User talk:SolarisPenguin

SolarisPenguin, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi SolarisPenguin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cullen328 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

IBTRACS

Hi SolarisPenguin, Thanks for updating tropical cyclone intensities using IBTRACS which is fine and great, however, we need to be careful which dataset we take the data from especially if you are changing the dates of the season away from what the BoM said. DS824/NEUMANN are both unofficial datasets which as far as I know use 1-min winds and are not 10-min winds or from the BoM. I also have a big problem with applying Neumanns winds to call something a TS etc on the SSHWS, before the JTWC starts to issue warnings for the basin in 1980 as they were never called a tropical storm etc or rated on the SSHWS. Jason Rees (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to find the BoM stats, but couldn't locate them. According to the DS824 notes, the data for their estimates are provided from the BOM. SolarisPenguin (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the 10-min estimate for Wendy was from TCWC Wellington. SolarisPenguin (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SolarisPenguin, Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier but I had to go work! I don't know offhand where the previous winds on the article came from, but was concerned since you are brand new and had changed the winds, categories, dates etc based on what I believe is an unofficial dataset. I don't know if the winds in the DS824 is directly from the BoM and would urge you to be careful since the windspeeds could have originated from Honolulu, Jakarta, PNG, Nadi or New Caledonia, however, I can confirm that the data from Wellington is reputable as it is indeed from MetService who warned on the systems at the time along with the BoM. I think for now what I will do is revert my edit but go through and double-check them on my days off over the next few days.Jason Rees (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! A few estimates didn't match up with the BOM data, and instead used the JTWC data, however I didn't include those when I added the new data. I may have made a few mistakes there though. SolarisPenguin (talk) 00:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using JTWC data in place of data from the BoM is probably one of the worst things you can do in terms of changing wind speeds, as the JTWC are meant to be 1-minute sustained and use the SSHWS rather than 10-min and the Aus TC Scale like the BoM, MetService etc do. However, I believe that before 1980 most of their data comes from the RSMC/TCWC's. Anyway lets check these things together. and start with Ida, I see that the BoM/Wellington both agree that it moved into the SPAC during June 1 (local time) and since its .1 of a degree and an hour on the BoM's part I think its better to use June 1 for the dissipation date. I also see that Wellington suggests that Ida crossed with 55 kts and a central pressure of 980 hPa, which would make it a Cat 2 TC on Aus.Jason Rees (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I was referring to estimates in my previous post, I meant the DS824 estimates used the JTWC data in a few select cases, like Vicky and Wendy. I didn't include those when I added the data. For Wendy, I opted for the Wellington estimate. SolarisPenguin (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the WPTC!

Hi, and welcome to the Tropical cyclone WikiProject! We are a group of Wikipedia editors who help to improve articles related to tropical cyclones on Wikipedia.

Looking for somewhere to start? Here are a few suggestions.

You can check out topics on the main page.
You can re-assess tropical cyclone-related articles to assure they are up to standards.
See the to do list for the WikiProject, and opt to try and complete some of those tasks.
Check out the guidelines to get an idea of the project's standards.
If you want to work on an article, Category:Stub-Class Tropical cyclone articles is a great place to start.
You can also check out the newsletter.
For further information, you could join the WikiProject Tropical cyclones IRC channel or Discord server.

If you have any comments, suggestions, or would like to talk about the project in general, feel free to leave a message on the talk page.

🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 17:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for fixing 1962 - 1999's timelines! That makes it much easier to navigate these pages without confusion. Poxy4 (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 03:51, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colin's Image

On the 2022 Atlantic Season article, I noticed that you changed Colin's image. In previous discussions we decided on the image that you replaced. Could you explain why and maybe go on the talk page to discuss why you changed it. ✶Mitch199811✶ (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image being used currently shows Colin shortly before being downgraded to a tropical depression. While the other image isn't as good quality as the current one, it's much better at representing the peak than the current one, which doesn't represent peak at all. Alternatively, maybe File:Colin 2022-07-02 1211Z.jpg or File:Colin 2022-07-02 0715Z.jpg could be used. These are better quality but still closer to peak than the image being used currently. I think a better representation of the peak intensity should be prioritized over using visible imagery. SolarisPenguin (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would open a discussion in the season's page proper as they have discussed it and decided on that image twice I believe. ✶Mitch199811✶ [Talk] 13:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final report

Wait. It's actually out now? I didn't know, so I'll just revert my edits and change the source. Songda Talas 14:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IBTRACS Data

Please remember to take the winds in IBTRACS from the USA Wind Paramater and not the Max Intensity or NEUMANN WIND, as the former is the JTWC's official estimate of the winds in a system.Jason Rees (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Your recent editing history at 2023 Atlantic hurricane season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You are edit warring in violation of established consensus. Stop immediately. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image reverting

You reverted two images I changed that were closer to peak. You initially said something else before changing it to "clarity" issues. I don't see anything wrong with the clarity either. The first one may look similar, but if you actually look at it for more than a second instead of taking a quick glance, you can see the coastline as well as city lights. The second one also has landmasses visible and they can be seen just fine. _ZZ^Z 'S 13:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can barely see what's going on unless you look *very* closely at the Laura image. The contrast is off, part of the storm is too dark while some of the cloudtops are a blinding white. There is a clear issue with clarity here. It's not worth having an image less than an *hour* closer to peak when half the image is dark and the rest of the backdrop is a muddled near-grey. The costs far outweigh the benefits when the storm's intensity was essentially the same anyway. SolarisPenguin (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can see what's going on in the Laura image without zooming in. I can see it just fine. The replacement does have a visible coastline and should be noticeable to people who do not skim through the infobox. The only serious concern I have about it is that the ocean is a bit small. Perhaps I can ask the original uploader to zoom out a bit, which should be easy to resolve. Anyway, I still believe it is better than having the PNG image with overexaggerated, unnatural colours, unrealistically representing the storm and misleading the users. _ZZ^Z 'S 14:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon closer inspection, the PNG version has more pure white pixels than the JPEG. They are also more prominent. About the "bad" contrast, it is literally what sunsets look like from space. There is nothing wrong with it because it is natural. You can still see a good portion of its surroundings and I don't see anything wrong with it. _ZZ^Z 'S 14:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point here. The contrast is bad *because* it is a sunset image. Don't forget that most users will be skimming the image and the colours being slightly wrong matters much less than half the image being dark. SolarisPenguin (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is "natural" doesn't make it the most ideal representation. There are other factors to consider here, you know. SolarisPenguin (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point about the Laura image. However, I still believe we should not be using the PNG image for Laura because there is a better way to represent the storm while still being at its peak intensity or as close to peak intensity as possible. I will request a frequent tropical cyclone image uploader to upload a better image. As for Irma, I still believe the Saint Martin version is better. The sunset doesn't even cover half of the image and only omits an island that is barely in the picture for the 30-minute image. Furthermore, its file size is larger and it is actually in the peak range. _ZZ^Z 'S 22:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still here? You seem to be inactive _ZZ^Z 'S 18:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I tend to forget to respond to people a lot. Changing the Laura image to .jpg sounds like a good idea. SolarisPenguin (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already sent a request to him, but as I said earlier, I believe the sunset image for Irma is better. _ZZ^Z 'S 23:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for your response so we can reach an agreement for Irma's image. _ZZ^Z 'S 19:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and change the image for Irma, after looking at it again it seems fine to use. SolarisPenguin (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! _ZZ^Z 'S 02:09, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]