talk:Hurricane Lili (disambiguation)

Why did you do this: [4] ? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Shhhnotsoloud and JHunterJ: Apologies I was on my phone and must have pressed the rollback button by mistake, I thought I had undone it but a look at my contributions it seems that I must have redone it.Jason Rees (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Sock

User:Lolitasaffy is a sockpuppet of User:Lolasaffy. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry @Chicdat: im not sure how but I have only just seen this message, anyway, I see that @LightandDark2000 and GeneralNotability: have now dealt with the user.Jason Rees (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Typhoons

Hi, Jason Rees. Are you okay with me helping you with your List of Pacific typhoons article? Thanks, 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:47, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Chicdat: As i said the other day, I have no problem with anyone helping me knock the article into shape. On a side note, I will see what I can do with Owen over the next few days.Jason Rees (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished, with 865 points being required to qualify for the final round, nearly twice as many points as last year. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with 598 and 605 points being eliminated, and all but two of the contestants who reached the final round having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were

• Bloom6132, with 1478 points gained mainly from 5 featured lists, 12 DYKs and 63 in the news items;
• HaEr48 with 1318 points gained mainly from 2 featured articles, 5 good articles and 8 DYKs;
• Lee Vilenski with 1201 points mainly gained from 2 featured articles and 10 good articles.

Between them, contestants achieved 14 featured articles, 14 featured lists, 2 featured pictures, 87 good articles, 90 DYK entries, 75 ITN entries, 95 featured article candidate reviews and 81 good article reviews. Congratulations to all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 40

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 40, July – August 2020

• New partnerships
  • Al Manhal
  • Ancestry
  • RILM
• #1Lib1Ref May 2020 report
• AfLIA hires a Wikipedian-in-Residence

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Congrats on reaching 77,777 edits!

	The 77,777 Edits Award
	77,777 edits is a lot of edits... and a lot of lucky sevens! Thank you for all your 77,777 77,778 edits. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me! 11:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Chicdat:.Jason Rees (talk) 12:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Tropical Cyclone Barnstar
		You know why I'm awarding this to you! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Destroyeraa: Thanks for the barnstar but no im not sure why your awarding me it all of a sudden.Jason Rees (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Jason, for your work on the South-West Pacific and Australian-region tropical cyclone seasons/storms. There is often a lack of editors in those aspects of WPTC, and it's great to have a very experienced editor in that area doing a lot of great work :) ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks @Destroyeraa:.Jason Rees (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way...

	The Original Barnstar
	Really?! Why you aren't getting these articles ready? Despite that however, i'll give you a respect for that. You deserve this barnstar. I hope these drafts are done. SMB99thx my edits 04:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You should get respect for what you have done in these drafts. It took so long and it took so much time to get that finished. You also deserve this barnstar. SMB99thx my edits 04:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears that you haven't gotten any respect from others regarding to your articles and drafts. It's a lot. As such, i'll give you barnstars for your work! SMB99thx my edits 04:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

1960s AUS/SPAC and your other drafts

Hi Jason! Thanks for your opinion about 1960s Australian region cyclones and 1960s South Pacific cyclones individual articles. From your suggestion, I think they should be worked on the draft space. As such, I have moved should-be-articles you have reverted to redirects into draftspace, and these are Draft:1967–68 Australian region cyclone season, Draft:1968–69 Australian region cyclone season, and Draft:1969–70 Australian region cyclone season.

Apparently, you are currently working on a monster amount of drafts. For example, User:Jason Rees/Depressions. I'm tempted to move all of these articles, but i will not do that thing. Why you are not done with that stuff, especially the earlier drafts? BTW, apparently some of these drafts on articles you are working on are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Article requests, which is an area that I'm trying to get these requests fulfilled ASAP for 15th anniversary of WikiProject Tropical cyclones. I think i'm going to give you a barnstar for that. Thank you. SMB99thx my edits 03:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @SMB99thx: Thanks for the banisters. At the end of the day, these so called drafts/sandboxes are in my userspace and while I dont mind you working on them, I do not want you to move them into mainspace. You also have to remember that Wikipedia is not my full time job and that I have various other things in my personal life which have to take priority.Jason Rees (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Jason Rees, Thanks! SMB99thx my edits 22:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For good contributions to WPTC! CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

You have done such great contributions in WPTC, so I give you this! CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @CyclonicStormYutu: for the barnaster.Jason Rees (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

This is your only warning: You are engaged in an edit war at 2020–21 Australian region cyclone season. Edit warring is against Wikipedia’s rules. Be aware that you have already exceeded the three-revert limit, and you could be blocked if you do it again. I am glad to see you are discussing things, although it would be better to do so at the article’s talk page where other users can also participate. I am going to lock the article for 24 hours, to give you time to work it out. I trust you and the other user will be able to reach an amicable conclusion. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 November newsletter

The 2020 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round going down to the wire. Our new Champion is Lee Vilenski (submissions), the runner-up last year, who was closely followed by Gog the Mild (submissions). In the final round, Lee achieved 4 FAs and 30 GAs, mostly on cue sport topics, while Gog achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on important battles and wars, which earned him a high number of bonus points. The Rambling Man (submissions) was in third place with 4 FAs and 8 GAs on football topics, with Epicgenius (submissions) close behind with 19 GAs and 16 DYK's, his interest being the buildings of New York.

The other finalists were Hog Farm (submissions), HaEr48 (submissions), Harrias (submissions) and Bloom6132 (submissions). The final round was very productive, and besides 15 FAs, contestants achieved 75 FAC reviews, 88 GAs and 108 GAN reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for a total of 14 FAs during the course of the competition.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) win the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in round 4.
• Rhododendrites (submissions) wins the featured picture prize, for 3 FPs in round 3 and 5 overall.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 23 FAC reviews in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 45 GAs in round 2 and 113 overall.
• MPJ-DK (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 33 articles in good topics in round 2.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good article reviewer prize, for 100 good article reviews in round 2.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 22 Did you know articles in round 4 and 94 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 63 In the news articles in round 4 and 136 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2021 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Enjoy

I know that all the stuff that has been happening has been tough so here you go:

		Cookies!
		Weatherman27 has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 19:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

T. pg

You have at least two editors and maybe more collaborating together and causing difficulty. I suggest doing something about it. Howdoesitgo1 (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@Howdoesitgo1: I would strongly suggest that you take a step back and look at what's going on. First of all you decided in this edit to make the language used very broad and redundant without providing a useful edit summuary. ChessEric (talk · contribs) Then saw the edit and reverted it as he thought it was unnecessary. You then reintroduced the edits with the edit summary caldr. ChessEric then reverted again because he felt that it was unnecessary.

You then seem to have left the season and its sub-articles alone for a couple of days before suddenly coming back on November 3, when you edited Zeta aand introduced more very broad and redundant language within these five edits and used various edit summaries including "river", "dir", "see tlk" and "emerg" (x2). Looking at Zeta's talk pages, I see that you did indeed initiate a conversation, however, it was considered to be a personal attack on Chess and reverted by @Destroyeraa:. The edits on Zeta were also reverted by Destroyeraa as he felt that they were "Unnecessary revisions and told you in the edit summary on the talk page to "Stop attacking ChessEric. Your revisions are even worse tbh. The original wording was fine and this is redundant." {{Destroye also left you a general warning on your talk page and left a general message on ChessEric's talkpage. This message said that "I [have] warned this users of making accusations without evidence. In addition, looking at his edits, most were unnecessary or disruptive. I have given the user a warning, and I hope his disruptive editing stops." You then came on and reintroduced your edits with the edit summaury see expl. on talk pg.

You also then proceeded to [reintroduce your attack on ChessEric with the edit summaury This is to destroy, if you want to be engaged in a topic or subject on the talk pg, fine. You are not allowed to edit someone else's edits on a talk pg. and then introduced this sentence with your next edit: I am not certain why destroy is involved here. The editor, if they want to be in a discussion fine, but to infer things that aren't true, no, that is not ok. You also posted the same message on Chess Eric's talk page before Drdpw (talk · contribs) then removed your commentson Zeta's talkpage with the edit summuary This talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for venting or for sniping at other editors. It’s removal was justified. You then decided to leave Drdpw (talk · contribs) a message on their talk page in which you alleged that "C. Eric [was incorrectly editing" but provided no evidence. You also told the user that they were "not supposed to edit on a talk page" and that she was welcome to join the discussion but was not correct in what she said].

The message to Drdpw was rude in many ways, so I removed it.~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I also see that you edited Hurricane Eta with the edit summary QST, removed the words or not and added Tropical Storm Matthew (2010) as a see also with the blurb a deadly tropical cyclone that affected similar areas. ChessEric also User:ChessEric disagreed with the addition of Matthew (2010) to the article as "the list was long enough as is" and removed it by undoing your edit but left the rest of your edit intact. You then reverted Eric and initiated a talk page conversation about faith. This conversation involved several users and was eventually closed by @TornadoLGS: after you went off topic and accused Eric of his OR understanding being incorrect, provided no evidence and stated that your edits were precise and correct. I am not going to judge you, however, I hope that @MelanieN: will factor this response into her response to your message on ehr talkpage.Jason Rees (talk) 03:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Jason, it was I who closed the ETA faith discussion per request from TornadoLGS. Also, @Howdoesitgo1: you are free to delete messages from your talk page, but please read it first. Also, enjoy the cookies! ~ Destroyeraa🌀 03:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Destroyeraa: Strictly speaking, I did say that the discussion was off-topic, but I did not specifically request closure, though I considered suggesting it. Either way, I agree with your decision to do so since the discussion, as it was, did not belong there. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with the personal attacks.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For laying out the evidence on a heated content dispute. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI

You might want to participate in the ANI discussion regarding CyclonicallyDeranged and WP:AGF. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Dispute

Hi there Jason,

I hope you're safe and well. I encourage you and Cyclonically to apologize to each other for mass reverting each other's edits and possibly insulting each other. Then, I hope you and Cyclonically can peacefully talk it out. I am reverting the season article to the version before the edit-warring. Thanks. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 41

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 41, September – October 2020

• New partnership: Taxmann
• WikiCite
• 1Lib1Ref 2021

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

3 barnstars for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	This is for all of the hard work that you do to make Wikipedia a better place! 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox) 16:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

	The Writer's Barnstar
	This is for all of your contributions and articles that you have created or improved! 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

	The Editor's Barnstar
	And this is for all of your edits and hard work in general! 🌀Weatherman27🏈 (Chat|Edits|sandbox) 16:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

CodingCyclone has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving! 𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 19:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You've got mail

Hello, Jason Rees. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. SMB99thx my edits! 01:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Yasa

Hi, I have noticed that you have removed the gust. Actually it is used by JTWC. Gust and one minute sustained wind section is for JTWC. Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but thats not good enough since the 1 minute sustained wind is unofficial in this basin. Jason Rees (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Why should we prioritise the JTWCs wind gusts over any that Meteo France or Vanuatu Met give for Yasa? Jason Rees (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I know what you meant but what will you do with the gust section?? Beraniladri19🌀🌀 (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned why do we need to presenting the gusts associated with the system, when Nadi arent? Jason Rees (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

A award for you!

	The Tropical cyclone Gold Barnstar
	Thanks for creating the Template and many good articles in Wikiproject Tropical Cyclone. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello Jason Rees: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 01:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

~ Destroyer🌀🌀 01:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello Jason Rees: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, 𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 01:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

𝙲𝚘𝚍𝚒𝚗𝚐𝙲𝚢𝚌𝚕𝚘𝚗𝚎 ᴛᴀʟᴋ 01:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Owen

Can I please have some help with Owen? I've been trying to get it to GA for six months, yet significant issues with verifiability still stand. Thank you. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I will see what I can do the next few days but my main project is Yasa.Jason Rees (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chicdat: If you want me to help you improve Owen to GA level then you are gonna have to accept my edits, even if they remove information that you think is correct. Also looking at the data further, it appears that Owen was a twin with Manyi not Usagi like I thought, since the BoM said before the low was named Owen In the past week, an Equatorial Rossby wave aided development of a pair of tropical lows between the Date Line and Papua New Guinea; the northern hemisphere low of the pair subsequently developed into tropical cyclone Man-Yi.Jason Rees (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Never mind I took a look at the surface pressure maps and it appears that I am mistaken in thinking that it was a twin.Jason Rees (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Jason Rees,
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! ~ Destroyer🌀🌀 21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

---

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Welcome to the 2021 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. We thank Vanamonde93 and Godot13, who have retired as judges, and we thank them for their past dedication. The judges for the WikiCup this year are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, November – December 2020

• New EBSCO collections now available
• 1Lib1Ref 2021 underway
• Library Card input requested
• Libraries love Wikimedia, too!

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Urgent - mass disruptive editing on AfDs. Thank you. SK2242 (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

12U

So are we adding Tropical lows now when BoM states something like "a tropical low is gradually forming"? Typhoon2013 (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Just seen the topic being discussed in the 2020-21 AusR season talk page. I left me view there. Typhoon2013 (talk) 07:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

FAR Tropical cyclone

I have nominated Tropical cyclone for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK

Is Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclone Meena ready for promotion? SL93 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC) @SL93: I need to find some time to work on it further, but I don't see why it couldn't go up now.Jason Rees (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Cyclone Meena

On 9 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cyclone Meena, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Cyclone Meena was the first of four severe tropical cyclones to impact the Cook Islands in February 2005? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclone Meena. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cyclone Meena), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 March newsletter

Round 1 of the competition has finished; it was a high-scoring round with 21 contestants scoring more than 100 points. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 55 contestants qualifying. You will need to finish among the top thirty-two contestants in Round 2 if you are to qualify for Round 3. Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius led the field with a featured article, nine good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 945 points.
• Bloom6132 was close behind with 896 points, largely gained from 71 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• ImaginesTigers, who has been editing Wikipedia for less than a year, was in third place with 711 points, much helped by bringing League of Legends to featured article status, exemplifying how bonus points can boost a contestant's score.
• Amakuru came next with 708 points, Kigali being another featured article that scored maximum bonus points.
• Ktin, new to the WikiCup, was in fifth place with 523 points, garnered from 15 DYKs and 34 "In the news" items.
• The Rambling Man scored 511 points, many from featured article candidate reviews and from football related DYKs.
• Gog the Mild, last year's runner-up, came next with 498 points, from a featured article and numerous featured article candidate reviews.
• Hog Farm, at 452, scored for a featured article, four good articles and a number of reviews.
• Le Panini, another newcomer to the WikiCup, scored 438 for a featured article and three good articles.
• Lee Vilenski, last year's champion, scored 332 points, from a featured article and various other sport-related topics.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. In Round 1, contestants achieved eight featured articles, three featured lists and one featured picture, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. They completed 97 good article reviews, nearly double the 52 good articles they claimed. Contestants also claimed for 135 featured article and featured list candidate reviews. There is no longer a requirement to mention your WikiCup participation when undertaking these reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. 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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or something else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Invite!

Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject Weather's Non-tropical storms task force (WPNTS), a task force dedicated to improving all articles associated with extratropical cyclones on Wikipedia. WPNTS hosts a number of Wikipedia's highly-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming winter season (for whichever hemisphere happens to be in its climatological winter). Simply click here and add your name to the list to accept!

HurricaneCovid _(contribs) 18:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 42

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 42, January – February 2021

• New partnerships: PNAS, De Gruyter, Nomos
• 1Lib1Ref
• Library Card

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding email

I've read the email, though I am currently busy and won't be able to reply till tomorrow. Just wanted to let you know that I won't be able to reply immediately. JavaHurricane 14:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@JavaHurricane: Im happy for you to respond whenever your ready. :) Jason Rees (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Problem regarding gust

Hey, so you have fixed the gust problem but you have created another problem. Some RSMC don't publish wind gust so, many editors are putting the JTWC's gust in the RSMC's gust section which is causing confusion for readers, which you can see here. Please fix this. Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 03:14, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Beraniladri19: If i were to fix it like you asked me to do, it would be to remove the gust paramater full stop. But I am rather busy at the moment and only checking into wiki briefly.Jason Rees (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

OK Beraniladri19 🌀🌀 12:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter

The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:

• The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
• Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
• Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
• Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
• Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
• Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
• Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of Round 2 but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in Round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Cyclone Inigo Good Article Reassessment

Cyclone Inigo, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

1971-72 Australian region article

The wind estimate I used for Wendy on the 1971-72 AUS region article was by (TCWC?) Wellington, which I think is reputable. Also, it appears that DS824 data is directly from the BOM, but I'm likely wrong here. What were the old 10-min estimates from? I couldn't find any BOM data, even on their spreadsheet. --SolarisPenguin (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021

Good article nominations | July 2021 Backlog Drive
July 2021 Backlog Drive: This Thursday, July 1, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number, length, and age, of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 July newsletter

The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:

• The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
• Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
• Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
• Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
• Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
• BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

HELP ME!!!

An anonymous user is editing the Hurricane Elsa article putting explicit words, I already reversed several changes but it did not work, he keeps reversing using bad words. Help me!!! --МОДОКАУ 20:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 45

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 45, May – June 2021

• Library design improvements continue
• New partnerships
• 1Lib1Ref update

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, Lee Vilenski, BennyOnTheLoose, Amakuru and Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

48th issue of Hurricane Herald newsletter

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Newsletter/Archive 48 LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Michelle reversion

Thank you for the reversion. I don't like getting things wrong but can you help me by telling which of the windspeeds did not come out right. I cannot detect the fault. Thanks. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Gaius Cornelius: The problem is that by applying the convert template in the first place automatically via AWB, without looking at the wind speeds or distances presented made it wrong because of the precision factors that are applied to such conversions. For starters according to the United States National Hurricane Center, Hurricane Michelle peaked with wind speeds of 120 knots or 140 mph & 220 km/h, while according to your edits Hurricane Michelle peaked with wind speeds of 140 mph (230 km/h). This has been a massive problem over the years and can in theory be resolved by putting {{convert|120|kn|km/h mph|round=5|order=out|abbr=on|sortable=on}} or not changing the conversions in a drive by way at all.Jason Rees (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I see the problem now. Thanks for fixing and for letting me know. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 46

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 46, July – August 2021

• Library design improvements deployed
• New collections available in English and German
• Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Should AUS cyclones that pass 90E (pre-1985) be added to the SWIO page?

Sorry for my bad wording, but should Australian region tropical cyclones that pass 90E (before the border was changed in 1985) be added to the corresponding South-West Indian Ocean pages? I believe this was previously discussed in a talk page, however the change never happened. Should I start making the changes now? SolarisPenguin (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@SolarisPenguin: Personally I am happy for them to be added in.Jason Rees (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Typhoon Durian

Jason, most of the articles of cyclones that unofficially crossed to other basins doesn't include this unnoficial info on their infobox, just being contained on small, summarized spaces. And most of the basin's articles that have cyclones that unnoficially crossed into them don't include them on statistics, summaries, templates, just on a "other storm" section. So why it should be different on Durian's case? ABC paulista (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@ABC paulista: We have no option but to present Durian as a part of the 2006 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, including in templates and statistics since the JTWC have said that it was a part of the season. Also AFAIK we use the full dates for a system and don't limit it to what the RSMC's say, especially since you are committing original research when you say that Durian dissipated on December 6 and did not impact India. Also, you are making a very bold claim when you state that the IMD did not monitor Durian at all.Jason Rees (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we have an option: JTWC is an unnoficial source, and in the majority of such cases their info don't go beyond being noted in the middle of the storm article/section within the season article, if it wasn't warned/included by the official RSMC/TCWC, so it isn't part of the season. For the dates in the infobox, my idea was to include JTWC's dates below the last official warning/best track point, similar on how extratropical and/or remant lows dates are dealt there. About, IMD, I couldn't find any reports or warning about Durian from them, and its their monitoring that must be proven, not otherwise. Like I saud, Durian's case is being an excetion, the majority of cases don't include unnofical info on their main spaces and templates. ABC paulista (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes the JTWC is technically an unofficial source for the NIO but since they say that Durian is a part of the 2006 North Indian Ocean cyclone season, we have no option but to include as a part of the season per WP:NPOV which states that Wikipedia articles have to present viewpoints that disagree with the main official view. As a result, we will need to change all of these so-called cases, which do not include the system as a part of basin 2 even when they are. I note that Vamei is included as a part of the 2001 North Indian Ocean cyclone season and that Raquel is presented in all 4 season articles that its relevant too. Also while I agree that it has to be proven that an agency monitored a system, it is still a very bold to say that the IMD did not monitor Durian during its approach to India.Jason Rees (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not against citing these cases on these articles, what I'm against is giving them the same regard as the official systems, supported by WMO-endorsed official sources. We have to remember that WP:WEIGHT has also to be attended, and in terms of proeminence and importance, the RSMC/TCWC has more than the unnoficial agencies, and infoboxes and templates were made to condense and include only the most proeminet information, which is provided by the official agencies. The 1992 Pacific hurricane season, for example, only mention both Ward and Dan, and the 1998–99 Australian region cyclone season barely mentions Frank. ABC paulista (talk) 02:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

And that is where I strongly disagree with you as while we have to give the appropriate weight to systems, it does not stretch as far as to ignore areas affected, valid data from a well known and reliable warning center in infoboxes, button bars, templates and articles or just plonk the system into other systems because they are an unofficial agency for the region.Jason Rees (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it as ignoring them, but more like acknowledgeing them while putting them on their proper place. And yes, being unnoficial is a valid reason to put these system into other systems section, because all in all, are the RSMC and TCWC, through their reports and Best Tracks, who has the final say on what systems did and didn't exist in their AoR. The most we can do in such cases is to acknowledge their existance, but not include them on statistics and such. ABC paulista (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the issue of Durian's NIO period, I honestly don't care all that much about how it's covered in the 2006 NIO article, as long as the storm is mentioned and it is noted that it's an unofficial storm in the season. As for Typhoon Durian's article, we are obligated to include its NIO duration and the JTWC dissipation date, as Wikipedia editors, whether we like it or not. As I have told multiple users both on- and off-wiki, some people on WPTC need to drop the pretense that we are strictly limited to/must follow exactly ONLY what the "most official" sources say. This is blatantly false. Not only is that wrong, but doing so would also violate multiple Wikipedia policies, such as WP:COVERAGE, WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:NEUTRAL, etc. When we have reliable sources providing us with coverage, we must cover that information in our articles, especially if there is a difference or a contradiction in the reports. We don't get to cherry-pick and choose which sources are included and which ones are ignored. Doesn't matter which one is "more official" or not. For the storm articles on Wikipedia, we generally go with what the main RSMCs say regarding the intensities (and often the dates), but we're not strictly limited to only the "official" RSMCs when dealing with a storm's meteorological history; we also have to take into account what other agencies and even what independent researchers have to say regarding the storms. I don't know for sure whether or not the IMD monitored Durian (from an initial glance, it looks like they didn't monitor it as an official system), but assuming that they didn't monitor it as an official system (e.g. no advisories or bulletins), then the JTWC automatically takes precedence on the Durian's period in the NIO. It does not matter that the IMD didn't monitor it in the basin (assuming again that this is the case); we have an agency/reliable source, in this case, the JTWC, that did, and according to the JTWC, the system lasted for a few days in the NIO. And since the JTWC did track the storm into the NIO, we must cover it. Simple as that. However, if the IMD did track Durian in the NIO, then that information should be uncovered and added to its article. Either way, we are NOT allowed to ignore what the JTWC has to say about the storm. Also, I would like to see discussions first before making contentious changes like these in the future. Edit wars are extremely disruptive and counterproductive. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 We aren't duscussion if the info should be displayed at all, but how it should be displayed to the reader. Unnofficial source is fine, but official ones take precedence, and the way they are displayed should reflect such. And in cases of contradiction between them, the offical ones should put the unnofical ones on the backseat. That's a matter of WP:BALASP to avoid WP:FALSEBALANCE. ABC paulista (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is The Rambling Man (submissions), who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:

1. The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
3. Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
4. Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
5. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
6. BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
7. Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
8. Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 47

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

• On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
• Search tool deployed
• New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Jason. I'm just posting to let you know that Timeline of the 2003–04 South Pacific cyclone season – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for December 6. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 02:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Goni is now the most intense storm in 2020

Hi! can you edit all the Pages or Articles where Cyclone Yasa is still leading in 2020 which is the strongest because Typhoon Goni is stronger and FMS has weakened Cyclone Yasa so Goni is the Strongest. Daniel boxs (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Daniel boxs, you told me which pages you wanted edited, I checked them out and told you no new edits needed to be done. Please stop posting the same message to other editors. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Tropical Storm Allison

I have nominated Tropical Storm Allison for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022

Good article nominations | January 2022 Backlog Drive
January 2022 Backlog Drive: On New Year's Day, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage.
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 10+ good article reviews or participated in the March backlog drive. Click here and remove your username from the mailing list to opt out of any future messages. --Usernameunique

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Your revert of my edit

See my comment on the talk page. 🐔dat (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chicdat: I have seen your comment and strongly disagree, that it would be against Wikipedia's policies not to include the subtropical storm, when the FMS/MetService/BoM do not consider subtropical storms as a part of the cyclone season.Jason Rees (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

See my next comment. 🐔dat (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 48

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 48, November – December 2021

• 1Lib1Ref 2022
• Wikipedia Library notifications deployed

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. 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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
• AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
• Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
• GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
• Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
• SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
• Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. 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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

1. Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
2. AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
3. Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
4. Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
5. Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
6. Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
7. Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Source for "Jolina", "Maring" and "Odette"

https://pubfiles.pagasa.dost.gov.ph/climps/climateforum/special_lecture_tcws.pdf

Hey this is a Source. Daniel boxs (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Yep. That's what i used. GDFilbert (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• I GDFilbert (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@GDFilbert: As it has been stated on the talk page, that source is not good enough since it doesnt directly tell us what the retired names were and before you say it being coloured in Red is not good enough.Jason Rees (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

List of retired Pacific typhoon names

Hi! can you clean-up this page? as you did on the "List of retired Philippines typhoon names" page. Daniel boxs (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC) @Daniel boxs: I will see what I can do at some point.Jason Rees (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Cyclone Josie

Hello, Jason Rees. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cyclone Josie, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 49

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

• New library collections
• Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Hi Jason, I think you are aware of this case, but do you have at least have any interest on making a brief statement about it? MarioJump83! 14:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @MarioJump83:, I am aware of the case but need to think carefully, about what I want to say before commenting further.Jason Rees (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Consistency re: wind speeds

You mentioned in this edit about consistency about how to present wind speeds. I think you have a good point about using knots as the base unit and converting that, rather than presenting it already converted. I'm not sure if it's a standard, but what are your thoughts that maybe it should be? It would only take an AWB bot or two to fix every instance when we're talking rounded wind speeds (which is how we convey intensity), but not wind gusts (which are instantaneous wind observations not indicative of a storm's intensity, per se). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

We could spend a lot of time changing all of the windspeeds, but it isn't consistent now using that template. So do you think it's worth that effort? Obviously it would have to be a broader discussion, just curious on your thoughts. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 50

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022

• New library partner - SPIE
• 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
• Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
• Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Stop editing my sandbox

You're free to do whatever you want to my sandbox once it's published, but until then, if you're going to change every little thing in it, then you might as well move it to your userspace. Per WP:UP, you should avoid editing others' userpages if they don't want you to, or if the content there is disruptive. And I don't want you to, because there are errors in your revisions of the page All the stuff doesn't need to come from one source, and the addition of the cn tags in userspace has put the page in Category:User pages with reference errors. You say the pressure is "Not Specified" even though it is specified, just in a different source. Also, 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. You should discuss all these changes on the project page, not just impose them unilaterally.

You can do all these things and more when the page is published, but until then, I'd like you to stop editing my sandbox, since it is in my userspace. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I have responded to these comments on Chicdats talkpage under the section entitled HURDAT.Jason Rees (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 51

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 51, May – June 2022

• New library partners
  • SAGE Journals
  • Elsevier ScienceDirect
  • University of Chicago Press
  • Information Processing Society of Japan
• Feedback requested on this newsletter
• 1Lib1Ref May 2022

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 52

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022

• New instant-access collections:
  • SpringerLink and Springer Nature
  • Project MUSE
  • Taylor & Francis
  • ASHA
  • Loeb
• Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 November newsletter

The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is

• Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
• Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
• BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
• Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
• Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
• Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
• PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
• Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or the overall leader in this field.

• Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
• Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
• Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
• Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
• Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
• SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
• Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
• Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
• Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
• Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Humberto

If you want to remove Humberto so much, then remove Lexi, Stephanie, and Katie too. There is no reason why we can't include Humberto when we have those three systems too.

Also, I returned the Humberto section. Try not to remove it again this time. Infinity The Second (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the Humberto section again since the warning centres for the region (The FMS and MetService) do not consider subtropical cyclones to be a part of the cyclone season. This means that we shouldn't add in a section devoted to a subtropical cyclone just because it was monitored by the international desks at the WPC. As for your points about Lexi, Katie and Stephanie, I would point out that other stuff exists and that I don't deal with Atlantic systems much. I also thought that I had removed Lexi from the season article but Katie has to stay since it was considered tropical by the researchers involved as far as I know. I would also point out that Humberto has been out of the season article for a while now, whcih makes me wonder even more why we should add it in.Jason Rees (talk) 23:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

WPC recognized the system as an STC in thier weather charts of "Humbertos" existance. Thats technically being recognized by an official or government agency in some form and is grounds to include it somewhere. Otherwise we need to make a page dedicated to these systems similar to the South Atlantic systems HavocPlayz (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)7

@HavocPlayz: Except the BoM< MetService and the FMS are government agencies that recognise subtropical storms but do not consider them as a part of the South Pacific cyclone season. Hell they have even issued their final advisories when systems have become subtropical. So no we do not need to include them add them into the cyclone season or make a page dedicated to them, until such a time as the BoM, MetService and the FMS consider them as a part of the TC Season.Jason Rees (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes we do have reason to add it caused a qualified government agency marked it has an STC (sub agency of NOAA who recognized Katie and it was named by researchers in some nature article). FMS and Met Service can't designate advisorys or even mark the system as it was clearly out of their AOR. If we can't give some mention, then Katie and Lexi also need to go since they weren't in the FMS or Metservice AOR either HavocPlayz (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

What Havoc said. Humberto can't just be vaguely specified in a single article (the tropical cyclogenesis page). And there's already enough data to support that. There's even some support for a potential article, such as track data existing. Infinity The Second (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Im sorry but I do not agree that it deserves a place in the season article, since as I keep saying the FMS and MetService routinely monitor subtropical cyclones in their areas of responsiblity but not as a part of the tropical cyclone season. They even issue their final advisories on a system when it becomes subtropical. As a result, I dont see why we should include Humberto just beccause the Weather Prediction Centre monitored it as a subtropical cyclone. Especially when including it would go against Wikipedia's rules on original research, welght given to topics and picking and choosing what systems we monitor. If the WPC or another govenment agency had said that it was tropical then that would be a different kettle of fishJason Rees (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 53

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022

• New collections:
  • Edward Elgar
  • E-Yearbook
  • Corriere della Serra
  • Wikilala
• Collections moved to Library Bundle:
  • Ancestry
• New feature: Outage notification
• Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Weather: Map Dot & Template/Infobox Colors

Dear project member, This message is being sent out to encourage new ideas and feedback on those proposed in regard to the colors debate for WikiProject Weather. For those who are unaware of what's been happening over the last year, I will give a brief summary. We have been discussing proposed changes to the colors of the dots on tropical cyclone maps and templates and infoboxes across the entire weather project in order to solve issues related to the limited contrast between colors for both normal vision as well as the various types of color blindness (MOS:ACCESS). We had partially implemented a proposal earlier this year, however, it was objected to by a number of people and additional issues were presented that made it evident this wasn't the optimal solution. We tried to come up with other solutions to address the issues related to color contrast, however, none of them gained traction and no consensus was generated.

We need your help and I encourage you to propose your own scale and give feedback on those already listed. Keep in mind that we are NOT making a decision on any individual proposal at this time. We are simply allowing people to make proposals and cultivate them given feedback from other project members. Please visit our project page for additional details. The proposal phase will close no later than December 31st at 23:59 UTC. Noah^Talk 03:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

List of retired hurricane and typhoon names

As you have reverted to the previous table formatting at List of retired Pacific typhoon names please consider doing likewise in the other basins' retired names articles as well. They suffer from the same sorting issues. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Drdpw: I will look into it over the next few days. Note I am not against the format of the lists changing but they need to remain compliant with the MOS which the version implemented cleary didn't since it abbreviated dates and didn't tell the reader what the category of the system was. Jason Rees (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Jason Rees!

Happy New Year!

Jason Rees,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

List of possible F5/EF5 tornadoes discussions

Hello Jason Rees. You seem to have an interest in weather-related articles on Wikipedia. So, I wanted to let you know about the ongoing discussions in relation to fixing the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes section about List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes#Possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes officially rated F4/EF4/T9 or lower. Some individual tornado discussions have already been formally closed, but others remain open. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 54

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 54, November – December 2022

• New collections:
  • British Newspaper Archive
  • Findmypast
  • University of Michigan Press
  • ACLS
  • Duke University Press
• 1Lib1Ref 2023
• Spotlight: EDS Refine Results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to scrap the Possible F5/EF5/T10+ Lists

Hello! This is to inform you that there is an ongoing discussion, which is proposal to 100% scrap (delete) the two possible F5/EF5/T10+ lists on the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes article. Feel free to participate here! Elijahandskip (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Ice Hockey World Championships

Ice Hockey World Championships has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Cyclone Gabrielle

On 15 February 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cyclone Gabrielle, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 00:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter

So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

• Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
• Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
• FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
• TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
• Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna, Thebiguglyalien, Sammi Brie, Trainsandotherthings, Lee Vilenski, Juxlos, Unexpectedlydian, SounderBruce, Kosack, BennyOnTheLoose and PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit 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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Category 5 SSHWS - Cyclone Kevin.

why i didn't see Kevin's category 5 peak when JTWC only updated 6 hours in a row at 135 kts Bóng Ma ^{- Talk} 13:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Final-Fantasy-HH:, For whatever reason, the JTWC changed their estimate for 00z on April 4 to 140 kts, in their JMV 3.0 Data/running best track which made it a Cat 5 on the SSHWS.Jason Rees (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for my edit

Good Afternoon Jason Rees I would like to apologize for this edit, didn't notice that Kevin was already on the template, cheers :). Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Cyclonetracker7586: Thanks for the apology but there is no need to apologise as its a simple mistake that I'm sure others will make. I am just looking to make the List_of_Category_5_South_Pacific_severe_tropical_cyclones comprehensive and thought it wise to include Daman 2007 as well as Judy as they were forecast to be Cat 5's.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

First TD in NW Pacific near equator.

I have a question, a tropical depression formed just above the equator in an inhomogeneous position between the JMA and the JTWC. While the JMA thinks it's in the Northern Hemisphere, the JTWC says it's in the Southern Hemisphere, has it broken the record for closest to the equator set by Tropical Storm Vamei in 2001? Bóng Ma ^{- Talk} 08:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Extremely rate cyclone in South East Pacific.

Recently, I discovered several articles documenting the formation of an "extremely rare tropical cyclone" in the Southeast Pacific basin, near Peru, and unofficially named by the tracking agency as " Yaku". Should it be added to the South Pacific hurricane season? Vệ Thần ^{- Talk} 23:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 55

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 55, January – February 2023

• New bundle partners:
  • Newspapers.com
  • Fold3
• 1Lib1Ref January report
• Spotlight: EDS SmartText Searching

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter

The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:

• Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
• Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
• Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
• BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
• FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie, Thebiguglyalien, MyCatIsAChonk, PCN02WPS, and AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter 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 14 days of "earning" them.

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Jason, I want to say that I am apologizing for what I have did to you in early 2021. I wasn't in a clear mental state at that time so I was being a little bit reckless in my attempt to bring Cyclone Owen into Good Article status. Please take it easy. As for myself I have been somewhat 'resting' during this semester of college, but otherwise being involved in student organizations. My focus has been mostly on maintaining my life and not on Wikipedia. MarioJump83 (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@MarioJump83: I am not sure what to make of this unexpected apology as I think most of the problems with Owen were with Chicdat and not you, however, you do seem to be using your expierence on Owen as a stick to beat WPTC/WPWX with.Jason Rees (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 56

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 56, March – April 2023

• New partner:
  • Perlego
• Library access tips and tricks
• Spotlight: EveryBookItsReader

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Question about how to manage something

Hey. So a user in the List of costliest tornadoes in 2022 AfD mentioned that I should add secondary sources to the list. I started adding some. Minutes after adding pure references, another editor reverts my edit. How should I manage this situation? It was reverted with the summary, “rmv all sources that either don't mention damage figures at all or are a direct copy of NCEI, which is already sourced; for a page focused on damage, you can't have sources that simply talk about the tornado and fail to mention monetary estimates”. I’m not sure what to do since generally, I would want to re-revert since removing references seems disruptive, but I really don’t want to debate. What should I do in this situation? Should I move into my sandbox to avoid being reverted until I can actually improve the article, or should I try to discuss the situation on the article talk page? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I will have a look at the situation when I get home later.Jason Rees (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: Having got home and taken a look at the sources provided my suggestion would be to note on the AFD without going into too much detail, that you have tried to add in some secondary sources and that you have been reverted. That way we can see what other people think about the sources and take it into account. On a personal level, I would suggest that TC Palm is not a secondary source in this instance, as it just C&P's the storm events database but presents it slightly differently.Jason Rees (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look and the advice. Yeah, now that I look at TC Palm, it is just a copy/paste of the storm event database, so it isn’t the best source. But anyway, I’m not going to worry about the list anymore and just let the AfD run its course. It is best for me to do some non-recent related edits anyway. Another editor spent a lot of their time over the last 2 weeks copy/editing a list that myself and another editor worked on, and they had a few changes that need to be done. I really do appreciate the advice about TC Palm. I’ll make sure not to use their copy/paste database in the future, since it really isn’t a secondary reliable source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: With the TC Palm source, I am not saying that you shouldnt use it, but would rather suggest that you use it more carefully. The best example I can give you is to take a look at Hurricane Nora of 1997, IBTRACS and EPAC HURDAT. If you look at Nora's article you will see that I am citing IBTRACS rather than HURDAT despite IBTRACS being a C&P/reformatting of HURDAT. This is because it is more convenient that we link to the data directly, rather than making the reader scroll through the whole database. The same would probably apply to TC Palm.Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 July newsletter

The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

• Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
• Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
• Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

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 Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia 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 your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello Jason,

I'm user JayTee32 from WPTC and recently came off an extended Wikibreak. I'm preparing an article I created, Tropical Storm Hernan (2020), for A-Class (and of course to be an FAC eventually), but I know it's recommended that at least two editors peer-review the article before it's considered for A-Class. I was hoping you could peer review the article when you have the chance before I nominate for A-Class, seeing as you're on of the project's most experienced editors. It's previously been reviewed by Hurricanehink in 2021.

JayTee🕊️ 15:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 57

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 57, May – June 2023

• Suggestion improvements
• Favorite collections tips
• Spotlight: Promoting Nigerian Books and Authors

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Did I respond correctly

Hey. So recently, myself and another editor created List of Storm Prediction Center meso—gamma mesoscale discussions and a few hours after moving into mainspace, USM nominated it for deletion. I wanted to ask if I did the response appropriately. I know I was mentioned, as an editor, in the AfD nomination, but I did not respond to that part of the nomination. Please don’t comment in the AfD as that would be canvassing. I’m just wanting to make sure I don’t get hot-headed in it and end up causing more problems down the road. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: Your response seems appropiate. My biggest question would probably be best phased as do we really need article/lists on every supposedly rare product issued by the NWS? For example: I am thinking of writing a list of Tropical cyclone watches and warnings issued by the CPHC.Jason Rees (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: What do you think to the proposed list? In your opinon would it be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? Jason Rees (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be notable for Wikipedia, but maybe not a stand-alone article. Given that List of Hawaii hurricanes exists, it might be better to put the information in that timeline rather than a stand-alone list. But nonetheless, rare products by NWS, like watches and warning from the CPHC should be notable for Wikipedia in general. That is my take on it at least. Depending on how large the list would be though, you could potentially justify a stand-alone list article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response @WeatherWriter:. For the record though, I do not think that a List of tropical cyclone watches and warnings issued by the CPHC is notable for various reasons and am more trying to develop your thinking. This is because as far as I know the press would generally not report on a specific weather watch/warning, being issued say a month or so after it was issued, unless there was something seriously wrong with the warning issued and I dont mean them warning on the wrong tornado.Jason Rees (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from WeatherWriter

Hello! So I wanted to talk to you about the best way to approach a discussion I am wanting to start. Recently, I promoted the Russian annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia oblasts article to be a “High importance” on the WP of International relations (originally was low). This promotion came from a look at article content combined with view count (337k views in 365 days and 24k views in 30 days). The next day, a different user restored the “Low importance” classification saying, Restoring "Low" importance for International Relations. The war is surely very important, but this annexation has already been largely forgotten. A quick look at the participants of the WikiProject show that user is not a member of it (Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Participants), just like how I am not a member of the WikiProject either. Since there is a disagreement between users, I want to start a discussion on that WikiProject talk page to see what classification the article should be. Before I started a discussion that probably will have some level of disagreement between editors, I wanted to ask you about it and run it by you before starting the discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 09:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: The importance of an article to a project is something that is controversial as there are several ways to define it, for example: editors personal views, content, readership levels etc. As a result, it can be frowned upon to change assessments on behalf of Wikiprojects that you are not a part of. In this particular case, I would ask what impacts did the Russian_annexation_of_Donetsk,_Kherson,_Luhansk_and_Zaporizhzhia_oblasts have on international relations between Russia and the rest of the world. I would argue virtually none which is why the low importance would be more applicable than the high to that particular wikiproject in my opinion. As a very rough idea of my thinking here is a guide to tropical cyclone importance:

Low - Fish systems, systems that impact land, but cause minimal deaths/damages.

Mid - Systems that impact land, have had their name retired as a direct consequence of that system.

High - Lots of deaths/damages, international aid is requested.

Top - The system has major ramifications on the country in question and impacts the country for years. (Nargis, Katrina, Tracy etc).

Hope this helps.Jason Rees (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Dora

• Hey Jason Rees! So I had another question. Recently, I saw Hurricane Dora (2023) get created. I watched (did not participate at all) a few editors debate over the article notability ([5][6]). At the time of this question (perm link) the article is basically a lead and meteorological synopsis section, with no impact section. Why would that be notable for an article? I choose the perm link for this question since (1) it is from an hour after the editor notability debate and (2) I wanted to ask the question about what I am seeing right now, given it may be up to a decent article par when you are answering. At the present moment, I would almost think the article should be draftified as not being ready for mainspace, but given the editor debate, I’m not sure what the next course would be; given the article size barely changed over an hour after that debate. Obviously I’m not wanting to do anything to the article at all, but I’m wanting to use this as a learning opportunity to help know what I should do in circumstances like this in the future. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @WeatherWriter: Lets take a couple of steps back here and consider a few things.
    • There are articles out there that only consist of a couple of sentences and probably shouldn't be dratified.
    • There is a viewpoint that any named storm including fish storms are notable enough for an article because of all the media coverage they get.
    • There is a viewpoint that any intense tropical cyclone is notable for a separate article.
    • Dont judge a storm solely by its track as a so called fish storm still can have impacts at times and be retired.
  • I have dilibreately kept my answers broad as I don't wish to comment on Dora, while its still churning away.Jason Rees (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Your correction to List of California hurricanes

Thank you so much for that correction. The reporting on this weather event has been downright sloppy with facts, probably because mentioning these would make for a less "exciting" story. The AP said it was the "first", so I hesitated contradicting the source, however wrong it was. Incidentally, I remember Nora well. The winds briefly kicked up something fierce where I was living at the time; even spotted a funnel cloud. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: Your welcome. I agree that the reporting has been very sloppy on this weather event, but understandable when you consider that it was indeed the first ever time the NHC has had to issue a TS Watch/Warning for California.Jason Rees (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Not using media articles (question from WeatherWriter)

Hey Jason Rees! So recently, I came across an AfD, which I participated in, where I was a support for a merge. Noting, I was not the article creator. The AfD nominator replied to my merge !vote, saying “Please don't use TV stations and newspaper articles as the basis for writing an earthquake article on the encyclopedia. That's fine on wikinews.” Is there some guideline, where we cannot determine a topic’s notability based on the amount of media coverage? I mentioned in a reply comment to this user that articles like Hurricane Ian and the 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake are sourced by mostly media sources. But, I wanted to ask you here, in case there is some guideline that I am not aware of, and one that I need to be aware of before creating articles. Also, since I’m mentioning the AfD to you, please don’t comment in it, since I’ve been told in the past that I would be canvassing. I’m just wanting to know if WP:GNG’s part about significant coverage cannot be determined by media sources, and has to be determined by academic/government sources (i.e. what they are saying). Thank you in advance! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I am rather busy at work this week and couldn't respond sooner, but having read @Dawnseeker2000: comments quickly, I think I know what they mean and can put their argument across another way. Basically, the 2023 Ojai earthquake was like a named storm in the Atlantic Ocean that doesn't impact land, it had a lot of coverage from TV stations and newspapers, but it didn't do any damage and will basically be forgotten about quite quickly. Like an Atlantic hurricane that doesn't impact land, its a novelty more than anything. Jason Rees (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 58

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 58, July – August 2023

• New partners - De Standaard and Duncker & Humblot
• Tech tip: Filters
• Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2022–23 European windstorm season

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2022–23 European windstorm season, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Cyclone Ian edit reverted

The edit I made to Cyclone Ian was because Cyclone Harvey has the same type of box thing at the top – Atlantic hurricane of the same name – so I thought Cyclone Ian could use the same. I am still not a familiar editor with Wikipedia and I feel like my edits are unappreciated. I did not know how to describe the edit.

VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022: I reverted the edit as I do not see the need to highlight one particular weather system named Ian, as opposed to the six others that Wikipedia knows about. Yes the 2010 Ian impacted the US, yes it was the most damaging TC, yes it caused the name to be retired, but I still dont see the need to single out that system. As for your edits, I personally appreciated the heads up you gave people on the 2020 & 2021 seasons about the tracks being removed and im sure other editors will value your work in years to come once you get your feet under the table.Jason Rees (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Names retired by month and letter

Why did you decide to remove this section from List of retired South Pacific cyclone names but not the Atlantic or North Pacific articles? Doesnt seem very consistent. Why should some have it while others dont? Undescribed (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why any of the six lists of retired names (Atlantic, EPAC, WPAC, PAGASA, Aus, SPAC) should have them as the sections are trivial and puts the lists into fan cruft territory. There are very few sources/people that care that for example, Zoe 2002-03 is the only system to have its name retired or that Epi and Keli are the only named storms to be retired in SHEM during the month of June. I realise that it's a different story in the Atlantic, where we get articles about the letter I being the letter with the most retired, but again I do not see the need for them. I would also like to merge the Australian and South Pacific lists into one at some point, since several of the systems overlap each other or were retired because of impacts in the opposite region.Jason Rees (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well I know that the Atlantic seems to get all the attention most of the time (I'm not sure why considering the WPAC is generally the most impressive basin worldwide, with intense storms year round, regardless of the ENSO base state). But for consistency sake, I don't think that the Atlantic list should be the only article with this section, just because everyone always talks about the letter "I" being the most retired name. You could say the same about the letter "M" in the WPAC being the most retired by far, but you don't hear anyone talking about that, do you? The Atlantic always takes the spotlight. On another note, have you heard from RSMC Reunion about the official dates for the start of the SWIO season? I was going to contest that List of off-season South-West Indian Ocean tropical cyclones be deleted, but I want to make sure I'm doing the right thing first. --Undescribed (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

RSMC La Reunion never came back to me but it is fairly obvious that there is a season over the SWIO since they are doing seasonal outlooks, so I think the article should stay for now or we could merge it into one for the whole of SHEM (bar SATL). I have registered to join the WMO meeting on the tropical cyclone outlook on Thursday, so will ask then if its not brought up.Jason Rees (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I know that you were working on a draft for the off-season SWIO storms and our lists actually don't match. I believe the one you created has storms that aren't listed on the other one. Likewise, the list I created has storms that aren't on your list. Also, I wonder how that would work merging all three basins? I can imagine it would be a much longer list. Not sure how many bytes it would take up or if it would be too long of a list? Undescribed (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking about this a bit more last night and I dont think merging the three lists together, since the SWIO uses the French scale rather than the Aussie Scale. Once Lola has died down and he gets back from vacation, I will merge the two lists together and get Hink to do a history merge, unless off course you wish to carefully merge them together.Jason Rees (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like someone already reverted my edit and put back the tables sorting by letter and month in List of retired Atlantic hurricane names. Undescribed (talk) 12:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022: Would you like to expand on your statement and tell us why you think it is so important that we have sections on how many names are retired by letter & month. Especially when there are no sources outside of the Atlantic that talk about how many names are retired by either letter or month.Jason Rees (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, these sections have been around for a long time, and I think these sections are also interesting because they show how many names have been retired by letter and also by each month. They could also be informative as well, so I think they should be kept. VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022: I guessed that by your edit summuary but personally I do not think that is a very strong argument, especially when you consider for example that you do not hear anyone talking about Goni being the only name starting with the letter G to be retired in the WPAC. This is why @Undescribed: and I consider it trivia and would like to get rid of the sections, regardless of how long they have been there.Jason Rees (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Did you want to respond further @VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022:? Jason Rees (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not good with words sometimes okay and I am sorry, but I still think we should keep the sections of retirement by month and letter for articles and I don’t think it is trivia in my opinion. VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

@VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022: We all struggle with time and words at times and that isnt a problem since we are all volunteers. Your reasoning about why we should keep the sections are not brilliant and boil down to WP:I just like it, as a result, I am very tempted to remove the sections per my ear;ier reasoning.Jason Rees (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 November newsletter

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

• BeanieFan11 with 2582 points
• Thebiguglyalien with 1615 points
• Epicgenius with 1518 points
• MyCatIsAChonk with 1012 points
• BennyOnTheLoose with 974 points
• AirshipJungleman29 with 673 points
• Sammi Brie with 520 points
• Unlimitedlead with 5 points

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

• Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
• Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
• BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
• LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
• MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
• Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
• Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hernan again

Hello again Jason,

I wanted to know if you could leave comments on/support my recent nomination of Tropical Storm Hernan (2020) for FA status, as you peer reviewed it for me a few months ago. I'd appreciate your input greatly. JayTee⛈️ 00:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @JayTee32: I have not got the time to do a full review of your FAC nomination at the moment, as I am rather busy with work in real life. A quick look at the article shows that you have managed to find a lot more information than the last time I looked at it which is always good. I would also advise you to be careful with how you phrase your messaging as the way you phrased your message could be seen as canvassing.Jason Rees (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I just re-read what I typed and I feel like I should trout myself lmao. Sorry about that, all I meant to ask was "Would you be able to leave comments on my FAC nomination of Hernan, as I value more experienced editors' input?" I understand that you're busy, however, and I appreciate the help you've already given me. JayTee⛈️ 16:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 59

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023

• Spotlight: Introducing a repository of anti-disinformation projects
• Tech tip: Library access methods

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

West Pacific sources

Hello! I'm currently working on a draft: Tropical Storm Lewis (1993) and I'm searching for sources. Could you help me determine sources that would be good for this type of article? NeoMadness (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 60

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

• Three new partners
• Google Scholar integration
• How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

JTWC SPac Invest

The JTWC is currently monitoring a subtropical cyclone in the South Pacific. If it develops, will it be added to the "other systems" section? ''Flux55'' (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

It is always tricky to know what to do with subtropical cyclones as they are not included as a part of the SPAC season per say by the JTWC/FMS/MSNZ. The JTWC will not initiate advisories on it or give it a number while it is subtropical which is what we generally are looking for. On the other hand, the FMS is publicly monitoring the system in its marine bulletin as an area of low pressure (Low L1) and could number it as 06F/declare it to be a tropical disturbance like they have done with 05F while it was subtropical.Jason Rees (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Flux55: As I am sure you will agree, this question is now rather moot since the subtropical system has transitioned into a tropical one and been classified as TD 06F.Jason Rees (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

History of tropical cyclone naming

Your GA, History of tropical cyclone naming, has been marked as Kept as a part of the 2024–25 WPWX Good Article Reassessment. Noah, AA^Talk 17:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), with one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, and two DYKs;
• Vami_IV (submissions), with one FA on Doom (2016 video game), one GA on Boundary Fire (2017), and 11 reviews;
• MaranoFan (submissions), with one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and two DYKs;
• Skyshifter (submissions), with one FA on OneShot and one DYK;
• Sammi Brie (submissions), with five GAs and five DYKs on television and radio stations;
• voorts (submissions) and Elli (submissions), both with one FA and one DYK each.

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

• Generalissima (submissions), who has 916 points mostly from one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher), 15 GAs, and 16 DYKs on a variety of topics including New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures, in addition to seven reviews
• Vami_IV (submissions), who has 790 points from two FAs on Felix M. Warburg House and Doom (2016 video game), two GAs, one DYK, and 11 reviews
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who has 580 points from one FA on Hö'elün, two GAs on Mongolia-related articles, two DYKs, and five reviews
• Sammi Brie (submissions), who has 420 points mostly from nine GAs and seven DYKs on television and radio stations
• MaranoFan (submissions), who has 351 points from one FA on Holidays (Meghan Trainor song), a nine-article FT on 30 (album), and three DYKs
• Skyshifter (submissions), who has 345 points from one FA on OneShot, one DYK and two reviews

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. 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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

• Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
• 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
• Tamzin (submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
• Kusma (submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

User:Jason Rees/Fiji TCs

I see your sandbox for the List of Fiji tropical cyclones is nearly complete. Would you like me to publish it? It is already more substantial than probably anything available online, so even if it isn't complete, it is better to publish and continue working on it in mainspace, so other readers can enjoy the results of your efforts. Good work on the list by the way. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to publish the sandbox @Hurricanehink:, but I am not yet ready for it to be published yet, as I still need to work out how to present some of the major systems like Sina, Kina, Bola, Winston etc.Jason Rees (talk) 09:36, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 62

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

• IEEE and Haaretz now available
• Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
• Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 707 points, mostly from 45 good article nomination reviews and 12 good articless about radio and television;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 600 points, mostly from 12 good articles and 12 did you know nominations about coinage and history;
• SounderBruce (submissions) with 552 points, mostly from a featured article about the 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season, three featured lists, and two good articles;
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 548 points, mostly from a featured article about the snooker player John Pulman, two featured lists, and one good article;
• voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two featured articles (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three good articles.

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). 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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
• Skyshifter (submissions) with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
• AryKun (submissions) with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). 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. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the DCWC!

See a    "developing" or    "least developed" country? Write about it to earn points!

Welcome to the 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest, Jason Rees! The contest is now open for submissions. List your work at your submissions page to earn points. If you haven't done so already, please review the following:

• Got open nominations? List them at review requests.
• Looking for a topic to work on? Check out suggested articles and eligible reviews.
• Not sure if your article qualifies? See the guidelines for more information or contact a coordinator for verification.
• New to Wikipedia? Many experienced editors are part of this contest and willing to help; feel free to ask questions about the contest on the talk page.
• Know someone else who might be interested? Sign-ups remain open until 15 July, so don't hesitate to invite other editors!

On behalf of the coordinators, we hope you enjoy participating and wish you good luck! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes Improvement Time!

Hello there! I am sending this alert to all members of the WikiProject Weather and editors who have recently edited in the realm of tornadoes.

There is a large and important discussion ongoing, with the goal to completely overhaul and improve the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. The previous improvement attempt back in 2022/2023 gained almost no participation. This alert is being sent out so these discussions hopefully gain a reasonably-sized participation, so the F5/EF5 tornado article, one of the most viewed weather-related articles on Wikipedia, can be improved for all readers!

If you wish to participate, please visit: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 63

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024

• One new partner
• 1Lib1Ref
• Spotlight: References check

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who Newsletter: July 2024

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who Okay–ooh. New teeth newsletter. That's weird... Hello! Welcome to the first regenerated issue of The Space-Time Telegraph, the official newsletter of WikiProject Doctor Who. We hope it finds you well in your safe travels across the Whoniverse! This newsletter was founded in 2008 and seemed to get lost in the time vortex quite quickly. Thanks to the Doctor dragging Sutekh through the time vortex and bringing life by bringing death to death (yeah... I'm a little confused too), it seems to have regenerated. The writing staff hopes to bring you future editions quarterly. For this first edition, we have created an updated version of our mailing list that includes any active editors who previously had their usernames included in our participants list. If you do not wish to receive future editions, please remove your name from the mailing list. If you no longer wish to participate in the project, please also remove your name from the participants list. I think that's enough about the newsletter for now. Let's dive into interesting things happening within the Doctor Who side of Wikipedia. Geronimooooo..... Big Spike in Productivity During 2024, the project has scored 8 GAs, 2 FLs and a GT, up from last year's 4 GAs and a GT. Several additional things are in the pipeline, with a bunch of things currently having been nominated with some mix of OlifanofmrTennant, TheDoctorWho, and Pokelego999 having their names attached to them. Allow me to look into the nominees. Series 14: As of July 18th, every single episode has been sent to GAN, with "Boom", "73 Yards", and "The Devil's Chord" having made it to GA. 2023 Specials: Early in the year, as part of trying to not lose the WikiCup, Ollie sent "The Star Beast" (still salty about the move) to GAN. It was reviewed by frequent collaborator (fly high) of hers, but failed. She then fixed it up and sent it back where it passed. Later "The Giggle" was expanded and sent to GA, followed shortly by "Wild Blue Yonder". WBY received help by JustAnotherCompanion, a pretty fresh user. This other companion chose not to be listed as co-nom. A page was created for "Destination: Skaro" and quickly got GA status. The Daleks' Master Plan was also sent to GAN by Rhain. It passed to join Rhain's other First Doctor content, being the fourth season three article to get the green check. Peter Capaldi: The filmography and newly created awards of Capaldi were both sent to FLC and passed. Capaldi's main page was sent to GA, though due to some minor incompetence on the part of the nominator it was failed. Proposals to the WikiProject A recent proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who suggested potential improvements and suggestions for the main page of the project, as well as discussions about the project overall. The proposals are as follows: The Task Forces section should be removed due to inactivity in the Torchwood Task Force, and a lack of significant interest in creating further Task Forces. The freenode channel no longer works and should be removed due to most discussion taking place on site. Due to the low quality of Lungbarrow and Jubilee despite being sample articles, these articles should either be removed as samples or improved. Additionally, the "sample device" has a very small application field, and should be removed from the sample articles section. An updates infobox should be included, similarly to those used by Wikipedia:VGCHAR. Radio Times's Doctor Who sections should be included in the references section due to their benefits for the project sourcing wise. The Deletion Discussion archive should be removed, or have work invested in updating it, due to its lack of updates. If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion. Discussions of Note A move discussion is currently underway on whether or not Doctor Who series 14 should be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

DCWC August update

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for a month, and we've already seen some momentous improvement in the quality of many articles about underrepresented subjects! So far, our top-scoring participants are:

• Magentic Manifestations (submissions) – 338 points, mainly from nine good articles. He's a contender for the "most submissions for a single country" specialty award, with nine submissions for India.
• Arconning (submissions) – 305 points, including from six seasonally-appropriate Olympics-related good articles.
• Generalissima (submissions) – 290 points, the bulk from her featured article about Greenlandic interpreter Qalaherriaq and two China-related good articles.
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) – 245 points, mostly from the achievement of bringing Genghis Khan to featured status.
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) – 144 points from three good articles, including two about Kiribati elections, and four reviews of good article nominees.

Looking for ways to climb up the leaderboard yourself? Help out your fellow participants by answering a few review requests, particularly the older entries. Several more nominations needing attention are listed at eligible reviews, and highlighed entries receive a 1.5× multiplier! The coordinators would like to extend a special thanks to Thebiguglyalien (submissions) for his commitment to keeping these review pages up to date.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 14:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Alert: PD-NWS Violations

This is an alert being sent to all active editors on the WikiProject of Weather and any editor who has recently editors weather-related articles.

Editors on the Commons have received communication from the National Weather Service that the Template:PD-NWS, which is often used to upload weather-related images, is incorrect. There will be a discussion starting on the Commons Copyright Noticeboard within the next few days to determine how to manage this issue. Under the current PD-NWS copyright template, images on any NWS webpage was considered to be in the public domain unless it had a direct copyright symbol and/or copyright watermark.

One National Weather Service office has confirmed this is not the case. For the next few days, it may be best to not upload any image from an NWS webpage that was not made or taken directly by the National Weather Service themselves. Once the Commons determine how to move forward, editors will recent a new alert. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I am going to append this additional warning to @WeatherWriter‘s message: the National Weather Service emailed @Rlandmann today and clarified that the upload process does NOT automatically release a photo/video into the public domain. I strongly advise you not to upload anything under a PD-NWS tag unless it is specifically produced by the weather service. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 04:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

PD-NWS Violations Update #1

I am providing members of the WikiProject of Weather along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an update to the discussions regarding the PD-NWS image copyright template.

For starters, no "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred. All that means is the template is not formally deprecated and is still in use. However, Rlandmann, an administrator on English Wikipedia, has begun an undertaking of reviewing and assessing all images (~1,400) that use the PD-NWS copyright template.

What we know:

• Following email communications, the National Weather Service of Sioux Falls has removed their disclaimer, which has been used for the PD-NWS template for decades. This means, as far as the National Weather Service is concerned, the following statement is no longer valid: By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others. Currently, the PD-NWS template links to an archived version of the disclaimer. However, the live version of the disclaimer no longer contains that phrase.
• See this deletion discussion for this point's information. NWS Paducah (1) failed to give attribution to a photographer of a tornado photograph, (2) placed the photo into the public domain without the photographer explicitly giving them permission to do so (i.e. the photo is not actually in the public domain), (3) and told users to acknowledge NWS as the source for information on the webpage. Oh, to note, this photographer is a magistrate (i.e. a judge). So, the idea of automatically trusting images without clear attribution on weather.gov are free-to-use is in question.
• The Wikimedia Commons has a process known as precautionary principle, where if their is significant doubt that an image is free-to-use, it will be deleted. Note, one PD-NWS file has been deleted under the precautionary principle. The closing administrator remarks for the deletion discussion were: "Per the precautionary principle, there is "significant doubt" about the public domain status of this file (4x keep + nominator, 5x delete), so I will delete it."
• Several photographs/images using the PD-NWS are currently mid-deletion discussion, all for various reasonings.
• As of this message, 250 PD-NWS images have been checked out of the ~1,400.
• The photograph of the 1974 Xenia tornado (File:Xenia tornado.jpg) was found to not be in the public domain. It is still free-to-use, but under a CC 2.0 license, which requires attribution. From April 2009 to August 2024, Wikipedia/Wikimedia was incorrectly (and by definition, illegally) using the photograph, as it was marked incorrectly as a public domain photograph.

Solutions:
As stated earlier, there is no "formal" rulings, so no "formal" changes have been made. However, there is a general consensus between editors on things which are safe to do:

• Images made directly by NWS employees can be uploaded and used under the new PD-USGov-NWS-employee template (Usage: {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} ). This is what a large number of PD-NWS templated images are being switched to.
• Images from the NOAA Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT) can be uploaded and used under the PD-DAT template (Usage: {{PD-DAT}} ). A large number of images are also being switched to this template.

For now, you are still welcome to upload images under the PD-NWS template. However, if possible it is recommended using the two templates above. I will send out another update when new information is found or new "rulings" have been made. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Dora 2023 and Dora 1999

I only did the WPAC peak strength as well for Dora 2023 since the WPAC strength is on the Dora 1999 page as well, and Dora 1999 also peaked way before it entered the WPAC. Accordthemusician2 (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,150 points, mostly from 3 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 7 good articles, and 13 did you know nominations;
• Arconning (submissions) with 791 points, mostly from 2 featured lists, 8 good articles, 4 did you know nominations, and plenty of reviews;
• AirshipJungleman29 (submissions) with 718 points, mostly from a high-multiplier featured article on Genghis Khan and 2 good articles; and
• BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 714 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Susanna Hoffs, 2 featured lists, and 3 good articles.

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Typhoon Chanthu (2010)

You reverted my GA nom for this page, but the page concern might be right, but what do you mean when I didn't contribute to the article? I'm the main contributor according to XTools? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

DCWC September update

The Developing Countries WikiContest has now been running for two months, and we've seen tremendous improvement in the encyclopedic coverage of several underrepresented areas from a wide range of editors! The coordinators would like to highlght some of the newer faces who have been making notable contributions in the contest, including but by no means limited to:

• Arconning (submissions) – 386 points, with several good articles primarily relating to the Olympics
• Vigilantcosmicpenguin (submissions) – 141 points, who created multiple articles about abortion rights and laws in African countries
• TheNuggeteer (submissions) – 126 points, who has contributed to several articles associated with the Phillippines
• Jaguarnik (submissions) – 125 points, with several good article reviews and an appearance in the In the news section of the Main Page
• Averageuntitleduser (submissions) – 119 points, and has written about several Haitian topics and historical figures.

Only one month remains until the end of the contest, so it's time to make your remaining nominations! Please consider answering some review requests, particularly the older entries, as a way of helping out your fellow participants and moving up the leaderboard. Good luck!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

PD-NWS Violations Update #2 (Key To Read Third Section)

I am providing members of the WikiProject of Weather along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an new update (2nd update) to the discussions regarding the PD-NWS image copyright template.

On the Commons, an RFC discussion is taking place to figure out how to manage the template. No "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred, so nothing has changed. That is not a surprise as the RFC is still ongoing.

What is new?

• The entire Template:PD-NWS has been placed inside a "License Review" template, which is viewable via the link aforementioned.
• Most of the photographs which were uploaded to the Commons originally under the PD-NWS template (approximately 1,500) have been reviewed. Out of those ~1,500 images, only about 150 are requiring additional looks. Most images have been verified as free-to-use and switched to a respective, valid template.
• As of this moment, approximately 50 photos have been nominated for deletion (results pending).
• A handful of images have been deleted (either confirmed copyrighted or under the Commons precautionary principle.
• One image has been kept following a deletion request under the PD-NWS template.

How to deal with new photos?

Given all of this, you might be wondering how the heck you use weather photos while creating articles? Well, here is what you can do!

• If the photo was made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (excluding NWS), You can upload it under the PD-NOAA template via {{PD-NOAA}}.
• If the photo was made by the National Weather Service (NOT Third Party), you can upload it using the new PD-NWS-employee template via {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}}.
  • If the photo originates on the Damage Assessment Toolkit, you can upload it using the PD-DAT template via {{PD-DAT}}.
• If the photo is from a U.S. NEXRAD radar, you can upload it using the PD-NEXRAD template via via {{PD-NEXRAD}}.

What about third-party photos?

In the case of third-party photos...i.e. ones not taken by the National Weather Service themselves...there is an option which was discussed and confirmed to be valid from an English Wikipedia Administrator.

• KEY: Third party images of tornadoes & weather-related content can potentially be uploaded via Wikipedia's Non-Free Content Guidelines!
• Experiments/testing has been done already! In fact, I bet you couldn't tell the difference, but the tornado photograph used at the top of the 2011 Joplin tornado was already switched to a Non-Free File (NFF)! Check it out: File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg! That photo's description can also be used as a template for future third-party tornado photographs uploaded to Wikipedia...with their respective information replaced.
• NFFs can be uploaded to multiple articles as well!
• The absolute key aspect of NFFs is that they relate to the article and are not decoration. For example with the Joplin tornado, the photograph: (1) shows the size of the tornado, (2) shows the "wall of darkness", which was described by witnesses, (3) shows a historic, non-repeatable event of the deadliest tornado in modern U.S. history. The exact reasoning does not have to be extremely specific as Wikipedia's NFF guidelines "is one of the most generous in the world" (words of Rlandmann (not pinged), the administrator reviewing all the PD-NWS template images).
• Tornado photographs will almost certainly qualify under the NFF guidelines, especially for tornadoes with standalone articles or standalone sections.
• NFFs cannot be used when a free-photograph is available, no matter the quality, unless the section is about that specific photograph. For example, the photograph used at the top of the 2013 Moore tornado article is confirmed to be free-to-use, therefore, no NFFs of that tornado can be uploaded on Wikipedia. However, the "Dead Man Walking" photograph could almost certainly be uploaded as an NFF to the 1997 Jarrell tornado article as that photograph is the topic of a section in the article.
• NFFs currently on Wikipedia can and should be placed in this category: Category:Non-free pictures of tornadoes.

Update Closing

Hopefully all of that information kept you informed on the Commons copyright discussion process and how you can still create the best articles possible! If you have a question about something mentioned above, reply back and I will do my best to answer it! Also, ping me in the process to ensure I see it! Have a good day! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 64

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024

• The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
• Wikimania presentation
• New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who: September 2024 Newsletter

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue II — September 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who You like Doctor Who? What's his name then? Welcome Hello and welcome to the second issue of the new newsletter! Following the success of the first newsletter we are back to write more stuff. Articles for deletion Several articles have been nominated for deletion, such as Time War (Doctor Who), and several articles have been deleted, or merged or redirected, especially those relating to books, due to lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:NBOOK. Editors can always help either by participating in the deletion discussions (which are noted on the project page), adding to such articles, or bringing attention to other such articles through AfD or the WikiProject talk page, to aid in clean-up. Notice of Draft Articles A new Doctor Who spin-off was announced at the 2024 San Diego Comic-Con, called The War Between the Land and the Sea, and will feature old and new Whoniverse characters working for UNIT as they battle the Sea Devils. The main space article currently redirects to Whoniverse, but collaboration is currently underway in a draft article. As filming on this miniseries has recently begun, its relocation to the mains space will presumably take place soon per the recommendations laid out at WP:NTV. There is also a draft article in progress for the upcoming 2024 Christmas special. While this article won't be moved until the episode airs, any new contributions are welcome. Doctor Who News A small number of editors have recently raised questions regarding the reliability of Doctor Who News. This website is particularly used for information regarding viewing figures and the Appreciation Index of most episodes as well as some news information. If there is a better source for any information supported by this website, it should be replaced in good faith. A full consensus on whether or not to remove the information that can't be supported by a different source has not yet been reached. Any editor who has opinions on this matter should contribute to the discussion on the WikiProject talk page. Continued Progress Towards Good/Featured Content There has been lots of progress made towards recognized articles in the last two months, related to such diverse categories as series, specials, lists and episodes A sub-page has also been added to the WikiProject, to list any possible goals we can aim towards. Proposals Regarding the State of Fictional Elements Articles in the WikiProject Several proposals have been laid out regarding fictional elements in the WikiProject, which includes fictional characters, locations, and more. Due to a concerning quality state regarding the large majority of them, several methods of tackling them in order to improve these articles' quality for the future have been proposed. The primary three proposals are as follows: 1. A priority list should be made to determine what articles are most pressing and in need of improvement in the WikiProject overall. Focus would be put onto important subjects and articles in a state of dubious notability that would make them viable for deletion processes such as AfD. 2. A group of articles is selected for improvement, which are ones deemed most relevant to the WikiProject for the future. Any lesser important subjects can be sidelined and worked on as editors see fit. 3. A long term goal is made to improve all elements. This will come at the caveat of taking significantly longer and requiring more heavy participation than the above two proposals, but would guarantee a slow and steady way to solve the issue. If any editors are interested in chiming into the conversation and sharing their piece on how this should be handled, or if any editors wish to help with this proposal and improve fictional elements articles, then feel free to share thoughts at the discussion's section on the article's talk page. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) "I'm not appalled by it" - The New New York Times If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter or have any feedback, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

DCWC closing update

The 2024 Developing Countries WikiContest has come to a close! After a thrilling finish to the event with a slew of submissions on the final day, we have our winners. With 608 points, Thebiguglyalien (submissions) comes in third with his series of Kiribati and Botswanan submissions; BeanieFan11 (submissions) flies into second place at the last second with 771 points after a string of good articles about sportspersons; and after leading for much of contest's three months, Generalissima (submissions) finishes with a whopping 798 points to take home the Gold Belt Buckle. Congratulations to our winners!

In addition to his spot in the top three, BeanieFan11 (submissions) also wins the special awards for submitting under the most countries (44 countries) and for writing the most articles about women (15 Did you know? nominations)! Magentic Manifestations (submissions), after making 16 submissions under the Indian flag—15 of them good articles—receives the awards for most submissions for a single country and most featured or good articles promoted. For their submission of one FAC review, five FLC reviews, and 20 GAN reviews, Simongraham (submissions) wins for most article reviews.

The results of the contest have far exceeded any expectations the coordinators had for it at the beginning: among the submissions to the event were 3 FAs, 10 FLs, 88 GAs, dozens of article reviews of every kind, and more Did you know? submissions than we can count! Regardless of your level of participation, every contestant can be proud to have contributed towards a major step in countering the systemic bias on Wikipedia. Every year, millions of readers and editors around the globe use Wikipedia to educate themselves and communicate with others about parts of the world that often receive less attention than they deserve. Thank you for participating with us in the contest and contributing to this effort. The DCWC will return next year and we look forward to seeing you contribute again! However, before that...

We need your feedback! Join the conversation on the talk page to discuss your reflections on the contest (even if you didn't participate!) and help us make it better.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the contest talk page or ask one of the coordinators: Ixtal (talk · contribs), sawyer777 (talk · contribs), or TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs). (To unsubscribe from these updates, remove yourself from this list.) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:02, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)