User talk:Icarus58

Archives:

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of storms named Ampil (August 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

lacks any sources or references for storms apart from Tropical Storm Ampil.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of storms named Ampil and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Icarus58! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello, I'm Hotwiki. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Hotwiki (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Year in short descriptions for tropical cyclones which already have the year in their title?

Why are you still insisting that the year should be kept in the short description for articles that already mention it in their titles? It makes no sense. It is superfluous since it repeats information that is previously mentioned in the title and only contributes to the length of the short description, which should stay short (WP:SDSHORT, especially the last part listed). A reader would understand what the four digit numbers in the title means and it does not need to be unnecessarily repeated. If you're saying that's how the other articles are like, then there has to be a good reason to keep it like that. Standard tradition doesn't supersede Wikipedia guidelines. _ZZ^Z 'S 10:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem? I am waiting for your response. _ZZ^Z 'S 16:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your consequences, Zzz's. Unfortunately, some tropical cyclone articles in typhoon names are considered as repeatable in year descriptions to make it easier find (especially the main topic) and should be keep it neutral. In general terms, those year descriptions are common senses and not be superfluous. As you did it at Typhoon Ewiniar (2024) by using scripts, which is already reverted earlier; but you need to follow the wiki guidelines as neutral point of view. Hope you'll understand for my reasons to know what is right and wrong actions. Icarus58 (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does it make it easier to find? The user can know what they're looking for just by the title's inclusion of the year. They would know that the title is referring to the year. Also, how is it biased and somehow violating NPOV? _ZZ^Z 'S 21:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*cough* _ZZ^Z 'S 00:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conson 2021 move

Your argument gave off the impression that "there was a TS last 2016 so TS Conson should be kept the '(2021)' in it". True, it's confusing. True, Conson is named twice on tropical storms. But the one in 2021 did damage, while the 2016 is super duper minor—it barely affected any lands at all. It's a WP:PRIMARYRED issue.

So any thoughts on moving it? Bugnawfang (talk) 09:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]