User talk:LarryJeff/Archive2012-05-03

Tropical Storms

I have tried to do what you are doing in K section with Khai-Muk, Ketsana and Kajiki if thats all right then I can start doing it from bottom. I mean from Z.--Vyom25 (talk) 5:47 pm, 10 November 2011, Thursday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC+0)

By all means, the more the merrier. Thanks for the help! LarryJeff (talk) 5:50 pm, 10 November 2011, Thursday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC+0)

I would suggest not putting a link on the storm name in the 1st column, just on the years. It could be confusing if the name links to an individual storm article. To me it looks better if the name itself is not linked, then each year links to an article about the specific storm from that season (or the section on that storm in the article about the whole season if one doesn't exist for the individual storm). LarryJeff (talk) 6:25 pm, 10 November 2011, Thursday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC+0)

ok understood. I will start working on it.--Vyom25 (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

have a look at Z section.--Vyom25 (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching both of you as you have edited the list and it does look at lot better imo and all TC's are piped to the correct place AFAICT.Jason Rees (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Now guys there are plenty of cases of double [names] especially in NW Pacific such as Yayang of 1971 is also listed as Bess of 1971. Should we left it as it is?--Vyom25 (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Where there are two names for system then pipe both names to the same place - unless it is a basin crosser that does not have an article in which case i would suggest a pipe to basin 1 (eg: AUS) and basin 2 (eg: SWIO).Jason Rees (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

yeah that would be the smart thing to do.--Vyom25 (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

have a look at W any suggestions???--Vyom25 (talk) 09:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The other thing I've been doing is fixing the existing name disambiguation pages for formatting based on the MOS for disambiguation pages (no piped links, only one wikilink per entry, etc.) Take a look at Hurricane Agatha as an example. To avoid piped links on the disambig pages, I created redirects for the specific storm name/year links I used on the disambig pages. The added benefit to this is on the list page we're working on, we can now use a shorter link name for each storm. LarryJeff (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The only thing i would suggest doing is adding two seasons for the systems in the SHEM. eg: 2009-10 instead of 2010.Jason Rees (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's fine when talking about the annual storm season that spans parts of 2 calendar years, but for the chart listing individual storms, I'm in favor of only putting the year that storm happened. LarryJeff (talk) 17:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Larry how did you do that? I mean how to use shorter link name?--Vyom25 (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Enter the shorter link in your edit; it shows up in red on the page (after you preview/save). Click the red link and it jumps you to an edit page to create a new article with that name. Just enter "#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]" as the text (of course with the actual page link in place of "target page name"). Or on the edit toolbar click Advanced, then click the 2nd icon from the right (the one with the blue arrow coming out of it. That enters the redirect function for you and you just type the article name for the link. LarryJeff (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You can look at my list of recent edits at any of the ones where my summary says "add redirect" for an example LarryJeff (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

yeah this is better. Have a look at Z section.--Vyom25 (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's it. LarryJeff (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW while NIO Systems were not officially named before 2004, the name Aurora is a valid name AFAIK. I dont know who named it but the JTWC seem to use the name to refer to the first system of 1983 in their page 105 of the ATCR. (page 105 or thereabouts under the system heading TC 01A). Regards.Jason Rees (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks! LarryJeff (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

In this list sections from D to S (except Q) has separate PAGASA column. A,B,C and T to Z does not have this column so is it inconsistent or what?--Vyom25 (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been trying to get rid of the PAGASA column and merging it with the WPAC Column since that would work better IMO. However as you can see i didnt get very far.Jason Rees (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If I manage to catch up with you while I'm updating the links, I will also proceed with merging the PAGASA and WPAC columns LarryJeff (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Im just fixing links from the 1990-91 SPAC season onwards atm. Anyway i know you must be thinking for Christ's sake how much longer has this list got to go but surprisingly Cyclone [1] did exist in 1980 :P.

I transferred Seniang in my edit on 20:06, 17 December 2011 is it dine properly? have a look...--Vyom25 (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Jason, on the IBTrACS Website you linked above, when I look at an individual storm does the long number next to the storm name correspond to the "T" # assigned to the storm? For example, the 1949 Western Pacific storm Carmen has the number 1949013N06140; does this somehow equate to "T4901"? LarryJeff (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

No they are not related to other numbers, the IBTrACS Number is broken down into 1949, 013N [N/S], 06, 140 [360-formation point], which is a code to signify where it formed, its all explained here.Jason Rees (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

what should be done when a typhoon is named only by PAGASA and not JTWC? I came across one such case in section S.--Vyom25 (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Just make the link to the PAGASA name. For example, see Agaton in 2006.--LarryJeff (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Just link it back to the PAGASA name like you did with Tropical Depression Winnie

yeah but can it be merged to NW Pacific or not? because in case of Winnie & Agaton there is no separate PAGASA column.--Vyom25 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, merge it. There's no column in the A or W sections because they've already been merged. All the PAGASA names can be also considered part of the NW Pacific basin, even if the storm was only named by PAGASA. --LarryJeff (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Vyom 25 - just for your information PAGASA names Western Pacific Tropical depressions even if they have been assigned a name by the JMA and are not a basin of their own, which is why the merger should take place.Jason Rees (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just getting curious; why this storm is named or written as Cyclone Rona-Frank? shouldn't it be Cyclone Rona (Frank) or Cyclone Frank (Rona)?--Vyom25 (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it was a weakening then restrengthing of a system and the 2nd incarnation of it was renamed because it was in a different basin, so it was renamed the same as if it were a new storm (just like Hurricane Irene–Olivia crossing from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The only use I've seen for putting a second name in parentheses is when PAGASA issues its own name for a storm that was already named in the South Pacific region. --LarryJeff (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In the P section a storm was named Pitang in 1966. However you can see here that it is not mentioned but as you mentioned on your user page I cross checked it here and in that list Pitang is number 13 storm in 1966 column. So was it number 13 storm of that season? Is it listed in order(Storm number 13 was Viola in 1966).--Vyom25 (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. I just did a quick search for "Pitang 1966" and came up with a few likely hits. I've found several of the older storm season articles are missing a lot of details (especially for the Pacific storms) so that name probably was used in 1966. Unfortunately, I'm not able to actually check out any of those sources to see what sort of authority they have (some look like they are just done by interested individuals) --LarryJeff (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best to leave them alone and not pipe them anywhere for the time being.--Vyom25 (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I took it as you were asking whether the storm name was actually used. I agree with you it should not be linked to an article (or section) unless that storm name is mentioned in the article. And counting the storms in the Pacific typhoon season article would work since there's not a 1-to-1 correlation between the "normal" Pacific names and the Philippine names. --LarryJeff (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at 2002 Pacific typhoon season. There are two storms named as Milenyo which one is the actual one?--Vyom25 (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Both, the second appears to have been treated as a regeneration of Milenyo by all of the agencies bar JTWC.Jason Rees (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Then which should be linked?--Vyom25 (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

AFCON 2012 scenarios

Thanks for correcting my summaries for the Group D possible developments: once, and once again. You seem to be a mastermind of doing these calculations for Wikipedia, and that one was the only first instance I had actively participated in writing them down. Quite a close group that was, really. --Theurgist (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The scenarios as you wrote them were accurate, just by eliminating the 2nd part of the condition (as long as it's still a true statement, of course) it shows a way that the team in question can qualify based only on their own result rather than "scoreboard watching". --LarryJeff (talk) 14:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Still, technically, the italicised and's were making them false. --Theurgist (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		Football (soccer) barnstar
		Updating women's soccer articles (like the 2012 Algarve Cup) is a thankless job. Let me be the first to say, thank you for expanding our coverage to give the women who suit up for their country the respect they deserve, as well. Achowat (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 CONCACAF Men's Olympic Qualifying Tournament

Thank you for your work on the 2012 CONCACAF Men's Olympic Qualifying Tournament page. The table format for matchday scenarios is absolutely fabulous! -Gordeenko (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can't take credit for it being an original idea. I first noticed it during the last men's World Cup. LarryJeff (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Time around the world

Hi, LarryJeff. Thanks for your work on Central Time Zone. Just a quick note: UTC-8 = Pacific Time isn't terribly precise, because it's only true during standard time. For the bulk of the year, people in the Pacific Time Zone observe UTC-7 because of daylight saving time. (But I think you knew that, buddy! :-)

--Uncle Ed (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, really I was just pointing out the erroneous implications in the previous text that (a) the map in the article is incorrect and (b) that Baja California and Baja California Norte are different. --LarryJeff (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe you can help me fix Time in Mexico. Our splendid neighbors to the south have three official time zones (zonas) but not all of them observe daylight saving time. Sonora stays in synch with that part of Arizona which always observes UTC-07.

Also, there is tremendous confusion over whether codes like UTC-07 refer to time offsets or time zones. My understanding of a time offset is that it's a difference in hours and minutes from Coordinated Universal Time (UTC); and that a time zone is region which observes the same time. Am I getting this right, or what? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the way you explained time zones vs offset seems to be right. For example the Central Time zone is always "Central Time" no matter what time of year, but the UTC offset in that time zone can change when Daylight Saving Time begins or ends. I'll take a look at the Mexico article and see if I can improve it. --LarryJeff (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Found another complication (see [2]). Looks like there's an "exception" area in the state of Nayarit that follows Centro time, though most of Nayarit is Pacífico. (I'll use the Mexican/Spanish names to avoid confusion between their "Pacific"—which is same as US/Canada "Mountain"—and US/Canada "Pacific".) And, it also looks like Baja California is split in 2 parts, I assume by the dates they switch to/from daylight time. If so, that's something else that's wrong in the article, since currently it says the entire state switches on the same dates as the US. Anyway, I'm not making any edits right now, but I'll keep digging and try to get a handle on it. --LarryJeff (talk) 22:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Copied previous comment to the article talk page --LarryJeff (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)