Jump to content

Talk:2016 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

@Typhoon2013: I just discovered that the seasonal forecast link (reference no. 1) is the link for last year's forecast. I tried to find this year's link, but I couldn't find it. Could you find this year's link and replace it there? Thanks, 73.223.175.207 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its this years forecast - the citation template just needed a tweak to ensure that its 2016 and not 2015.Jason Rees (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2016 Pacific typhoon season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nepartak's pressure

[edit]

@173.190.129.153: Omg please stop changing the pressure from 900 hPa to 897 hPa. We follow the RSMC (which is Japan / JMA), therefore it is 900 hPa. It is true that a buoy recorded a pressure of 897 hPa, but I would say this is unofficial. You were already reverted 4 times by 2 users, already. Typhoon2013 (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, this will also considered an edit warring with your co-contributor here in Wikipedia, as stated in three-reverts rule. So we will already warning you a hundred times again, STOP MESSING-UP ARTICLES and avoid changing the total pressure of Typhoon Nepartak. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 03:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor non-existent

[edit]

"See more detailed information" links to "#Current_storm_information" which doesn't exist. Jidanni (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... Its a feature implemented in other basins which should realistically be implemented here...Jason Rees (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if...

[edit]

@Jason Rees: @Meow: What if in the JMA weather maps, it states a TD, however in its summary, it doesn't. As of now (or on 06Z, 12/8), the 14th TD is still visible in the weather maps, however JMA doesn't mention it in its summary. Do we wait for it until it's not in the maps, or not in its summary. This is possibly the same thing what happened to 01W when I saw that JMA stopped tracking on the 28th, however the sources stated only until the 27th. I know that we discussed this before, but I just want to clarify. Thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question is can you prove that it is a tropical depression, where the JMA is saying that it is a TD on the weather maps to the general public. My view is no, which is why I dont use them and will always tell you guys to use the summaries. In the specific case of 01W, all of the sources I have available to me point to a degeneration date of the 27th rather than the 28th. This includes the HKO report on the system, the text WWJP25 Summaries I have stored on my emails and Steve Young's Monthly Tracks.Jason Rees (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Via WebCite or Internet Archive, yes we can prove that. -- Meow 12:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No we can not as there is no key on the weather maps, which is what I would require for the sake of WP:Verifiability.Jason Rees (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why keeping removing important information?

[edit]

The tropical depression over Taiwan late on August 12 provides much value for meteorological research. With radar images, eye-like feature, and a buoy record of gale-force, I don’t know why Jason Rees keeps removing anything important as he even doesn't live in this basin! How can he know how important a system is to this basin? Moreover, ISO 8601 doesn't allow the lowercase z in the end! -- Meow 16:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that the system was not named by the JMA, or tracked all that well by the JTWC. There is little official data on it, just like the other minor tropical depression. The statements you are making are not recorded with any reputable source even if they may have occurred (Mainly referring to the eye-wall feature). If it had caused noteworthy events it may have warranted a proper section, but as far as I can tell it did not. Supportstorm (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Meow: as you have just given me and some of the other editors a bloody good laugh... Anyway it is great that the system apparently provides a lot to meteorological research, however, Wikipedia is not a social network and we need to keep to what reliable text sources are saying on a system. As a result of this, I am going to be working this year to try and keep the article tidy and without any major original research. If this means I have to remove and rework a section that is cited back to a forum which will does pass WP:Reliable Source, then so be it. Hell you never know all this work now, might mean we end up with an article that is semi-decent at the end of the year and not one that is a complete mess like last years one is.Jason Rees (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What things you did to this article are removing important information and ignore important systems, making the season article like a garbage. Did I include original research? Is a buoy record original research? Insulting and making chaos are not proper in Wikipedia at all. -- Meow 19:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And the laugh continues... I am not causing chaos or insulting anyone, by trying to keep the article tidy with the details sourced back to reliable sources, which do not include forums regardless of where the data comes from originally. We are also not allowed to use radar images, to determine if something has an eye-like feature, as it constitutes original research and as a result fails WP:Verification. I also do not personally feel that it is relevant to the article, that a buoy apparently observed some gale-force winds. I have also spoken with a couple of meteorologists via the Pacific Typhoon season group who have looked at the data and their not sure that the system had a closed circulation yet alone an eye feature, in fact one opinons that the radar might have had an error.Jason Rees (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I removed you from my contacts. You are keeping laughing at and insulting people. -- Meow 01:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly @Meow: I am laughing at your constant personal attacks on me because I know the truth, which is that I am not removing anything important from the article that is not sourced. I also realise that I am not here to make friends but to make an article, that does not contain anything that a layman can not easily prove to be true. I will also note that I am not constantly laughing or insulting people, however, if you feel that I have insulted you in this thread by telling you the truth then im sorry. I will point out though that you have insulted me, with the personal attack where you accused me of "removing anything important" from the article and tried to tell me that I do not know how important a system is to this basin, because I do not live in it. However, instead of taking things further, I decided just to laugh it off, as I haven't removed anything important from the article and have just tried to expand and tidy it up.Jason Rees (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Windspeeds

[edit]

I am getting fed up off seeing the paramaters |Prewinds=< and |10-min winds=30 in the tropical depression infoboxes, as it is original research as it can not be verified. Instead just use the parameter |Type1=nwpdepression Jason Rees (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting fed up off seeing Jason Rees. They are definitely below 30 knots according to JMA's standards. -- Meow 01:56, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care if you are getting fed up off seeing me, as its safe to say that I am going to be editing here for a while. As a result if that means I have to remove any original research in the article and rework bits in order to drag this article up to quality then so be it.Jason Rees (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are definitely not winds unknown according to this document. Don’t use your original research for complaining other people making original research. -- Meow 12:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Winds unknown can be changed to winds not specified quite easily, as that document does not allow me to say that 01W for instance had winds less than 30 knots.Jason Rees (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you did not read the document at all. There are three classifications of TDs from JMA, and NTD is the only one which is below 30 knots. Stop insisting on your original research. -- Meow 12:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I read the document but it is not good enough to say that 01W for instance had winds less than 30 knots. As a result it is still original research to put any system as having winds of less than 30 kts. Also it is not my rules - im just sick and tired of seeing this article end up in a mess at the end of the year, with duplicate references and it way too big for its own good so I will still be making sure the OR and verification rules are met, while tidying up sections where needed even if you do not like my methods Meow.Jason Rees (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Pacific_typhoon_season/Archive_1&oldid=1142388756"