Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:2023 Atlantic hurricane season/ACE calcs

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  keep. The RfC mentioned in this discussion closed with a consensus to not use our own self-published ACE calculations in articles, unless reliable figures from trusted sources are unavailable. There is no reasonable way to read the result of that RfC and interpret it as a global ban from calculating ACE figures yourself and posting them on article talk subpages, user pages, or anywhere else on Wikipedia outside of article space.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 23:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2023 Atlantic hurricane season/ACE calcs

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

Flagrant violation of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 43. Jasper Deng (talk) 06:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@User:Jasper Deng Sorry, why is this page being put on for deletion? An ACE calculation page can be found with every previous Atlantic and Eastern Pacific Season Page. Also, the CSU ACE counter often has some small discrepancies with the official NHC reports so it is not completely accurate. If there is a problem with the page, please let me know. Thanks, Kayree kh (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment — consensus developed here may also affect numerous other subpages in talkspace with identical form/function (i.e. systematic calculation/documentation of accumulated cyclone energy). — TheAustinMan (Talk ⬩ Edits) 13:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you even bother to read the RfC I linked? There was pretty explicit consensus to discontinue the use of these pages. Precedent for deleting these pages can be found at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:2020 Pacific typhoon season/ACE calcs (which spurred the RfC).--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@User:Jasper Deng The problem with that example was that the user intended to use JTWC figures instead of JMA figures even though the JMA is the specialized agency. This is because the JMA provides peak intensity at 10 min sustained intervals while but ACE can only be determined with 1 min sustained intervals which is what the JTWC provides but they cannot used because the JTWC is not the agency. It was rightly deleted because the JMA does not provide 1 min sustained wind figures and does not meet the definition of ACE. As with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Archive 43, no trusted source has really been found yet. As stated with my previous response, the CSU ACE counter sometimes conflicts with official NHC reports. That counter is sometimes off with the official reports, an example of which is present as of right now because the January Subtropical Storm has already been counted even though no official reports have been published yet. In the consensus itself, it says that a the ACE calc pages can be used as a placeholder until a trusted source is found. Until a source concurrent with the NHC reports is found, these pages will still exist. Thanks, Kayree kh (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * 'Comment: It is a big problem on this discussion. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:2020 Pacific typhoon season/ACE calcs. CastJared (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Per the RfC that decided to use reliable sources for ACE since calculating it ourselves violates WP:OR.
 * Noah Talk 12:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. The RfC linked above concludes with "However, our ACE calculations can also be used as placeholders in lieu of more reliable figures."  There is no good way to do that without this page. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Considering reliable figures are published and updated regularly by Colorado State University and likely also by others, there's no reason for us to use our own figures. Noah Talk 19:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The Colorado State University ACE totals are not always consistent with the NHC reports and operational products. Take the January subtropical storm as an example. On the page, the ACE has already been calculated for that system using some unknown data because the NHC has never released a TCR or operational product as of yet. Since the NHC is the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre of the Atlantic basin, their observations are final in all calculations. Therefore, discrepancies in ACE calculations between the NHC and CSU make it an unreliable source. Kayree kh (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You’re clearly grasping at straws here trying to do anything you can to support your argument to keep and use original research in articles. The data you mention isn’t unknown but it isn’t exactly easy to access by the public. A track file exists for AL90 which was the disturbance number associated with that subtropical storm. The ACE was based upon that file. A difference in calculation methods is a piss poor excuse to call a source unreliable when it has experts in the field producing the data. CSU uses operational data in their calculations while the final values in our articles would need to come from scholarly sources that take the best track into account. The NHC does not generally mention ACE in their products and thus we use scholarly literature. Noah Talk 00:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per the outcome of the related RfC. —  Sundostund  mppria  (talk / contribs) 08:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep per the outcome of the related RfC actually. Nowhere in the actual RfC says that these pages must go. In fact, the RfC explicitly states that these pages can be kept as placeholders in lieu of more reliable sources. Even if a reliable source is found, these pages can still exist as a placeholder but will not be cited in any other pages. Kayree kh (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. An RfC on a WikiProject page hardly has authority over MfD practices and procedures. No valid deletion rationale has been provided. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 22:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus to not use pages based on WP:OR is a very valid reason to delete. The burden is on you, as a keep !voter, to provide a policy-based reason for keeping these pages.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per . ~ Hiking  Hurricane  (contribs) 18:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.