Content deleted Content added
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion from User talk:2003 LN6. (BOT) |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion from User talk:2003 LN6. (BOT) |
||
Line 321:
|text = On [[Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2025/January#16 January 2025|16 January 2025]], '''[[:Template:Did you know|Did you know]]''' was updated with a fact from the article '''''[[Camponotus inflatus]]''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that '''[[Camponotus inflatus|a species of Australian ant]]''' has special workers that make honey, and is considered a [[delicacy]] by [[Aboriginal Australians]]?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Camponotus inflatus]]. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>([[User:Rjanag/Pageview stats|here's how]], [https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?start=2025-01-06&end=2025-01-26&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Camponotus_inflatus Camponotus inflatus])</small>, and the hook may be added to [[Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders|the statistics page]] after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the [[:Template talk:Did you know|Did you know talk page]].
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 00:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
== JTWC 1 min winds ==
Stop putting 1 min winds without any TC number by JTWC. This is unofficial and illegal. [[User:MAS0802|MAS0802]] 06:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:Hello @[[User:MAS0802|MAS0802]]: I would like to ask: Why should there be no 1-minute peak sustained winds for non-numbered storms? The track data which is made by the JTWC should be, in my opinion, just as valid a source for determining tropical cyclone 1-minute intensity as it comes from the same agency and is measured in the same way as numbered systems. Therefore, I believe that I should be able to use this as a source to obtain peak 1-minute wind speeds for unnumbered systems. <span style="border-radius:9pt;border:solid 2px #0f0;padding:1px;background-color:#156">[[User:2003 LN6|<span style="color:#fff">2003</span>]] [[User:2003LN6/t|<span style="color:#fff">LN</span>]][[User:2003LN6/c|<span style="color:#fff">6</span>]]</span> 14:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::Hi [[User:2003 LN6|2003 LN6]]: I hear your feedback about the 1-min peak sustained winds. I'm just want to give you some advice. Firstly, I know unnumbered systems is able to count by JTWC. But the question is, is this unnumbered systems upgraded by JTWC (TD or TS)? Although unnumbered systems is reaching 30 knots or above, you still need waiting the official reports by JTWC, you cannot writing down before JTWC is upgrading the system except another situation. For example, JTWC think this system is transitioned to a STD or STS. That is another situation without any measured by JTWC.
::Secondly, unnumbered systems is still named "Invest", that means it is not yet certain to be upgraded by JTWC. For instance, that is 3 levels of systems, "Low", "Medium" and "High". If this system has a high probability of forming a tropical cyclone. JTWC will issued it a TCFA (Tropical Cyclone Formation Alert). JTWC will determine about this system will become a tropical cyclone or cancel the warning.
::Lastly, you can use any official source to update the system after JTWC official reports is out.
::That's my advice, hope you understand what I mean in this post.
::Have a great day, Bye! [[User:MAS0802|MAS0802]] 17:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:MAS0802|MAS0802]]: The systems which are never numbered will never be released in post-season analysis tracks. Therefore, the current Invest track data is the only source for 1-minute wind for these unnumbered systems. So, the two possible solutions are either to leave all of them blank or to use the 1-minute winds in the track data as there is no other source I know of for 1-minute winds for these systems, so I prefer providing more information. Also, concerning the system's status, the track data suggests that they are in fact tropical depressions. Thank you! <span style="border-radius:9pt;border:solid 2px #0f0;padding:1px;background-color:#156">[[User:2003 LN6|<span style="color:#fff">2003</span>]] [[User:2003LN6/t|<span style="color:#fff">LN</span>]][[User:2003LN6/c|<span style="color:#fff">6</span>]]</span> 17:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
::::You can argue that they were tropical depressions because of the tracking data provided by NRL etc but without a formal advisory or designation from the JTWC or the NWS stating such, we enter the territory of original research because of the way the infobox works. [[User:Jason Rees|Jason Rees]] ([[User talk:Jason Rees|talk]]) 22:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Jason Rees|Jason Rees]]: I see why this would be a valid argument, and I will accept this conclusion. Two last things to note; 1. where is the peak intensity found on numbered systems provided by JTWC so that it would not be considered original research?; and 2. Wouldn't comparing numbers from the track data to find the highest wind speed count as [[WP:CALC]]? Just curious. <span style="border-radius:9pt;border:solid 2px #0f0;padding:1px;background-color:#156">[[User:2003 LN6|<span style="color:#fff">2003</span>]] [[User:2003LN6/t|<span style="color:#fff">LN</span>]][[User:2003LN6/c|<span style="color:#fff">6</span>]]</span> 00:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::The point was that on numbered systems, we are not classifying the system as a tropical cyclone or x, but on unnumbered systems, we would be, which is why we enter the realms of OR. Comparing the numbers from the tracking data for numbered systems does indeed fall under WP:Calc, but we can also look at various resources such as the JTWC ATCR's & BT files.[[User:Jason Rees|Jason Rees]] ([[User talk:Jason Rees|talk]]) 00:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Jason Rees|Jason Rees]]: Thank you! I will discontinue the practice of placing 1-minute winds on unnumbered systems. <span style="border-radius:9pt;border:solid 2px #0f0;padding:1px;background-color:#156">[[User:2003 LN6|<span style="color:#fff">2003</span>]] [[User:2003LN6/t|<span style="color:#fff">LN</span>]][[User:2003LN6/c|<span style="color:#fff">6</span>]]</span> 01:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Yeah this also extends to the addition of systems that have not been publicly classified as tropical depressions by the JTWC or the NWS in Pago Pago. [[User:Jason Rees|Jason Rees]] ([[User talk:Jason Rees|talk]]) 23:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Jason Rees|Jason Rees]]: There have been three systems in the South Pacific designated as tropical depressions by the JTWC on the track maps, but not by the FMS as disturbances. Can I place them under the other systems section? They are 98P, 90P, and 91P. <span style="border-radius:9pt;border:solid 2px #0f0;padding:1px;background-color:#156">[[User:2003 LN6|<span style="color:#fff">2003</span>]] [[User:2003LN6/t|<span style="color:#fff">LN</span>]][[User:2003LN6/c|<span style="color:#fff">6</span>]]</span> 15:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::No because the JTWC have not issued any advisories on these systems or called them Tropical Depressions publicly - you are assuming that they are tropical depressions based on the automated tropical cyclone forecast system which says that they are tropical depressions because they have 25/30 kts winds. Over the years, the rule has been we only mark a system as being a TD or a TS when the JTWC has initiated advisories on it. [[User:Jason Rees|Jason Rees]] ([[User talk:Jason Rees|talk]]) 01:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::::@[[User:Jason Rees|Jason Rees]]: I understand the reasoning, and I will not add the three systems in the future. One last point to note: This leads to an interesting scenario where the track maps have TD status while they do not even get a mention on the article. I have not ever witnessed this before, nor do I believe I will encounter it again at least in a few years. Usually, even the weakest systems get a Disturbance and numeric designation by the FMS (e.g. 02F this season which did not even reach TD status on the JTWC track data), but apparently not this one. I believe that WPTC should set up some sort of procedure for this so that confusion and ambiguity does not happen in the future. <span style="border-radius:9pt;border:solid 2px #0f0;padding:1px;background-color:#156">[[User:2003 LN6|<span style="color:#fff">2003</span>]] [[User:2003LN6/t|<span style="color:#fff">LN</span>]][[User:2003LN6/c|<span style="color:#fff">6</span>]]</span> 07:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
| |||