Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/General meteorology task force/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of cloud types

Hi, and before all thanks for providing info on clouds. Very interesting.

  • I have changed the List of cloud types#Cloud classification: Order of listed types section to make it a bit more understandable of what's to come for profanes. I would suggest level 4 for the TOC.
  • What I don't understand (I'm not English native speaker) is the expression The genus types within each étage are arranged features and mother clouds are arranged in approximate order of frequency of occurrence: is it right? Just to check.
  • Why was the numbering of the genus and nimbostratus? I used them myself for the photos, but I dunno whether any other use.
  • I changed also a few photos which were not in the correspondent genus (Tadrart Akakus from cirrocum. to cirrus), but I'm afraid it's not the only one if I'm right. I've been bold and changed more, but about File:Cirrus and Altostratus undulatus.JPG (Altocumulus stratiformis perlucidus undulatus clouds merging into altostratus opacus, with higher layer of cirrus fibratus) I'm not sure because the caption says one thing (ACs) and the name of the photo says something else (AS).
  • I ordered the photos as they appear in the list. I wasn't sure as they bear species and variants named later, but I guess they should be better presented in order of species regardless of variant or genitus or other modifiers. This was especially a mess when a photo is of various genus, and especially difficult for List of cloud types#Genus altocumulus.
  • Some genus-species-variant mentioned in the photo are not in the text: Cirrus spissatus undulatus [I put a (3) infix] and Cumulus mediocris arcus (84). Is this right?
  • Approx. the same issue if I understand well the gen-spec-var use as in Botany or Zoology: shouldn't Stratocumulus cumulogenitus of the photo be either Stratocumulus stratiformis cumulogenitus, or Stratocumulus lenticularis cumulogenitus, or Stratocumulus castellanus cumulogenitus?
  • Could altocumulus stratiformis of the photo be characterised with a variant to assign a number? Many thanks. ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 11:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Being bold again, I changed the way of stating etymologies and added three tables, all at List of cloud types#WMO genera. Now my question and proposal:

  • Why the listing for some Pattern-based separated for species in some (fibratus) and for pattern in others (List of cloud types#Genus stratocumulus)? This can be seen in List of cloud types#Genus cirrus: fibratus intortus or vertebratus can be in their own group like radiatus and duplicatus
  • We need to explain the meaning of mutatus; I read the one for genitus, but at the very end. Beyond my knowledge...
  • Shouldn't mutatus and genitus go always in the same order (alphabetically, better; or by the order of the HighMedLowVert: is it already? why not mentioned?). Seems to be messy.
  • Why number 86 is not in order, between 83 and 84?
  • calvus and capillatus not in List of cloud types#WMO species

Sorry for being so picky. When I have time I do it myself, I need to read also the WMO PDF first. ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 12:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

North American winters

I have found that it is significantly easier for me to find governmental information pertaining to the United States than it is for me to find governmental information pertaining to Canada. Governmental sources are where I have found the majority of the 'meteorological' information I've used, but Canada's meteorological service does not appear to have as much information as the U.S. National Weather Service in terms of summaries / event reviews. As such, I feel like the "North American winter" series is really a "United States winter" series for the most part. Any good sources I can use from year-to-year or that can otherwise help me fill in the gaps for Canada would be greatly appreciated. Dustin (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Climatology was never my forte. It is true though that Canadian historical records are very sparse compared to the USA, but that's mostly due to their observation network(s) being not as robust as the USA's many networks. The following links are all that I could readily find in my bookmarks from my current work:
I don't know if there are any non-governmental resources for this kind of info available up in Canada, like there are in the USA. There used to be a Canadian version of the The Weather Channel up there that might have some useful info (if they're still around), and I don't know if there are any useful Canadian media sources for this kind of info as well. Good luck... Guy1890 (talk) 04:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Opinion statements

I have been removing opinion-based statements from the climate sections for a year now, being that subjective opinions are not supposed to be passed off as fact. An example edit is shown below.

Original:
X city has a humid subtropical climate with cool winters and warm summers.
New version:
X city has a humid subtropical climate with average winter highs of 12 °C (54 °F) and average summer highs of 31 °C (88 °F).

My reason for doing this is that opinions are not to be passed off as fact, without indicating that a reliable source holds those opinions. What temperatures are considered cold, warm, etc. is highly subjective, and passing off a temperature as inherently being one of those words reeks of NPOV violations. For example, is 72 °F (22 °C) cool, mild, or warm? I personally say it's mild, but other people might say it's cool or warm, and none of us is lying.

My project, however, has not gone unopposed. Users have reverted my edits, calling them vandalism, and I've gotten into a few edit wars over the terms. The one article I've seen used to justify the inclusions of these opinion statements is Felt temperature classification, which is an unsourced article about something that only appears on Wikipedia and mirrors thereof. There are no sources to suggest that the "felt temperature classification" (read: one person's subjective opinions about temperature) exists, so it might classify as A7, A11, or G3.

It is a commonly known fact that George Washington became president in 1789, and that cannot be disputed by other people. It is also an indisputable fact that downtown Los Angeles has average summer highs of 84 °F (29 °C); you cannot disagree with data like that. However, whether downtown LA's summers are cool, mild, warm, or hot is up for debate (I personally say "mild"), not to mention that I, being a warmer-weather person, often disagree with the existing opinion statements, preferring to bump them down a category or two.

In short, a lot of climate sections contain opinion statements about a place's climate, such as "cool winters", and without stating that a particular notable, reliably sourced climatologist or classification system classifies it to be that way, it appears to pass the opinion statements off as fact, and that violates WP:NPOV.

I hope I'm not crazy, and I hope someone else sees things the way I do.

Thank you,

YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 11:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That looks like an interesting little project @YITYNR: and one that is of high value to Wikipedia. I have asked for felt temperature classification to be deleted since the only major content has come from User:Gouthamswa, who has not been seen on Wikipedia since making the article in 2013.Jason Rees (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Jason Rees: Thank you; your input is much appreciated. I totally agree with G3ing the article, and thanks for supporting my project. :) YITYNR My work • What's wrong? 11:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • It is true that words like "cool", "warm", "hot", "windy", "breezy", etc. can be very subjective terms. When I used to work for the NWS, there was a movement to eventually automatically add these kind of phrases to the official forecast if certain internal NWS thresholds for them were met. I personally never understood the need to tell people that it was going to be "very windy" when we were telling them (at the same time) that sustained winds of 30-40 mph were expected, but oh well. Wind chill and heat index charts are probably the obvious exception to this kind of subjectivity.
As long as we're saying exactly what the sources in these climate sections are saying, I really don't think that it's that big of a deal, but what "YITYNR" has apparently been doing just seems to me to be more accurate & less subjective overall. Guy1890 (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Climate comparison template

I have an idea for a template, but not the expertise to create it. Climate of Minnesota has a sortable table comparing monthly average temperature and precipitation of various cities across the state. It's great, because you can determine which places have the coldest or warmest temperature in each month. (Tables on many other states' climate pages, such as California, aren't sortable because they display daily highs and lows instead of means.)

However, it would be even better if the table would display background colors like those in {{Weather box}}, so that the temperature differences are reflected by differences in color. Perhaps the unit conversion could also be automated. Would anyone be interested in creating such a template? — Eru·tuon 23:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Input needed

At Template talk:Convert § Slash as range separator, there is a discussion on how highs and lows in climate comparison tables (such as the table in Climate of California § Temperatures) should be displayed: whether with slashes (for example, 83/63) as is the common practice, or pipes (83|63 or 83 | 63), a format used by, for instance, Weather Underground. Input from members of this WikiProject would be welcome. — Eru·tuon 19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I put a demonstration in my sandbox (permalink) showing how the temperature range table from Climate of California looks using a slash (old system), and how it looks using a pipe (proposed new system). Which is wanted? Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for creating the mock ups. As displayed on my browser, the pipe symbol and spacing applied look very much like a sans-serif digit "1", with entries then looking like 5 digit numbers. At this point, I would prefer the slash as visually distinct from any digit, and also as traditional practice. The pipe could work if there was sufficient space on each side, or made a significantly larger font size, so as to prevent it from ever being mistaken for a digit. --Mark viking (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion has finished thanks. The decision was to use slash, not pipe. I have removed the demonstration as pipes no longer work. Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Now, the slash has been added to {{convert}}, but I just proposed that the slash be separated by thin spaces. Please visit Template talk:Convert § Slash with thin spaces to see an example, and let us know if it looks okay. — Eru·tuon 04:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The example looks all right to me. Dustin (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Color state

Could you please take a look at the Colour state article which has a dead link in reference 4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.211.109.82 (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the page you mentioned, and while you are correct in saying the link is dead, I cannot seem to find a replacement via a brief web search. If you find the information there questionable, you may remove it. Dustin (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2016_North_American_spring

FYI. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I saw this AfD the other day and wondered if we have many other similar articles about different, past meteorological seasons on Wikipedia (?). Guy1890 (talk) 07:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

RFCs on citations templates and the flagging free-to-read sources

See

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Louisiana State University/Natural disturbance and society (Fall 2016)

Just an FYI, since the class's assignments involve some articles from this project. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

American Airlines Flight 331/METAR

American Airlines Flight 331/METAR has been nominated for renaming, see talk:American Airlines Flight 331/METAR -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Snow

Snow, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. User:HopsonRoad 13:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.


T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Is there a template which provides a URL to weather history, current conditions, or a forecast?

After visiting a few months ago, I have become very interested in Alaska's Exit Glacier. I just added to the article this URL which provides (I think) NOAA's weather model hourly data forecast for the next 6 days. It seems a reasonable type of URL for every glacier, mountain peak, airport, and similar geographic articles to have, maybe in their infobox, but certainly in their climate section. Are there any templates to generate something similar to this?

Similarly, I often want to find a website which provides summary data for past dates. Is there such a website which would show the high/low/precip/etc. for—say—January 23, 1987? Of course I know that some information is not available or is very limited, particularly long ago. But maybe there is a website known to this wikiproject which aggragates most weather/climate data?

After hunting around a bit, I found a snotel site near the bottom of the glacier here which lists a good variety of interesting data. Is there a comprehensive aggregator of this kind? —EncMstr (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Good, past, online, U.S. climate data is still unfortunately not as easy as it should be to get to. It really depends on what one is looking for. You can start by looking at NCEI (formerly NCDC). Each National Weather Service forecast office has its own set of climate pages that are sometimes designed similarly. The regional climate centers are also sometimes a good spot to check on past weather data. Good luck... Guy1890 (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

METARs

This seems useful as a ref for decoding METARs

You'll need to use the archived version -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Plenty of examples can be found by doing a quick google search for "how to decode metar". Ex. [1] 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) that may be of interest to members of this project. 69.165.196.103 (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Wind direction confusion

Would someone who knows about wind please help here? I'd be very grateful. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

New Cloud atlas and some resulting confusion

There are two articles on the same topic: Homogenitus (cloud) == Anthropogenic cloud. Moreover, there is one article concerning two distinct cloud types: Arcus cloud describes Arcus clouds, accessory cloud to Cumulonimbus that sometimes take shape of a roll, and Volutus clouds, newly recognized species of Strato- and Altocumulus that is completely unrelated to storms. Szczureq (talk) 12:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/General meteorology task force/Archive 11/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Weather.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Weather, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to revive and rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management

The proposal to revive the WikiProject occurs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management#Project reboot & project rename to WikiProject Emergency management, where I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Science Photo Competition 2017

FYI Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#World_Science_Photo_Competition_2017--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

ISO 4 redirects help!

{{Infobox journal}} now features ISO 4 redirect detection to help with the creation and maintenance of these redirects, and will populate Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects. ISO 4 redirects help readers find journal articles based on their official ISO abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys. A → Journal of Physics A), and also help with compilations like WP:JCW and WP:JCW/TAR. The category is populated by the |abbreviation= parameter of {{Infobox journal}}. If you're interested in creating missing ISO 4 redirects:

  • Load up an article from the category (or only check for e.g. Meteorology journals).
  • One or more maintenance templates should be at the top of page, with links to create the relevant redirects and verify the abbreviations.
  • VERIFY THAT THE ABBREVIATION IN |abbreviation= IS CORRECT FIRST
  • There are links in the maintenance templates to facilitate this. See full detailed instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects.
  • |abbreviation= should contain dotted, title cased versions of the abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys., not J Phys or J. phys.). Also verify that the dots are appropriate.
  • If you cannot determine the correct abbreviation, or aren't sure, leave a message at WT:JOURNALS and someone will help you.
  • Use the link in the maintenance template to create the redirects and automatically tag them with {{R from ISO 4}}.
  • WP:NULL/WP:PURGE the original article to remove the maintenance templates.

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

140 °F in Kopperl, Texas?

There is a discussion at Kopperl, Texas and its talk page about a claim of a weather event causing a 140 °F temperature in that town. Members of this WikiProject may be interested in participating and the discussion could probably use input from individuals with expertise in this area. Gnome de plume (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I have my doubts.. where did you hear this from? Was it actual temp? Parcel temp? Feels like? That sure would be a phenomenon regardless! Bryan C. W. (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I heard it from Wikipedia. My efforts to remove it from the article because it is so poorly verified have been reverted. Gnome de plume (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Modifications to Template:Current weather event

There is a current discussion regarding my addition of new parameters to {{Current weather event}}, which adds an external link to an official, constantly updating source of the latest weather advisory. Please feel free to make comments.

Here's the summary of this issue: This interim solution originally was the result of a discussion now archived at Talk:Hurricane Irma/Archive 2#Active hurricane disclaimer?, after someone added an "Active hurricane disclaimer" notice on that page.[2] In that discussion, it was concluded that this notice was primarily redundant, except for the addition of an external link to a primary, official source of the latest weather advisory. This disclaimer was then used in other recent active hurricane articles, in addition to {{Current weather event}}, causing more redundancy. This notice also prompted a user to attempt to copy it into the template namespace as Template:Hurricane disclaimer, but it was deleted on grounds of WP:T2 - no disclaimer templates.

Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Scatterometer

Pierre cb Please see Talk:Scatterometer #Terminology; reversed meaning?Talk: Scatterometer.

  1. The article needs to use terms consistently, or else explain the difference between two terms that seem to be synonymous.
  2. In the same section, a mathematical relation is described as the opposite of what it clearly is meant to be.

--Thnidu (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC) 

Thnidu (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Indian Summer

I'm considering an edit to the Wiki page on "Indian Summer" and I was wondering if anyone had any views on how it fitted in with Wiki policy - as in it's a possibility rather than a referenced fact or assertion.

In particular:

The current page on the term "Indian Summer" states that it originated in North America during the C19 and we don't know why. Everybody agrees that it means a period of unseasonable warm weather but we don't know its origins.

I am suggesting that we might take note that the now unfashionable term "Indian Giver" came into use around the same period (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_giver). The possibility exists that these two terms may have similar origins.

For example, the term "Indian giver" stems from cultural misunderstandings between native Americans and early European settlers; the Europeans thought they were getting a gift while the First Americans believed they were trading.

I am suggesting that the term "Indian Summer" may well have it's origins in the feeling that an early summer is promised, only to be taken back....

My question is, is it OK to include a thery like that, supported only by first principle reasoning?

  1. @ChrisOfAus: No, it is not. See WP:OR. But good for you for asking about it, instead of diving right into the article and adding your own thoughts!
  2. Always sign your contributions to talk pages (but not article pages). The simplest way is to put four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post or comment. That will generate labeled links to your user page and its associated talk page, plus a timestamp in UTC, as it did for me for me here:
--Thnidu (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

New WikiProject member

Hello, I'm your latest new member. I nominated the Wikipedia article 'Cloud' for a GA rating back in August but it's looking increasingly like it might not pass. It says elsewhere on the WikiProject page that the cloud article needs help with citations/references. What type of help does it need? Are there still too few inline references, or are most of the cited sources unacceptable? Is the article still missing important information, or does it contain too much minor or irrelevant info? If the cloud article is still not up to GA standard, and if this high level proves to be beyond my capabilities (I'm not a professional calibre editor), can it be reviewed for a possible B-rating? I gather that A-ratings have to come from higher up the Wikipedia food chain, but the relevant WikiProject can amend the rating to give an article up to a B rating. To this end, I have joined the project so I can explore this initiative if the GAN ultimately fails. And of course, if my presence at WikiProject Meteorology can be of help in other ways, I'm keen to chip in! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Scientific images from WSC2017

Please take a look in here about newly uploaded scientific images on commons during Wiki Science Competitions 2017.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Cloud

Hi - I've just upgraded the Wikipedia 1.0 assessment for Cloud from C to B-class. Can someone here independently confirm for me and ChrisCarss that the article meets the B-class standards, as judged by a subject expert (which I'm not!)? I'll check back on this talk page. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 05:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:AALERTS need some help on Community Wishlist Survey

Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (PRODs and AfD in particular). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.

There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!

So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it and see it ported to other languages, please go and support the proposal. And advertise it to the other weather-related projects in other languages too to let them know this exists, otherwise they might miss out on this feature! Thanks in advance! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Request feedback on deletion request

Hi folks the article biotic pump has been nominated for deletion. I would be greatful if you took a minute to chip in to the discussion. Kind regards EvilxFish (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

William Henry Dines links to the DAB page meteorograph. Can any expert here help solve the problem? Narky Blert (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

2017–18 European windstorm season

I'm looking for a bit of help with this article. It's a composite of 2017–18 UK and Ireland windstorm season and 2017–18 Western Europe windstorm season that was merged yesterday to 2017–18 European windstorms. I've since moved it to the present title as I didn't feel the previous one was appropriate, but I see a bit of a hash was made of the merger. The two original articles concerned two separate weather naming systems, but the merging editor hasn't bothered to update the article to reflect this, nor even the lede. Despite its name this article now seems to have a UK-centric theme, and there are also still a number of links to the sister article. Can someone take a look at it and perhaps organise it better or even restore the previous pages if necessary? I don't know enough about the topic to do it myself, but can see it needs some fairly urgent attention. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Mesoscale convective vortex into Mesovortices

Please go to Talk:Mesovortices if you have an opinion on the subject. Pierre cb (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Cyclone

I am checking Good Articles with cleanup tags on them. Cyclone has a tag asking for expansion of the section on climate change, and I am inclined to agree with the tagger. This is a vital article of top importance to this project, which I think is reasonably active, so I am hoping someone is willing to look into this. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for the Iteris article

Hello, WikiProject Meteorology. On behalf of Iteris, I have proposed an "Agriculture and weather" subsection for the current article's "Products" section. I am specifically looking at add information about the technologies developed by Iteris, including a software system that suggests harvest times based on weather simulation and soil conditions. Are there any WikiProject Meteorology members willing to review the short section I've proposed about the company's agriculture- and weather-related products? I'm happy to answer questions here or on the article's discussion page. Thanks in advance. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

descendant project or component of meterology

I think that the flooding section of meteorological project is big enough as a descendant project - any pro or con arguments for it to be tagged as its own project? JarrahTree 10:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Dispute over climate classification of Anchorage, Alaska

There's a dispute over the Köppen climate classification of Anchorage, Alaska. Specifically, I'm arguing that the correct classification based on the data in the article is Dsc (or using a different formula, maybe Dwc?), while another editor is arguing it's Cfc. Your input is welcome at Talk:Anchorage, Alaska § Climate classification. — Eru·tuon 22:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Heat wave AfDs

There are many heat wave articles that have been deleted or are up for AfD. Here is one of the discussions: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2007_North_America_South_and_Eastern_heatwave There is no "list of Meteorology-related deletion discussions", nor "Weather", "Severe Weather", "Climate",.... The closest might be "Environment". What makes a notable heat wave? StrayBolt (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Carboniferous: Mentions ancient coriolis effect and strong winds, but this info not in source cited

Can project members please take a look at our article about the ancient Carboniferous period?

It contains the statement:

The thicker atmosphere and stronger coriolis effect due to Earth's faster rotation (a day lasted for 22.4 hours in early Carboniferous) created significantly stronger winds than today.

The cite given for this is https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-rotation-summer-solstice/ , however I don't see said information given in this source.

Can we please provide correct information and good cites for this article?

Thanks - 189.122.52.73 (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Climate data for Denali summit

Denali#Weather_station mentions several times that there is a weather station at the summit of the mountain, but I have not been able to find climate data available with which we could expand the article. It's easy to find data for the low-altitude station near the entrance to the park, but the summit data would be far more interesting. I can also find forecast data but I suspect it's extrapolated rather than being based on an active weather station. Can anybody help? —Soap— 20:47, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Usage of Fahrenheit in Liberia and the Bahamas

The situation in these two countries is not clear. Until recent times they used Fahrenheit but I can't find official documents/websites about the present situation. Myanmar has recently switched to Celsius, though.--Carnby (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

requested move at Talk:Brown Willy effect

Any more opinions at Talk:Brown Willy effect#Requested_move_9_October_2018 would be welcome. The question is, is it verifiable from reliable sources that a meteorological phenomenon exists by the name of Brown Willy effect? --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Problem of climate data of Los Angeles

Please read: Talk:Los_Angeles#Climate_data_-_problem. Subtropical-man (talk / en-2) 00:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

M.R.L.E./NEXRAD merger?

Saw a proposal to merge M.R.L.E. with NEXRAD on Talk:NEXRAD. Anyone object or agree? The former could use some work as a standalone and probably would fit well as a section of future/current upgrades. Bryan C. W. (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

January 1997 Tuscaloosa tornado: Notability criteria for tornadoes?

Okay, so a little bit of information: The January 1997 Tuscaloosa tornado was the second notable tornado to hit the city of Tuscaloosa, Alabama after one in 1932. Unfortunately, neither tornado would be the city's last, with more destructive tornadoes occurring in 2000 and 2011. There was also an F1-rated tornado recorded during the 2005 Hurricane Rita tornado outbreak.

The 1997 twister was rated at F2 intensity and carved a 10-mile path through the city, damaging or destroying up to 100 structures. There was one casualty, the first tornado fatality of the year in 1997, and 10 injuries, of which two were serious. As I cannot find any information linking this tornado to the January 1997 tornado outbreak, I feel it deserves an article of its own. Information on the tornado can be found at the National Weather Service[1], the AlabamaWX Weather Blog[2], as well as some newspaper articles from 1/25/1997 (though I don't know if I can find those online.)

So the question is: what is the notability criteria for tornadoes (how well-known or powerful does a tornado have to be to warrant its own article?) and what do you guys think? Thanks,

TheRMSTitanic (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


Sources

  1. ^ "Tuscaloosa Tornado 1/24/1997". National Weather Service. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved November 30, 2018.
  2. ^ "The January 24, 1997 Tuscaloosa Tornado". The Alabama Weather Blog. The Weather Factory. Retrieved November 30, 2018.

Links to Station model article

Like this. We need more of them, so if you know how to find them, please do.

I've also made a couple of redirects, ([3][4]), and more would be a good idea if you can think of some. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Station model symbols template

I would like to make a template with all the symbols from Station model. That article is hard to find and the symbols are fuzzy. Plus, a lot of weather articles would be served with a section having the template showing those symbols. I spent ages and couldn't find them. I would like some guidance and then I will do the legwork. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: Hello Anna. Please take a look at this [5]? Is that what you have in mind?--Jetstreamer Talk 15:22, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Anna Frodesiak: There are some around already: [6]. I like the "Symbol wind speed nn.svg" set, which are SVGs so ready to be tailored. Lots more SVGs for things other than wind at [7]. Bazza (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, they all look dandy. Thank you. Now, is this template a good plan? Would it be useful in articles? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I will only create this if the community thinks it is worthwhile. I'm thinking maybe table format with a few columns. So? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

If you could show some articles where the template you are proposing would have improved content and consistency, then that would help get some comments, I suspect. Otherwise, you could just be bold and start to work on your project, presenting a demonstration at a later time to see what people think of it. I am still not clear what you are proposing the output is. Bazza (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment: Rename "Types of snow" to "Classifications of snow"

You are invited to participate in the discussion at: Talk:Types of snow#Requested move 23 December 2018 to "Classifications of snow". Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Satellite image for 2018 Hawaii floods

Would anyone be able to get a satellite and/or radar imagery for April 13 or 14th, 2018 record rainfall event in Hawaii? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding "trace" or "T" to Template:Weather box

Please see this discussion about adding support for "T" or "trace" in Template:Weather box. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Great snowstorm of 1866

I have a source for an article I'm writing that says there was a great snowstorm in England in January 1866 that took out most of the telegraph system. This sounds like a major event, but I don't see an article on it. Is there one? SpinningSpark 17:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Weather Box Bot

Is there a bot/script that automatically fills out Weather boxes? What methods (other than manually) are used at the moment?

I might be interested in making one if you think it's feasible Spacepine (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merger of High-pressure area with Anticyclone

Hi:

This is just to informed you that this merger has been proposed in Talk:High-pressure area#Proposed merge with Anticyclone in October 2018.

Pierre cb (talk) 03:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

A possible Science/STEM User Group

There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Map question/request

Hi, I would like to either make two maps myself or let someone else make the maps: I am looking for county-scale (or finer, if county borders are shown) maps showing summer temperature norms and precipitation amounts for eastern wisconsin and northern Illinois. These would go on the Door_County,_Wisconsin page, which had 5,883 hits in June. The purpose of the maps would be to explain part of why it is a tourist attraction. People drive from the Chicago area which is warmer and wetter to Door County, which is cooler and drier (also sunnier) for camping and beaches. I am having trouble finding a non-copyrighted source to make the images from.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

African Climate Change workshop

Hello everyone. I want to let everyone know of and invite project volunteers help out with (should you be interested) in the African Climate Change workshop and edit-a-thon that Wikimedia ZA and South South North will be running from the 6-8 August 2019. The event seeks to introduce around 40 climate change experts to editing Wikipedia with a specific focus on adding to the topic of climate change articles on Wikipedia. A focus, although not an exclusive one, will be on climate change in Africa. More information can be found on the event page on meta here. --Discott (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge Climate & Meterology projects

Reviving this 2012 merge proposal as no one discussed it before it got archived:

I'd like to suggest that the inactive wikiproject WP:WikiProject Climate be merged into this one, WP:WikiProject Meteorology, as climate and meteorology are closely linked, and long term weather patterns and historical long term patterns are also part of climatology. The easiest way to accomplish this while maintaining a climate discussion area is to make climate a taskforce of meteorology (WP:WikiProject Meteorology/Climate or WP:WikiProject Meteorology/Climatology), or a straight redirection of climate here can be done, with archiving of the climate project talk page into meteorology's archivebox. Many climate articles are already tagged with WP:METEO's banner, and WP:CLIMATE doesn't seem to have had a banner. (Talk:Climate only has WP:METEO's banner) 70.24.251.208 (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Trialpears (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support The project is inactive and the purpose of the project, to create climate infoboxes, is performed by WikiProject Meteorology.Trialpears (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per Trialpears. The scope as written is really to report on cities' average climate and does not include global warming and its related effects, (aka "climate change), so it really doesn't belong in [{WP:WikiProject Climate change]]. How does one execute a project merge? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Call for portal maintainers

Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Weather and the several other portals that fall within the scope of this WikiProject? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely becasue of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Weather for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Weather is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Weather until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. Certes (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Excessive quotation of severe weather alerts?

I noticed lately that a lot of the severe weather articles in Template:Severe weather terminology (United States) navbox consist mostly of the full text of alerts issued by the National Weather Service. (e.g. in this revision of Tornado emergency) Does anyone else agree that these are excessive? I added the Template:Over-quotation tag to the tornado emergency article but there are so many of these articles that I can't be bothered to look through them all. Ionmars10 (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Paleotempestology/GA1

Greetings,

there has been a request for a second opinion on Talk:Paleotempestology/GA1 that needs input. Note that I am the GA nominator of that article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane Willa

Hello all, I just wanted to ask if anyone would be willing to review Hurricane Willa. It is currently a featured article candidate and was quite an impactful storm for Mexico. NoahTalk 20:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's coverage of floods found lacking

In case anyone here is interested, it seems English Wikipedia has a large blind spot when it comes to coverage of floods: "fewer than 20 percent of major floods in low-income countries have Wikipedia pages in English."[8][9] I'm creating 2018 floods in Sudan as a start (in case anyone wants to help). Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree it does seem to lack coverage of seasonal flooding/droughts - I was coming here to suggest a template to link all the related china floods - and perhaps the seasonal droughts in between, but perhaps there should be several of these templates with countries and dates - and maybe with links to geographically adjacent templates? EdwardLane (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I wish these far-flung events would get more coverage, but Wikipedia in general tends to be biased toward Western countries, simply due to that's where the majority of the editors are, and that's what they read about. Speaking from experience from the tropical cyclone project, what we found works well is a top-down approach. So, for instance, lists of storms by individual area, or by each year. We could do the same for floods, like create a Floods in 2020 (or Floods of 2020), making a dedicated article out of 2020 floods, or have lists for a given area. India, for instance, has yearly floods related to its monsoon, so a List of Indian monsoon seasons might be a good idea to cover the seasonal flooding. Likewise, as EdwardLane (talk · contribs) said, perhaps a List of floods in China as a parent article for the related China floods. There will be significant overlap with tropical cyclones in some areas (such as China and India), but that's not a bad thing. There are three articles for Lists of floods in the United States, so that can be a good inspiration for other countries, provided we have people willing to create those articles (which can be rather time consuming). Going back to the 1980s, the Dartmouth Flood Observatory would be a good resource to flesh out some of these lists. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Not sure we need a 'list' Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates - but any and all have different uses EdwardLane (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that there are only 87 countries listed in the category for floods by country. Since there are 196 countries (+a few odd territories), there are a lot of categories that don't exist. The most populated country without a category is Egypt, followed by Algeria (despite apparently having two of the top 100 deadliest floods). A dedicated list by country would help make sure we catch the random events that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on. It would be a big undertaking but worth it in the end. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I have been working on [List of floods in Fiji] and have been very fortunate to be able to build on the work of a few researchers who have compiled a list of floods back to 1840. Yes there are some overlaps with tropical cyclones but some of their worst flooding events are not associated with tropical cyclones, which is why i feel that flooding articles would be a good idea. However, I doubt that every island nation will get flooding articles because of a lack of information.Jason Rees (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal.

The 15th anniversary of the tropical cyclone project is fast approaching and it provides us all with a chance to stop and reflect on the last 15 years while looking to the future. We see that the tropical cyclone project has enjoyed a lot of success with various articles being used and referenced by the various RSMC/TCWC’s. However, we also see that the other meteorology projects haven’t done so well and that we have a blind spot when it comes to floods. As a result of this reflection @Hurricanehink: and I have decided that we would like to revamp the various weather projects, in order to better reflect and develop Wikipedia’s coverage of meteorology. At the moment, we currently have Wikiprojects for Tropical Cyclones, Severe Weather, Non-Tropical Storms, Meteorology and Climate which causes confusion over which wikiproject covers what, a lot of overlap and has led to the blind spot with regards to flooding. For example: I look at Severe Tropical Cyclone Harold which impacted the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji and Tonga. Now obviously it was a Tropical Cyclone and is classified as a part of it, however, it should also be classified as a part of the Severe Weather Wikiproject. This is because it spawned several tornadoes in Fiji and is obviously considered to be Severe Weather. Tropical Cyclones are also important parts of meteorology and climate since they transport heat around the globe and help regulate the Earth’s temperature.

While I was preparing this proposal, I was alerted that European Windstorms that are named by various meteorological services including the United Kingdom’s Met Office and Meteo France are not covered by Severe Weather but Non-Tropical Storms. This is despite them only being named when they are expected to cause severe weather severe enough to prompt an orange or a red warning. As a result, I would like to propose the merger of the Tropical Cyclones, Severe Weather, Non-Tropical Storms, Meteorology, UK Storms and Climate wikiprojects into one single project under into a new project to be called Wikiproject: Weather. This weather wikiproject would also feature sub-taskforces devoted to every major weather event such as Tropical Cyclones, Tornadoes, Flooding, Droughts, Wildfires, Blizzards, Biographies of notable weather forecasters/scientists, ENSO and Warning Centres. This merger would also provide us with a better opportunity to develop fresh articles for every type of such as List of named storms A, B, C etc, Floods in 2018, 2019, 2020 etc Floods in Bangladesh United States, Fiji etc, Weather of 1997, 1998, 2020 etc as well as the Climate of Tokelau etc, Hurricanes in the United States, Hurricanes in Mexico, Typhoons in China etc. Some of these articles already exist in one form or another but would benefit better from a combined wikiproject. I also feel that this would allow editors to exchange their ideas, skills and resources easier as well as standardise some of our articles. Any thoughts are welcome below.Jason Rees (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It would help to have a bulleted list of wikilinks to the impacted wikiprojects. Is there a project for climate, specifically (as opposed to that for WP:WikiProject Climate change?I am active in the latter. How would the climate change project be effected? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Jason and I have been discussing this for a few weeks. I support what he said. I agree that we need more of a top-down look. It's why pages like Tropical cyclones in 2020 are so important, or Tornadoes in 2020. There can be a US bias look at how long JTWC was/is considered the primary warning center in WPAC articles, or Indian Ocean or the southern hemisphere. I have created a Draft:Weather of 2020, which covers weather records on a global scale. Hopefully there'll be one for each year. As Jason noted, there are times when there is an overlap, such as flooding. Just as there should be a List of Bangladesh tropical cyclones, so should there be List of Bangladesh floods and List of Bangladesh tornadoes. So often, there is a nor'easter that also produced a tornado outbreak, as well as a blizzard, plus flooding and high winds. It could belong to several projects. Given the misinformation out there, plus the increasing reliance of Wikipedia as a top Google search, we should have a long term plan for improving all weather-related articles around the world. Look at how successful the hurricane and tornado projects are. There is good quality content whether it is a storm today in the Bahamas (there should be a List of hurricanes in the Bahamas, but it doesn't exist yet), or a tornado outbreak record in some unexpected part of the world - is an 8 tornado outbreak common in Poland and Russia? What about yearly temperature extremes, or temperature records that are broken? Temperature extremes might get ignored if we focus so much on one topic. We (Wikipedians in general) are writing the first draft of history that's digital and for everyone to see, and it happens to be an era of climate extremes. I would rather share any resources (such as editors, guidelines, sources, templates) and have all weather covered under one umbrella than risk 20% of significant events getting ignored. That number didn't just come from anywhere, see the topic earlier (this one).
Also, NewsAndEventsGuy, the affected Wikiprojects are Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate (defunct), Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather, Wikipedia:WikiProject Non-tropical storms (defunct), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate (but not Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change). Or maybe we should reach out to that project too? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: I would assume that the combined wikiproject would work with the Climate Change Project more and more, which is why I invited the project to comment on the proposal. For example: List of tropical cyclones in Fiji & List of Floods in Fiji should look towards the future and that's before we look at articles such as the Climate of Fiji etc.Jason Rees (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, Hurricanehink and Jason Rees. The proposal seems to make sense to me, but I will abstain from not-voting, since I'm not a member of any project mentioned in this thread, other than the climate change project (which is not effected, except maybe that there will be easier collaboration with these related topics later). Good luck! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Nay. This will not address the root cause, which is getting interest in other areas of meteorology.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with you @Jasper Deng: as I believe the root cause of WPTC's success has been developing the decent high-quality articles that has led to people contributing time and time again. As a result, if we can share resources and develop these new articles under a combined wikiproject, then we can hopefully develop some interest in other areas of meteorology.Jason Rees (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, to Jasper Deng, that has been a problem with Wikipedia since day one. For a while, there was little interest in working in older articles. When I first started, I worked with a few other users to make the season articles for Atlantic seasons before 1851, as well as the North Indian Ocean. I also believe that our current system of having six weather Wikiprojects means that some topics fall through the cracks, such as biography articles, or, as listed above, the various flood articles that don't exist but should. One of the biggest successes in the tropical cyclone Wikiproject is the top-down view, aiming to cover everything, whether by lists, or by yearly articles. I believe the Non-tropical storm project was a great effort to catch some of these other articles (namely the nor'easters and European windstorms). Having all weather articles under the same roof would reveal where some of our shortcomings are, and hopefully inspire curious editors to try other articles elsewhere in the project. After all, if someone was interested in tropical cyclones, then they might be interested in floods, or tornadoes, or even blizzards, as they are all related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricanehink (talk • contribs) 13:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)k
I think Jasper Deng makes a valid point, though I think it may perhaps be more about fostering a community of supportive editors who will work on various topics. It seems tropical storm meteorology is an area which has successfully done this. Perhaps there are lessons on forming such communities which could be made and applied to other areas, or perhaps it is just simply a question of areas editors are naturally drawn to.Lacunae (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't have a strong opinion on the other organization of topics, but I think WikiProject Climate Change would be out of scope for this one -- its very explicitely focused on the range of topics from science to public policy and reactions and social changes caused by climate change -- its much wider than a meteorology focused project. Sadads (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Climate Change is about the weather of the moment meeting the weather of the future, just like geology is essentially related to the weather of the long term past (ancient flooding carving rivers and canyons). I think that the proposal is stronger without having CC in it. Below I have a proposed heirarchy of articles, showing ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree. Climate change can stay its own WikiProject because it often deals more with other branches of science and social issues and politics that meteorology. I suggest removing WPCC from the proposal. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 21:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Destroyeraa: You can consider it removed if you like, but we were never proposing to merge WP:CC in. However, I felt that they needed to be notified as we will need to work together more and more.Jason Rees (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merger into a new WP Weather. I wasn't exactly on board with this at first, but I realized how we spread ourselves thin over time. All of weather being under one project would help draw attention to areas that need work done. If possible, could we create "branches" (these would be the current projects) with task forces located underneath them so we can still maintain wikiwork for specific areas? NoahTalk 21:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree about these branches/task forces, I think we would maintain them, especially what already works. For instance, there are thousands of articles in the tropical cyclone Wikiproject, but arguably the storms and seasons get the most attention. It would still be right to calculate the Wikiwork for the basins/storms, just as it would be for biography and science articles in general. Just as there would be wikiwork for specific areas, there would be calculations for the whole project. We'd be able to see what years are better than others - I'd guess weather events since 2005 are of higher quality, and that weather events in the US are of higher quality than other parts of the world. It might be nice seeing the numbers, being able to see the Wikiwork by country (or state/territory/province), or by year, or by weather type. Tropical cyclones' Wikiwork average is 3.142, with 2,724 articles. Severe weather's Wikiwork average is 4.531, with 601 articles. WikiProject Meteorology as a whole has a Wikiwork average of 4.092, with 6077 articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Full support per Other Supporters ~ AC5230 talk 02:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Oppose. This proposal really doesn't address the core root of the problem, which is that users have preferences on which articles they want to edit. This isn't an awareness issue. Whether WP:WPTC or WP:SEVERE are task forces or WikiProjects won't make editors edit articles they don't want to edit. Titoxd(?!?) 19:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • These same users will still be editing whatever they want. I don't think the goal here is making editors edit articles they don't want to edit. Instead the goal is to highlight what work still needs to be done, and what other similar articles are out there. There is already a significant overlap between WPTC and severe and the other types of weather articles. A user editing a storm that hit Bermuda, for instance, might be likewise interested in tornadoes in Bermuda, and likewise blizzards (if they've ever happened there). Having more of a top-down approach would make sure, in the long run, that articles don't fall through the cracks, and it could also encourage new editors/collaborations. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • We could do those collaborations already, but we don't. While it would be worthwhile to figure out why those collaborations don't happen through the existing framework, I simply don't see this causing any actual change—besides the upfront busywork required to merge the projects. Still oppose. Titoxd(?!?) 19:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of the more successful collaborations are the annual season articles for hurricanes, tornadoes, and European wind storms. They're also some of the more visible articles. Editors interested in heat waves, or floods, likely haven't found the same level of collaborations because some articles don't get the same amount of interest. If a user heard a hurricane was coming, they might look it up and see a well-developed season or storm article. Great, the WPTC is great, hurricane articles are better than most other types of articles, end of story :P That's not the same for a flood, or heat wave. There's not even a category for 2020 heat waves because there hasn't been an article yet. Thankfully, two heat waves in 2020 have a mention in List of heat waves, but that entire list has only been edited 30 times this year. List of floods? Edited 44 times this year. List of droughts has been edited 18 times this year. I believe that bringing all weather articles under a single WikiProject could better organize the content that we have. I also believe that the proposed new articles (see below) could incentivize and excite potential new users. Wikipedia isn't too fun if the big articles you know about are already done - think Hurricane Katrina, which would take an expert to comb through and organize. However, we could make a big push for new articles such as List of floods in Egypt, and ditto for every country. As an example of the hundreds of new articles needed, check out User talk:Jason Rees/Flood articles, which Jason Rees thankfully put together. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • And all of that completely ignores my point that changing a label won't change whether people edit articles or not, just like it didn't do anything back in 2008. The two people that added themselves to that task force are the only ones still on that task force, 12 years later, and are the only ones who have focused on that area of WPTC over the years. That leads me to believe that the hope that editors would follow and edit other areas that they historically haven't edited is just that—a hope. Changing to strong oppose. Titoxd(?!?) 22:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – I'm all down with having a more hierarchical structure for weather and climate articles on Wikipedia. That said, we'll need to establish certain guidelines. 'Weather in year' articles, for instance, should include summaries of tropical cyclones worldwide, tornadoes worldwide, etc. in a general sense, without mentioning specific tropical cyclones, tornadoes, floods, etc. in too much detail. The moment you start including too much detail in an article of this scale, you end up with a rehash of the Global storm activity series, which wasn't very good. If individual events are mentioned, they should be done so very sparingly with judgement made based on how significant they are. On another note, I think that we could improve the quality of tornado, flood, etc. articles if we could create more high-quality / FA-class articles for reference. As of right now, WikiProject Severe weather has a grand total of only four features articles and three featured lists. If we could add a few high-quality articles for these topics, we'd be able to better create more in the future by using these articles as a reference / to create 'templates' to compare to. Master of Time (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I ageee with your comments @Master of Time: with the need to establish certain guidelines for the 'Weather in year' articles and that they should include tropical cyclone, tornadoes floods etc in a general sense. Ideally, these would be the leads of the subarticles but things are up in the air. I also agree that we need to get more high-quality articles for tornadoes floods etc and am currently working on a list of Floods in Fiji as time allows. I also note that not every article is classified as a part of WP: Meteorology or its subprojects yet as I have already found a lot of floods that are weather-related but not classified as part of the projects, I would bet that there are a lot more out there.Jason Rees (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You're right Master of Time about the global storm activity series. I propose that a yearly weather article would only include a summary of the different weather events of the year. For example, it would have an overview for tropical cyclone activity, which currently exists at Tropical cyclones in 2020. Ditto for Tornadoes in 2020. A Hurricane Katrina-level event would be mentioned in the Weather in 2020, but not Jose, which existed around the same time as the storm, but orders of magnitude less damage/deaths. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I'll just say a couple things quickly. You've linked Tornadoes in 2020 a couple times; I assume you meant to link Tornadoes of 2020? And that aside, nice to see we're on the same page, and with that being the case, I was thinking it might be worth pinging some of the more historically-active members of WP:METEO and/or related subprojects to encourage more discussion. It seems to have stagnated a bit for the time being. If we want to take it further, then at some point, maybe we could have a streamlined off-wiki discussion where we cover it all in more detail. Master of Time (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I am more than happy to talk about about the proposal off-wiki with you or anyone else. On-wiki, we have a few things in the pipeline that will hopefully generate a bit more discussion, including sending the bi-monthly newsletter out next week. The Tornadoes in 2020 vs Tornadoes of 2020 thing is just semantics as far as I know.Jason Rees (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merging WP Climate and WP Non-tropical, but Oppose merging WPTC. Neutral on mergin WPSW. WikiProject Climate and WikiProject Non-tropical storms are defunct, so they can easily be merged. I oppose mergin WPTC because WPTC is a a big project of its own. We have over 2000 articles related to WPTC, and over 80 active editors. Merging it may cause some editors to gain more interest in SW or other aspects of weather, but most users will still stick to editing only TC articles. Also, if we merge it, WPTC will likely become a sub-Wikiproject (like WikiProject Louisiana) or a Task force. We already have so many task forces, and adding more the WP Met will make it more confusing for newer editors. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I second Destroyeraa on this one. I'm pretty uncomfortable when it comes to the rest of meteorology. SMB99thx my edits 11:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Destroyeraa: I am aware that we have several taskforces already, but I feel that they are focused on the wrong parts of Meteorology ones. I would also point out that WPTC's articles are a part of WP:Met regardless of this proposal and should be classified for tornadoes and floods taskforces where appropiate, especially as some of our TC articles are better presented as flood articles rather than TC. It would also allow us to handle events like Ionas better, as we would be able to identify local sources that contain significant information.Jason Rees (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I do see that flood task force is vital to WP:Met, since many of our flood articles are less than impressive. However, for such a big project as WPTC, I'm still nay about merging it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
        • FWIW Destroyeraa (talk · contribs), there is a lot of crossover between flood articles and TCs (think of how many TC remnants or precursors get flood articles, there are dozens). Further, WPTC isn't that big of a project with slightly less than 3,000 articles (0.04% of all Wikipedia articles). WP:MET as a whole has around 6,000 articles (0.09% of all all Wikipedia articles), so the TCs would be a slight plurality, but it's still a rather small project. That is partly because of the sustained editor attention for TC's, perhaps at the expense of other met topics. For comparison, WP:MILHIST has 190,000 articles (3% of all articles), and is one of the better functioning projects. Having more users under the same umbrella means more reviewers, more sharing of resources, and more input when it comes to discussions. For many years (particularly in the NHEM winter) the WPTC gets rather quiet, some discussions/goals peter out, and we're left with maybe 10-15 active contributors doing their best to keep the project propped up. Having more users means more productive discussions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Outside support; it's difficult to sustain smaller WikiProjects, as can be seen in the legions of abandoned WikiProjevt pages out there. Larger, in this case, is better. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed article structure

  • I
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All other letters, eventually replacing the individual dab pages
  • Weather effects by location, including
  • Droughts by area
  • 2020 cold waves/blizzards/cold stuff
  • Droughts and heat waves in 2020
  • 2020 floods
  • Tornadoes of 2020
  • US tornadoes by month
  • 2020 Atlantic hurricane season/Pacific hurricane season/Pacific typhoon season/North Indian Ocean cyclone season/2020 half of the 19/20 or 20/21 cyclone year
  • 2019–20 and 2020-21 European windstorm seasons
  • +The same for every year as far back as we have good recordkeeping.
    • Based on this list, I decided to set up this sandbox so that we can work out the articles for each country based on the local knowledge that we have all developed over the years.Jason Rees (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad other people have recognised Wikipedia's relative lacking towards flooding articles. However I have some misgivings about the proposal especially regarding the almost total dominance of editors and viewpoints from the tropical storm expertise pools, and the inevitable tide of "clean-up" or "standardisation" of templates etc this will bring about. This proposal is also I suspect going to be rather dominated by North American editors, and I think I'd need a commitment that you'd actively recruit editors and advisors from other regions, perhaps even those working on other language Wikipedias. I don't know but perhaps regionalised (as in continental) Meteorology groupings may be another option?Lacunae (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
My intention is to get away from such a regional focus. For the tornadoes page, for instance, there is always a bias toward US, partly because it gets affected more. Some people might read an article because they looked it up on Google, but what happens when Google fails, or they don't know the exact name. As for templates/standardisation, there are already infoboxes for each project. The only standardisation would be having them all on the same page. The track map that was originally used for tropical cyclone articles has been used for nor'easters and European windstorms. I agree though, we'd need to recruit people from other areas. They might be more incentivized if there was a broad push for flooding articles for every part of the world, ditto for tropical cyclones, tornadoes, blizzards, heat waves/droughts. I love the idea about working w other language Wikis. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I congratulate your ideas, as a larger and more integrated community would act as a bulwark against the (what I might refer to as the bureaucratic community) who seem to constantly wish to rationalise options, usually with only a swift assent from the most active projects with little regard for more minor ones. But I'm still not assuaged that this is not going to result in an american tropical-centric centralisation, aided by Wikipedia's "consensus" approach.Lacunae (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
(EC) Hi @Lacunae:, I don't know if you are aware but I am English born and bred, have been to the UKMO and contribute to articles around the world, which is why I made the European Windstorms being named by the UKMO et all as a part of the proposal. I also know that WPTC has a German and a Taiwanese editor in WPTC, who im sure would contribute to this discussion, the articles and provide resources towards the combined project if they so wish. I will note that I have invited editors to comment on this proposal from all the Wikiprojects impacted by the proposal to comment on it as well as the climate change project and may invite other members to comment. Yes, there will inevitably some cleaning up of the articles and templates etc but that includes WPTC, as I am sure that some of the TC templates would be better merged or generalised etc. As for other editors, I feel that we would attract more editors by naming the project: Weather, as opposed to Severe Weather, Tropical Cyclone, Non-Tropical Storms and Meteorology. I would also be interested in reaching out to projects like the TORRO, Royal Met Society, New Zealand Met Society etc to try and gain some more editors. However, they would probably be better incentivized if there was a better structure to Wikipedia's articles/topics.Jason Rees (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I do see the logic to the proposal, and on that level I might welcome it, I'm just a little sceptical on how it would actually operate and function.Lacunae (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
To be honest @Lacunae: I think a lot of it is still up in the air and will be figured out as we go and of course you would be allowed to provide your input as you wish. In fact, I would say that it is vital as I had no idea what Jökulhlaup's are and may have unintentionlly ignored them.Jason Rees (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Weather database

As part of the proposal above, I'd like to suggest that we implement a project wide categorization scheme to be synchronized with WP:WikiData, or, dare I say, Abstract Wikipedia. Google already uses Wikipedia's infoboxes for their search results, and Alexa often uses Wikipedia (partly because it's more accurate, partly because of how comprehensive it is). I'm not exactly sure the best way to implement it, but essentially we could have one category as location, date, fatalities, injuries, damage total, and weather event - all the basic stuff we usually include. The international disasters database - [10] - already kinda does this, but not everyone knows to look there. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is known as an institution at this point. I once argued in the past that Wikipedia wasn't the place for trivial records, or being a general weather database. Seeing that Wikipedia isn't going away, and in this era of climate denialism, I think it's important to have the facts out there about every weather event. In the proposal above, we identified an article structure for the proposed joined WikiProject. We can think bigger, and work on a weather database accessible in every language, so anyone on Earth can read about every known natural disaster. Knowledge is power, and is a big endeavor to catalog, but sharing knowledge is one of the best things humanity can do to ensure our success as a species. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Hurricane Noah/TCMap This could work for showing TCs and named/prominent extratropical storms. NoahTalk 19:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I like, and perhaps heat waves, deadly ongoing floods, and tornado outbreaks if they're significant (have an article, basically). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I brought up the proposal for a weather database on WikiData's Project chat. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Climate of India FAR

I have nominated Climate of India for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

FAR climate change

I have nominated Climate change for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

2004/2005 Floods in Guyana

Hi all, I was thinking this major flood(s?) might need an article because it would add context to related pages like Water supply and sanitation in Guyana, Hope Canal. The nice thing about Guyana is that it's Anglophone Caribbean- so sources are in English and there's tons of refs from domestic Stabroek News, WHO/PAHO, Red Cross/Crescent. It's a rather low-hanging fruit for anyone keen to create pages on floods, but maybe just on the peripherals of my own skillset. Estheim (talk) 13:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I could make something really basic, but I'd like some input:

  1. Often I think there's no article on a topic, but find it later under a title I didn't guess, or it could be a section somewhere flood-related.
  2. Is there a standard outline for flood pages? How would I deal with this event, seeing as it's sort of like 2004 heavy-rains leading to a 2005 dam breach.
  3. Is this event suited to be a stand alone page, or better to start something with broader scope, like "Floods in Guyana" and spin out only if it gets big?
@Estheim: Floods are an interesting topic that need to be developed further on Wikipedia. In an ideal world what I would like to see is a list of floods for each country, with notable events spun out into their own separate article. There isn't any specific format for flood event articles yet, but ideally, they should include a meteorological overview of what caused the floods, as well as, any preparations/impact/aftermath. For the Guyana event that you have brought to my attention, I need to look into it properly, but if it's causing news articles 15 years, after the event then I don't see why it wouldn't be notable.Jason Rees (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your impressions. I went ahead and made 2005 Georgetown flood. I'd appreciate a look-over if you're so inclined. It could use some Categories, among other things. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
For starters is 2005 Georgetown flood really the best title? I would suggest moving it to something like December 2004 Guyana floods as the floods started in December or 2004-05 Guyana Floods. Ill have a look at the article over the next couple of days and see what I can do to expand it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed- "Great Flood" is common in Guyanese-local sources, but international sources don't use any proper title at all. I went with something that looked consistent with common flood names, but I'm afraid it reeks of OR (Since I am not at ALL qualified to name a flood). I'll make a talk about it on the article. I'm glad the topic is getting some extra eyes. Estheim (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Verifiability of coldest temperature in India

This discussion may be of interest to editors of this WikiProject. --Kinu t/c 22:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather/General_meteorology_task_force/Archive_11&oldid=1091648664"