Talk:2011 Pacific typhoon season/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

How to get the JMA tropical cyclone number for each tropical cyclone?

I WANT LINKS. If I cannot get them, I would remove that part.--I am a horny pussycat.Meow✉ 13:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean with the JMA tropical cyclone number for each tropical cyclone? --Matthiasb (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:2011_Pacific_typhoon_season#JMA_Tropical_cyclone_number and 2011_Pacific_typhoon_season#Season_effects.--I am a horny pussycat.Meow✉ 05:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Probably, all tropical depressions with winds of atleast 55 km/h (35 mph) are numbered. The JMA officially numbers tropical storms only and not tropical depressions. They call it the "international number ID" and the basic structure of the number is XXYY where XX is the year and YY is the storm. Example, if the year is 2015 and its the 15th storm, then the international number ID for the strom will be 1515. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I cannot see how they are really necessary to appear. All tropical storms are named and given an international number, and people could see the list at the international names section.

What I meant about tropical cyclone numbers is right here: [1]--I am a horny pussycat.Meow✉ 10:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it the "Tropical cyclone number ID"???? If it is that, as much as i understand, The JMA is numbering all tropical depressions with winds of atleast 55 km/h (35 mph) or those tropical depressions that the JMA has officially issued graphical warnings on (live example). --Anirudh Emani (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
In the JMA BT, they only have the TC#'s for all storms in the database- only TS's and TY's. The TD numbers are not included and therefore are OR. — Ines(talk) 12:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

In the JMA best track, there is a Tropical Cyclone number, which is separate from the international number. They use different threshold. BBBB 4 columns <International number ID> 

                         Last two digits of calendar year followed by 2-digit serial 
                         number ID of the storm of Tropical Storm (TS) intensity or 
                         greater

DDDD 4 columns <Tropical cyclone number ID> 

                         Serial number ID of the storm of intensity with maximum 
                         sustained wind speed of 28 kt (near gale) or  greater129.94.223.87 (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
See Typhoon Committee Operational Manual-Meteorological Component, page 12:
As soon as the wind speed in a tropical cyclone in the responsible area of the RSMC Tokyo - Typhoon Center (between 0°N and 60°N and between 100°E and 180°E) attains 34 knots, it will be given an identification name with a 4-digit number by the RSMC Tokyo - Typhoon Center. Each tropical cyclone should be identified by one of the names in Table 1 - A.1 (Appendix 1-A), followed by the 4-digit number in brackets, whose number will consist of a year identification and a serial number identification (in two digits each).
Elsewhere is stated that Central Pacific hurricanes crossing into the RSMC Tokyo area of resposibility will getting an "international number" while retaining their former name.
However within Japan (f.ex. on it's Japanese language website) the JMA does not use typhoon names but they're numbering the storms. See also this. --Matthiasb (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Please give us a reason why we need that tropical cyclone numbers (not international numbers). Or I will delete them every day.--I am a horny pussycat.Meow✉ 05:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

They should be included because they are official designations given by JMA. Please give a valid reason why an official designation CANNOT be included in Wikipedia. Or I will add them every day.218.215.54.121 (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That is not used for the WMO. That is the reason. I don't see why we should add something not complete and not reliable.--I am a horny pussycat.Meow✉ 10:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

JTWC numbers and PAGASA names aren't used by WMO. Using your logic, JTWC numbers and PAGASA names should be removed as well. In fact, the TC ID is used in SAREP, which IS a product recognized by WMO. It is more official than both JTWC numbers and PAGASA names. No matter it is used by WMO or not, it is a piece of information about the TC and should be included.218.215.54.121 (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think the TC ID of JMA is much more reliable than that in the Australian Region. Those xxU are extremely hard to be identified.218.215.54.121 (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Meow should immediately stop the vandalism by removing TC number from the article in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.2011typhoon (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually you should stop adding them until a consensus has been reached on this page over what to do with them. Also you should not make personal attacks against other editors and spamming requests for page protection.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Meow's repeated removal of well sourced content without any valid reason is clearly vandalism in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. (Incompleteness is never a valid reason to remove content!) This is not a personal attack. It is the truth.2011typhoon (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As i said per WP:BRD you should not of kept adding it in without obtaining a consensus to add them in on this page. As best i can tell no consensus has developed either way, and i severely doubt that Meows removal of this content is "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" especially when the JMA does not advertise these numbers that well.Jason Rees (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. The changes are well-sourced and verifiable. There is no valid excuse for Meow to revert. (Incompleteness is not a valid excuse either.) Hence, the only explanation is vandalism, ie. "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia".218.215.54.121 (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope its not vandalism - but either way it still needs a consensus before it gets added in again since they have been described as original research by an editor and seem to be controversial.Jason Rees (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources have been added since his reply. Hence, it is not original research. The best track database[2] and several SAREP are cited. They are official and verifiable sources. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. After sources are added, Meow is unable to provide any valid reason for the removal. Hence, the only explanation is vandalism.218.215.54.121 (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Oy. Please read what i said carefully and not jump to conclusions, i am deliberately not taking sides and did not invoke WP:BRD as an excuse for Meows behavior or say it was Original Research - i just said it was controversial based on the fact since they have been described as original research by a couple of editors and because you and Meow are in an edit war over it. I also said per WP:BRD you should not of kept adding it in without obtaining a consensus to add them in on this page. (There isnt a consensus either way yet).Jason Rees (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The link to the JMA BT for 2011 only has tropical storms or higher (with their TC ID/#). However, tropical depressions are not listed and any attempts to get their TC ID/# is OR and cannot be used if there is no source specifically stating their numbers. — Ines(talk) 19:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why does the xxU designation stay in the Australian Region article?2011typhoon (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The Australian BoM uses the "U" designations in their advisories. The JMA only uses the International Numbers, not the TC ID/#'s. — Ines(talk) 02:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The "U" designations ONLY appear in the advisories for developing tropical low and tropical cyclones. This is exactly the same as the case where TC ID appears in JMA SAREP for developing tropical depressions and named tropical cyclones.218.215.5.65 (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually they started to also appear in the TWOS and other bulletins last season.Jason Rees (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

They started to appear in TWOs mainly in WA only. There is still a lack of source for many xxU in Queensland.218.215.11.47 (talk) 12:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If they appear in the SAREPs, do we have an online archive of the SAREPs? If so I believe that we can use them in the article... — Ines(talk) 20:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we have an online archive for recent SAREPs (within about 7 days) and I posted a few in the edit reverted by Meow.218.215.11.47 (talk) 12:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of you provided the best track from the JMA. I am already aware of this so early, but it does not include tropical depression and latest named storms. There have been fourteen named storms, but the track only includes eight named storms now.--Meow✉ 12:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

We have best track for 8 named storms and SAREP for the most recent storms. In any case, the situation in Australian region is much worse. There are no reliable sources many of unnamed xxU.2011typhoon (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
I will ask administrators to ban you if you keep add those things in 2011.--Meow✉ 05:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I will ask administrators to ban you if you keep vandalizing the article by removing well-sourced and verifiable content.2011typhoon (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You will be banned first.--Meow✉ 09:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

2011typhoon, please get out

You are just keeping:

  • Adding unreliable and incomplete information.
  • Reverting new things to old things.
  • Editing with vandalism and cheating.

If your goal is to only add those strange numbers, please get out. WE DO NOT NEED YOU.--Meow✉ 05:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

They are reliable information. Also, incompleteness is NOT an excuse to remove content. Each and every article in Wikipedia is incomplete in some aspect.2011typhoon (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Dear 2011typhoon, i have already reported you to out administrators following your disruptive editing. As i see, after the discussion, it was decided not to mention those numbers in the article. However, you never agree with the result. This is not how everything is done here in wikipedia. Wikipedia is democratically edited and the result after the discussion is the final decision and can in no way be neglected or questioned. If you want to have the informaion in the page, give us a valid reason (and claim stuff in a decent manner please) so that we can softly handle the situation. Thank you. --Anirudh Emani's Anirudh Emani's Facebook Anirudh Emani's Wikipedia Anirudh Emani's Email 10:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Meow is removing reliable content from the page and adding foul language in the edit summary. This is vandalism and that's why his edit should be reverted.2011typhoon (talk) 11:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we avoid the term, vandalism, please. Good faith edits might get criticized or disputed, but obvious vandalism gets blocked immediately. Is it possible that you guys can stay civil here? Please also read WP:SHOUT regarding your continues bold comments. ~ AdvertAdam talk 11:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether it is reliable or not, we still can only get tropical cyclone numbers of named storms. Let's look at the JMA's RSMC Best Track Data.--Meow✉ 12:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • No, Meow, you don't seem to understand how reliability works. If it is reliable that is our only concern; we do not specify what reliable sources should be used at the detriment of all others. Determine if the source is reliable and then comment on the appropriateness of the edits. You cannot arbitrarily decide that because the information does not come from your preferred reliable source it is by definition unreliable, and the edit is vandalism. Read WP:VANDALISM to find out what vandalism *actually* is and apply that definition; and tone down your edit summaries, section headings and comments, which are verging on (if not passing over the line into) personal attacks. However well-intentioned your reversions are, you're on thin ice if you think it's appropriate to arbitrarily order another editor to "get out", call them a liar, misidentify their contributions as vandalism and call them a son of the bitch. Consider this a formal warning. Ironholds (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I only wanted to protect the article and make it better because here is Wikipedia, but it seems that I used some wrong methods. I am so sorry.-- Meow 18:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

  • I appreciate you were trying to do the right thing; in future, however, keep calm and deal with things logically. When the user you are in a dispute with is willing to talk (as this one obviously is) talk, without using inflammatory language or making personal attacks. Ironholds (talk) 23:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Removing content is making the article worse and less informative.2011typhoon (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia, not a meteorological website. People have dissagreed with this, so there is no need to add at all. Also, you did not finish the article after adding information you like, so the structure of the article is actually ruined. That is not so responsable for this article. -- Meow 02:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The essential criterion for inclusion is reliability. Removing reliable information is not responsible. Also, there is no indication that the structure of the article is ruined.2011typhoon (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
There you go again. It never ends. There is no point in further continuing this discussion. A decision has been made no to include the numbers. and that is the final decision. Also, not having some information does not make it worse as described above. Not having the number is much much better since most of the readers outside japan do not actually know if the JMA also numbers the tropical cyclones. In my view, only the Japanese Wikipedia will need the numbers.--Anirudh Emani (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
If readers know everything, why would they look for information in Wikipedia? That's why including more information is much much better. If anything that some readers don't know can be removed, then most contents of the Wikipedia can be removed.2011typhoon (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are not the numbers at the Japanese Wikipedia, and I never found that any Japanese person or website has used them. I did not know them at all until he/she posted some. -- Meow 14:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I see you have added the information once again, though you have been informed several times not to. Once again, this is not how things are done i Wikipedia. Please stop this immediately. Also, consider not using bold comments on talk pages.--Anirudh Emani (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
You are removing reliable information from the article, which is a type of vandalism. Please stop this immediately.129.94.222.71 (talk) 06:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
In what way exactly, is the information reliable? Also, this is a content dispute and not vandalism. Please consider checking WP:SOCK, since you are using multiple accounts to end this dispute. This cannot be allowed here. Please learn the rules of Wikipedia before editing it.--Anirudh Emani (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
They are reliable because they are released by JMA.2011typhoon (talk) 09:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, please read WP:SOCK carefully. Editing the same page with main and public computer account is NOT forbidden.2011typhoon (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
2011Tyohoon, the removal of content is not always vandalism. No offence, but your comment as an IP is a violation of WP:SHOUT. Please stop. Thank you. YE Pacific Hurricane 13:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
And also, as the article says, Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address is also considered to be Sock puppetry and should be avoided by all means. --Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Pacific_typhoon_season/Archive_2&oldid=936819481"