User talk:2003 LN6

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; s/2; s/ 1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

User page Talk page Sandbox Contributions Logs Rights Achievements Userboxes Awards Essays Pages Status

This is 2003 LN6's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1: 4 months

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stigmatomma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lithomyrmex.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Camponotus inflatus

On 16 January 2025, 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 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 (here's how, Camponotus inflatus), and the hook may be added to 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 Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JTWC 1 min winds

Stop putting 1 min winds without any TC number by JTWC. This is unofficial and illegal. MAS0802 06:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @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. 2003 LN 6 14:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 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! MAS0802 17:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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! 2003 LN 6 17:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jason Rees (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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. 2003 LN 6 00:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.Jason Rees (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees: Thank you! I will discontinue the practice of placing 1-minute winds on unnumbered systems. 2003 LN 6 01:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jason Rees (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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. 2003 LN 6 15:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jason Rees (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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. 2003 LN 6 07:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]