Storm Beatrice was named Storm Helgard II by the FUB, someone adds Storm Helgard as it's own storm and describing it as also named Beatrice but went on to affect central Europe.. At the time when Beatrice was active, there was another system named Helgard I by the FUB, I see this might've been a mix up, Helgard I did cause a lot of severe hail in eastern Europe but I do not know if it should be in the article. I have gone back and fourth deleting this "Helgard II", so, whoever is doing this, can you please stop, it is bugging me. [1]https://www.met.fu-berlin.de/de/wetter/maps/Analyse_20221025.gif94.193.12.149 (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Unar64P, basically, a reliable source needs to be cited if the pressure was in fact lower than 980 hPa (millibars), since we have a reliable source from Deutscher Wetterdienst, a government agency in Germany, showing the pressure was at least 980 hPa (millibars). Obviously, government sources may be incorrect, but nevertheless, the 980 hPa pressure needs to remain unless another reliable source says otherwise. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Storm Liv
There are several problems with this section.
The storm was never assigned a name from any of the proper naming groups that would be accepted by say the MetOffice. Neither the MetOffice nor Met Eireann saw it neccessary to issue amber warnings for land areas and no name was assigned. Storms only named by the FUB have not been listed in the main section in previous revisions and since as far as I am aware FUB does not issue internationally recognised names, I don't really see why it hould be changed.
Liv is not even the correct FUB name, Marion is.
The text is poorly written
The section, with one exceotion, lacks almost any and all sources I propose to move info on this storm to an "Other Systems" section similar to last seasons article and revising its content.
@Sausius Agreed, I think an "Other Systems" would be a better idea as the FUB names every high and low pressure on the continent (I may be wrong, if so, please correct me) and only strong storms it names are needed. Recently, I have also noticed some new FUB storms (including "Liv") being added in poorly written text and barely any citations and it is frustrating correcting all of it (grammar, spelling, citations, etc.). So, I think a solution must be made about the FUB storms. 2A02:C7C:5699:B300:D183:90BA:A682:9CB1 (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The problem I have with using windy is that it uses model run initializations (like the GFS, ECMWF, etc.) Model run initializations use estimates and are unofficial. RandomInfinity17 (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Friend the point of this is that the trajectories of the storms is that since Windy uses GFS that is why you will also use windy next time, if you use a computer with internet you can surely change GFS to ECWPS, next time you will use Windy that uses GFS and I find out too much friend Random Infinite 17 El Cubano 153 (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
That still uses model run initializations, which are unreliable and unofficial. Unless you can find a reliable source for the wind speeds (NOT windy, tropical tidbits, or anything else that uses model run initializations), don't color in the points. RandomInfinity17 (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Track Maps aren't up to Wikipedia Standards
@El Cubano 153 the track maps you're creating and uploading aren't up the Wikipedia Standards, please get advice from one of our users that know how to create track maps. Nobody can't see where the storm track is going it just pixelated people who read these articles want crystal clear images thank you. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Tracks are of extremely poor quality and likely violate OR. I agree the maps should not be presented on the article at this quality. I may be able to fix some of the tracks that are within NOAA OPC's forecast area. But other sources for this region are difficult to use as georeferencing weather maps to create tracks is labor intensive. Supportstorm (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Supportstorm Thanks for taking care of the some of storms within NOAA's OPC area, but that's unfortunate for the storms that are outside of the forecast area since you said it's difficult. @RandomInfinity17 been creating track maps that are outside NOAA's forecast area I don't know how accurate these track maps are but at least their track maps are up to Wikipedia standards like this one for an example Windstorm Dino's trackCyclonetracker7586 (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Good morning my fellow editors I have a genuine question regarding Cilo and Bogdan, aren't two "storms" the same extratropical low? Because I went to the surface analysis maps on September 25-26 FUB Surface Map on September 25FUB Surface Map on September 26 and only see Bogdan (Ute) there. It's very strange that Cilo was very close by that extratropical low on that day so it's very much possible that Cilo and Bogdan are the same extratropical low, so we could probably get rid of Cilo on the main page. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
When I checked this articles edit history, I saw that many editors use the word “unknown”. Instead of “unspecified”.
I think that’s a problem, because the word “unknown” sounds quite immature.
On Wikipedia we must use more mature and professional words, for instance: “unspecified”.
If I see the word “unknown” again, then I’m going to replace it with “unspecified”. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:20EC:C052:862A:4CFE (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
At least in the Atlantic hurricane seasons and Typhoon Tip, I see unknown more than unspecified (in fact I have never seen unspecified in over the 2 years I've edited). ✶Mitch199811✶12:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I just looked for a Wikipedia guideline covering this and it seems that unknown is preferred; however, I could not find any exact guideline just wp:unknown. It might be a relevant policy if we can find someone who knows the prices but not for wording. ✶Mitch199811✶13:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I was referring to storm damages, I guess windspeed can also be "unknown." The Australian Tropical Cyclone Season Articles use "Not Specified" in that scenerio. ✶Mitch199811✶17:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a subtle difference in meaning. "Not specified" refers to the lack of action taken (specification). It is a negated past-tense verb. Unspecified is an adjective that describes the object or quantity being discussed as being without specification. Where is the focus, on the lack of action or on the item being described? I think a larger issue is an editor's idea of what constitutes immature writing, and their opinion that such a subjective judgement should form the basis for article edits. Numerous comments have been made on this talk page that do little more than harshly judge the writing skills of others without any basis for the comments, and the tone of some of these comments is almost comical. (The most egregious have been reverted.) I think we should carefully consider the merits of engaging in such discussions. Dcs002 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mitch199811 (talk·contribs) I think “not specified” sounds sloppy, it’s better to use “unspecified” instead.
If it’s split in to two “not & specified” that can be quite distressing to readers.
The word “unknown” is viewed as unprofessional by readers.
So the best is to use “unspecified”.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A44C:6682:1:20EC:C052:862A:4CFE (talk • contribs)
If you want to change it, I would go up to the Wikiproject (in this case Weather) as now you are starting to influence a larger group of articles. Also please sign your comments with ~~~~. ✶Mitch199811✶02:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I just want to know what you mean by mature as nothing in Wikipedia's policies that I have found say unknown is banned or depreciated. ✶Mitch199811✶01:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mitch199811 (talk·contribs)
As a matter of fact, if you want to be a Wikipedia editor, you have to be near perfect.
But many editors here are too imperfect, and the sad thing is, they believe they are perfect.
I think nobody should lie about their credibility, especially when they use immature grammar.
2A02:A44C:6682:1:2D2C:D0EA:3CA6:66E9 (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
1. In all of my experience, I have only seen 1 person get blocked for making a mistake. Even in that scenario, he was making false articles and being rude to admins.
2. You have still yet to say why unknown is wrong other than being "immature," but you do not explain how or why it is; and even if we all agreed here, I feel that you need the wikiproject to agree because of the scope (example 1, example 2) of what you are changing. ✶Mitch199811✶13:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
[3] You deleted this whole convo because "we were in agreement" while there was a dispute resolution discussion being talked about and I had clearly not agreed. Judging by wp:rfa, 70% seems to be the minimum for consensus otherwise it stays the same.
If you are another editor, could you pass on the information to who might be doing this. I would also make an account to avoid more wrongly directed accusations. ✶Mitch199811✶17:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The Storms
Please work more concentrated! Because I see that some storms have gusts of “55 km/h, 65 km/h” which isn’t possible. 55-65 km/h is a slight breeze, not a storm!
And if it really was only 55-65 km/h, please remove it, because that is not a storm.
A storm has gusts of >100 km/h. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:E4EF:F647:2FD0:4848 (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
What agency says it is a storm, or worthy of a name? That's the important question. As described above, this article gives no definition of what a windstorm is or the criteria for naming windstorms. The subject of this article is not defined. I think that's a major problem. There is nothing here that says what this article is about, and this disagreement illustrates that perfectly. (That would be a breezy autumn day here in American Midwest.) Dcs002 (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Appalling Grammar
When reading this article I discovered grotesque and immature grammar. Momentarily, me and two others are correcting it, but I encourage others to do this too.
After all, readers are supposed to be assured that the article was written by adults. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:C8DA:9486:F8CC:BFB0 (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@Egghead2000 I mean that the editors who edit this article, for instance: Dcs002 (talk·contribs) & Greyzxq (talk·contribs).
Can’t write an article without typo’s & immature grammar.
They prefer “unknown” over “unspecified”, and prefer “notifications” over “cases”.
And then they have the audacity to call me an idiot. Basically.
And I’m just giving criticism and being direct, yet they all act like I told them to cut their arm off.
And I find it disgustingly annoying.
It once again shows how pathetic and immature people are nowadays… what a sad world… 2A02:A44C:6682:1:6068:A2F8:2224:118 (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Unknown is a valid word used in meteorological articles, and you need to specify what mature is. Also, I have seen you revert criticism for "talking bad about other editors." ✶Mitch199811✶01:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mitch199811 (talk·contribs) When your out in public, how often do you hear “unknown”?
And how often do you hear “unspecified”?
When an accountant doesn’t know something, they say “unspecified”.
When at the supermarket, they use the word “unspecified”.
Unspecified just sounds better than “unknown”.
Unspecified sounds more professional.
Maturity - Professionalism - Clarity, those are the things I suggest people keep in mind.
They have a lot in common those words.
With “mature” I mean common sense.
And yes, I have been reverting vandalism, because some users have been getting all snobbish and arrogant towards me, because they think that they’re superior to everyone else.
I call does type of people a “self supremest”.
Unknown because that is the word relevant. Which word we use depends on context, unknown would be for deaths and prices while un- or not-specified could be for values considered unimportant (wind speed). And by calling them "pathetic" and "immature" you don't help your case. What he is trying to say is that you are making an issue out of something he doesn't perceive as important. Not trying to personally attack you, but I would like to ask you if you are a native speaker. ✶Mitch199811✶13:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mitch199811 (talk·contribs) I’m a native speaker of many languages. English, German, Dutch & Danish.
That’s why I can detect immature grammar easily,
Unknown doesn’t sound professional, that is why it’s immature.
Wikipedia is supposed to be professional and for adults, and adults prefer professional and mature grammar. Therefore I think we should use posh words like for instance “unspecified”.
2A02:A44C:6682:1:2D2C:D0EA:3CA6:66E9 (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mitch199811 (talk·contribs) Literally what is snarky about correcting grammar?
I’m literally a grammar & writing tutor, mind you.
So I was just teaching you a little grammar lesson, that’s all, I do this every week day.
And that what you call “snarky” is just directness, directness is necessary, it’s how pupils learn.
Readers are supposed to be able to recognize that this article was written by adults, and not by children.
Unfortunately I have had to correct A LOT.
And I haven’t misspelled a single word, because I use autocorrect, it seems nobody else uses it.
And unfortunately people aren’t able to handle directness… 2A02:A44C:6682:1:8598:DBE7:E661:B2BA (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
People with English language skills that are not as advanced as your computer's auto-correct function are also welcome to edit these articles to the best of their abilities. There is nothing wrong with doing so, and their participation should be encouraged. Characterizing errors in judgemental ways (appalling, grotesque, and immature) works against the community nature of WP, and they might be considered personal attacks. It is our job as a community to use our strengths to improve articles. If your strength is improving grammar, then I am glad you are contributing in that way, but your harsh criticisms are superfluous to what we do here. If you see something that you can improve, then please improve it. Your harsh judgements do not serve to make this a better encyclopedia or a more inclusive project. If you see a problem, please fix it.
I think your view on this individual's criticism is a bit misinterpreted.
I think he or she is just trying to help, and is just being direct. Egghead2000 (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
WP articles need reliable sources for article content if there is any chance that the content might be disputed. As the definitions of what constitutes a windstorm seem to vary by region, there is a good chance of dispute, so a reliable source should be cited, not an assumption of what any meteorological institute might say. And please keep discussions within their section. (Please don't start new sections as a way of replying to ongoing discussions.) That scatters the discussion and makes it hard to track. Dcs002 (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
That very issue should be discussed in the article - that various agencies have different criteria, giving examples of different criteria, perhaps noting why FUB naming conventions stand out as different. (What sources I want is not a relevant consideration because I am just one person, not a WP:RS.) If there is no widely accepted definition of a windstorm, that should be explained in the article, along with criteria for inclusion of a storm in this WP article. This is a critical item that's missing from this article. Some storms are included here while others aren't. Readers need to know what this article is about - what constitutes a windstorm for purposes of this article. Without stating that scope, this article is about nothing in particular other than storms that editors think should be included. That is not encyclopedic. Dcs002 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Whatever the agencies want, I guess. I don't think we have much of a choice in not including some as I feel like that would violate stuff. ✶Mitch199811✶02:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Maybe “undetermined”?
Along with “unspecified”, maybe “undetermined” can be used too.
Just don’t write woke information, it’s unprofessional.
Also, the tables used are a bit unclear, and have a bad design. Is there a way to make them more clearer?
For instance; color codes , like the wind gusts in a medical light blue color, or a yellowish color or greenish color.
Just don’t use immature colors like baby pink or baby blue, or an unclear color like orange and red. Because mostly color of the letters in black, or add a black background.
What I think would be the best idea, is if there is a dark theme for Wikipedia. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:6068:A2F8:2224:118 (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Please define woke information, and explain how that fits with any WP policy. Also please specify what constitutes the maturity of a color and how that justifies its use. If certain colors are less suitable, that is a discussion that belongs elsewhere, as it affects all articles, not just this one. And again, please discuss things in the sections where the discussions are already ongoing, and consider participating in the dispute resolution. Dcs002 (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
@Dcs002 (talk·contribs) With woke information I mean information that’s politically or religiously influenced.
Some people believe that storms are created by meteorological institutes. Or are caused by vengeful spirits.
(I’ve seen some of that on other articles btw)
And I don’t want that type of bogus claims to effect this article.
With colors I of course talk about, you know…
As people get older, they tend to prefer darker colors as they get older.
A child likes bright colors:
But as they get to their teenage years, about 12 years old, they prefer darker colors: Dark blue, black, etc…
And most men prefer masculine colors: Black, grey, dark green, dark blue, etc.
With females, for instance little girls, they like bright pink. But as they get older, and enter their teens, about 12 years old. They prefer more mature colors: purple, blue, red, etc…
It’s basically just common sense when you think of it
Your definition of woke is incorrect. It was originally coined in African American Vernacular English to mean awake, in the sense of being alert to, or aware of the full impact of racial injustice. It has since broadened to mean "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)," per Merriam Webster. It has nothing to do with edits in this article. It is an oft abused excuse for dismissing the opinions of people we disagree with. We need to stick with facts, neutral language, and reliable sources. If you dispute an edit, be specific. Loaded words don't add meaning, only subjective rhetoric and often culturally specific bias.
Your idea that colors are related to maturity might be specific to your culture, but they do not apply to other cultures. Until the early 20th century, pink was a color that represented boys, not girls, in the UK and the USA. Your ideas about what colors mean do not generalize to the rest of the world, and this encyclopedia is meant to serve the rest of the world, not your own sense of what things mean. And your gender-specific categorization is simply inflammatory. People do not, and should not, conform to your gender expectations.
You missed the dispute resolution. It has been closed. You chose not to participate after multiple invitations on this page and on your user talk page. Your choice not to participate in that forum (which is voluntary) means that further disruptive editing on your part will have to be dealt with at the next higher level. I don't know what that next level is, and I'd rather not find out, but I don't think participation will be voluntary. Our complaints concerning your editing are on the record, along with your choice not to participate. You have a decision to make. You can stop making edits based on your personal opinions and preferences and learn and follow the guidelines and policies established for editing on WP, or we can find out together what exactly that next step is. I think you've already violated enough WP policies and guidelines just on this talk page to warrant sanctions, and WP has a complete record of every one of those violations. WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:OWN and WP:PA are the first few that spring to mind. If you don't believe you've been doing anything wrong, you really should look over those pages. Some of the sanctions are severe, including blocks and bans.
I KNOW that not all disruptive editing is intentional. Some people just don't know how WP works, or what is expected of editors, or maybe there are language problems, but you've had numerous warnings that there is a problem, and you chose not to participate in the first voluntary dispute resolution process. People have actually been trying to help you, but you've responded with attacks and hostility. I really hope you take this opportunity to learn how WP works, and learn to work within the standards of the worldwide community of Wikipedians. We've got a great thing going here, and I hope you'll participate in making it even better. Dcs002 (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Dcs002 (talk·contribs) Unfortunately I have no clue what your talking about here.
And what do you mean with sanctions or blocks on Wikipedia?
I haven’t got sanctioned before, nor blocked.
And if it would happen, that will be authoritarian.
I indeed notice a big culture difference!
Here in Europe we’re way different then British and Americans.
Us Western Europeans have more logic, and we never saw pink as a man color. If it’s true that pink is meant for men in Britain & America, then I think that's very disturbing and weird.
And about “learning how Wikipedia works”… I know how it works, but I don’t know what to do with all these links that you all send me, I’ve never got any “invitation” for anything, and what does “dispute resolution” even mean?
And I want to know which “personal attacks” and “hostility” your talking about, because I haven’t done any of that, in fact, I’m the victim of those things.
2A02:A44C:6682:1:1CD0:C1BA:E84F:D004 (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
An example of your personal hostility toward me (and another editor): "I mean that the editors who edit this article, for instance: Dcs002 (talk · contribs) & Greyzxq (talk · contribs). Can’t write an article without typo’s & immature grammar. They prefer “unknown” over “unspecified”, and prefer “notifications” over “cases”. And then they have the audacity to call me an idiot. Basically. And I’m just giving criticism and being direct, yet they all act like I told them to cut their arm off. And I find it disgustingly annoying. It once again shows how pathetic and immature people are nowadays… what a sad world…"
Not a single statement you said there was true about me. I've still never edited this article, I've never called you an idiot (or any other name), I actually expressed a very mild preference for unspecified over unknown, I have no idea what notifications and cases refers to, and I reject your judgement that I am pathetic and immature. That's a very real WP:PA issue, which can, in severe cases, result in a block or a ban.
You choose to edit without an account, so an identifier is created based on your ip. If your ip changes between logins, your identifier will also change. Notice of the dispute resolution was sent to your page here. As an ip editor, you might find it difficult to keep up with important communications, but all you had to do was follow the information on this talk page and you would get to the same place. Again, people here have been trying to help you.
Knowing how to make edits is not the same as knowing what edits would be good or appropriate edits, or knowing how to work within the guidelines and policies that the worldwide Wikipedian community has established. Editors may not rewrite our encyclopedia based on their own unique experience and values. This is a universal encyclopedia, and there are policies and guidelines in place to help us write good articles that serve the English-speaking world, many of whom do not share your values concerning gender, colors, maturity, or grammar. Such personal values have no place in an encyclopedia. That's why we write with WP:NPOV, using WP:RS. You need to understand what these concepts mean, and how they are applied here, if you wish to avoid further disruptive editing. You have been warned by numerous people about your disruptive editing, and you chose not to participate in the voluntary dispute resolution process. You can choose to participate within WP policies and guidelines, or we can see what happens next. I hope you will put in the effort to learn how WP operates, because you seem to have the energy needed to be a very productive editor. We all need to leave our personal biases out of WP though. But first, we need to identify them. I hope you put some effort into that.
This disruptive edit shows me you're still doing things your own way, with no regard to WP policies and guidelines:
"On 29 January 2023 at 17:27, user EuropeanXTwisters (talk · contribs) was partaking in vandalism, when he or she removed “Unspecified” and replaced with “unknown” under the “Storms” section at “Ex-Hurricane Danielle”. "
@Dcs002 (talk·contribs) That about “notifications” refers to a different article, an article about a disease that was made by Greyzxq (talk·contribs), an article filled with immature grammar errors and typo’s (but luckily it has been corrected by me and 1 other). And when I wrote, “pathetic “ I was talking about the general public nowadays.
Just incase there are persons who don’t know this yet, we don’t say the country “Turkey” anymore, it’s “Türkiye”.
This was requested by Mr. Erdogan (President of Türkiye) and the Turkish people.
“Turkey” is seen as an insult, because turkey is a bird & meat.
So remember to always write Türkiye!! (To show respect)
Most people in the English language still use Turkey (just look at the title of the Wikipedia page) and within Wikipedia Turkey seems to be preferred. So I would not change anything especially to keep consistency (also so I don't have to write diacritics). ✶Mitch199811✶22:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
It is not an insult. Their complaint was that it sounded too much like the English word for the bird.
This sort of dispute has been resolved in the past by deferring to the reliable sources of the information. What is right isn't always what matters. What do the RS say? We are not here to right great wrongs. Some say this name change is a political ploy; others (like me), believe in the right of a people to determine their own identity, but the word, as it appears in RS, is what rules.
I don't see how we can consistently use characters that do not exist in the English language on the English language WP. My opinion is in keeping with previous WP consensus - that we should defer to the spelling and identity in the RS, or else start a discussion on Words to Watch because again, this convention affects all WP pages, not just this one.
What is our convention for the Czech Republic? They changed their name in English to Czechia a few years ago, but few seem to have noticed. Dcs002 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I’m actually surprised that Wikipedia still uses “Turkey”, because 99% of news channels & websites call it “Türkiye” now.
Because it was requested by Mr. Erdogan, the President of Türkiye, and the Turkish population.
@Dcs002 (talk·contribs) Czechia & Türkiye are used in news channels. But I guess they haven’t been completely verified yet. Because according to the Oxford University Dictionary & Cambridge University Dictionary, it’s still Czech Republic and Turkey.
Of course countries like “North-Macedonia” & “Republic of Ireland” or “The People’s Republic of China” are now named “Macedonia, Ireland & China”. And I support that, because I think they should leave out the whole “republic & north” thing.
With the Czech Republic, i hope they verify it soon in the dictionary, because Czechia is easier to write.
Türkiye was only requested by the Turkish President & people. So I wasn’t sure if it had to be changed or not, after all, you never know anything 100% anymore nowadays. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:41D9:C9CB:C73:4E94 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
It was more than requested by the Turkish president. In the summer (June?) of 2022, Türkiye became the officially recognized name by the United Nations. About 2 weeks ago, after resisting the change for many months, the US State Department also adopted Türkiye in all of its official correspondence. It's a valid point right now, but I think it needs to be discussed elsewhere, maybe WP:W2W? (I'm not sure if that is the forum that decides accepted place names in WP, but it's a system-wide issue, and we should have consistency across WP pages.) I think also that the OED does have a legitimate role in describing common usage outside such diplomatic circles, and I'm glad you brought them up.
I think it's important to keep in mind that usage (not rules) determines meaning. Grammarians and pedants can only follow current usage patterns, making attempts to describe usage as a coherent system. (Paraphrasing Thomas Parkhurst.) In general, rules of spelling, grammar, and usage are descriptive, not prescriptive, so we always have some freedom to write in a way that is best understood. That has been the consensus among linguists for many decades now. Effective conveyance of meaning is the purpose of language. If we have achieved that, we have done well. Dcs002 (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is a lot of unsourced information in this article.
Everywhere where it says “[citation needed]”, I want to see a source.
And don’t add an invalid source like a .onion or a random tweet.
It needs a valid source from a trustworthy news website or meteorological institute.
If I see that the source is invalid, I will remove it! 2A02:A44C:6682:1:1CD0:C1BA:E84F:D004 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Tweets and other social media sources are ok if it's from a verified source. After that they take the trustworthiness of their source. A tweet from the onion is still not a valid source but a YouTube video from the NWS is. ✶Mitch199811✶16:32, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Heads up for vandalism!
On 29 January 2023 at 17:27, user EuropeanXTwisters (talk·contribs) was partaking in vandalism, when he or she removed “Unspecified” and replaced with “unknown” under the “Storms” section at “Ex-Hurricane Danielle”.
He or she wrote this in his or her edit summary:
“Changing "Unspecified" back to unknown!“
It isn't vandalism but a good faith edit and personally I think Unknown works better than unspecified for deaths/damages since they are not known. I also feel the need to remind you that this talkpage isn't a forum to talk about your personal whims, but instead a page to talk about how to develop the article.Jason Rees (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Jason Rees (talk·contribs) This message is ment to develop the article, because if I warn people about vandalism then they know to keep eye on it.
It’s nothing personal either, but the tone EuropeanXTwisters (talk·contribs) used in his or her edit summary is condescending.
I’m simply helping reduce vandalism!
And “unknown” just doesn’t sound mature enough.
It’s better to use posh adult words, like “unspecified”, unspecified sounds more mature and professional, and THAT is what adults want. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:1CD0:C1BA:E84F:D004 (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
There is no need to alert people to vandalism that isnt vandalism, as it can come across as a personal attack. Personally I think the edit summuary is absolutely fine and not condescending in the slightest. Also speaking both as an adult and a European, it isnt better to use what you term posh adult words like unspecified for deaths/damages when the word unknown works a lot better and is more accurate than unspecified. Also when I read through the talk page it seems like you are the only one who doesn't want to use the word Unknown on this article. Jason Rees (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Jason Rees (talk·contribs) I Know, that EuropeanXTwisters (talk·contribs) did this on purpose to attack me!
Especially how he or she added that exclamation mark at the end of his or her edit summary.
I indeed realize that I’m legit the only one who prefers “unspecified”. And I find that quite disturbing, I can’t fathom why they prefer “unknown” over “unspecified”, apparently people dislike maturity and professionalism, and it destroys my faith in humanity. 2A02:A44C:6682:1:1CD0:C1BA:E84F:D004 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Because in these scenario, as society cares, but does not know, the better word is Unknown. If the FUB or other agencies don't measure weak storms like in the Australian basin, then unknown in appropriate. I tried looking up what you meant but the internet also has no clue what you mean by mature. ✶Mitch199811✶04:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I Know, that EuropeanXTwisters (talk · contribs) did this on purpose to attack me! Especially how he or she added that exclamation mark at the end of his or her edit summary. How is adding an exclamation mark a personal attack? TailsWx13:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@Mitch199811 (talk·contribs) “last straw”? “ANI report”? What on earth are you talking about?
And what is that message you sent? Are you trying to spam me?
EuropeanXTwisters has been offline for at least 3 days. BTW, there wasn't a consensus for editors to change from "unknown" to "unspecified", so reverting the edit to its original revision was good-faith and not vandalism. TailsWx18:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I can't find this on a page. If a meteorologist thinks a windy day deserves a name, is that enough? Is there a minimum wind speed? A maximum central barometric pressure? A damage requirement? I think this info should be at the top or in the lede so we know what the article is about. I have no idea what the criteria are. I live in the US, and every type of storm has a quantified definition (e.g., a blizzard requires 35 mph wind for 3 hours and visibility of 1/4 mile or less from falling or blowing snow). Without a definition, this article is about nothing in particular. Dcs002 (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Dcs002 Hello, I know that in the UK's naming list, we do only name storms if Amber or Red weather warnings are issued by the Met Office, I think this is also the case with France's naming list, while the Italian and Greek naming lists I'm not to sure about. Many of these storms are named by the FUB (Free University of Berlin), but cause little to no damage as the FUB names every low pressure across the European continent. So, I think that most of the FUB storms should be removed, and leave major impacting ones (e.g. Bettina). 2A02:C7C:5699:B300:1942:6E39:49DD:3BAF (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, can we get that information into the article, along with the criteria for a windstorm to cause an amber or red warning, if that's what's required for naming? I don't know that terminology because I'm not from the UK or France. That's local knowledge that we can't assume the reader already knows. I still don't have any sense of what a named windstorm is, or what qualifies a storm to be discussed here, and that's what this article is about. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Dcs002 On the UK's Meteorological Service website, the Met Office do state: "The criteria we use for naming storms is based on our National Severe Weather Warnings service. This is based on a combination of both the impact the weather may have, and the likelihood of those impacts occurring. A storm will be named when it has the potential to cause an amber or red warning.
Other weather types will also be considered, specifically rain if its impact could lead to flooding as advised by the Environment Agency, SEPA and Natural Resources Wales flood warnings. Therefore 'storm systems' could be named on the basis of impacts from the wind but also include the impacts of rain and snow. When the criteria for naming a storm are met, either the Met Office, Met Éireann or KNMI can name a storm." EuropeanXTwisters (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, but I raised the question in reference to the article, not for my benefit. That kind of information needs to be in the article, at least regarding what defines a windstorm. (Rain and flooding events seem to be outside the scope of this article, which is about a windstorm season.) I still don't have any idea what is defined as a windstorm, and this article is about windstorms. The article needs improving. Yes, I want that information for my own knowledge, but it needs to be in the article, not on the discussion page. If definitions vary by country, that should be addressed in the article, but at minimum, this article needs to state what it's about at a fundamental level. Dcs002 (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Criteria windstorm
I would say, a windstorm has at least gusts of more than 100 km/h (28 m/s), anything less than that is at best just turbulent weather.
And storms usually have a highest hourly average windspeed of 80 km/h (22 m/s), and a 24-hour average of 60 km/h (17 m/s). 2A02:A44C:6682:1:D5DA:8997:CB52:6714 (talk) 08:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
What you would say is usable in WP articles. What do reliable sources say? That how we build a quality encyclopedia.
Also, please start new sections to comment on a topic when there is already an ongoing discussion on that topic in another section. Thanks Dcs002 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
We don't need a consensus to write an article. We need reliable sources. What we think isn't enough. We need to write about what we find in reliable sources. If a disagreement arises, we might need to request a discussion for a consensus, but first we need to actually write the article. There has been no disagreement on this subject because it is not discussed in the article, nor has anyone cited a reliable source that defines a windstorm. We need to start there. There is already an ongoing discussion on this topic above on this page. Dcs002 (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The DMI & KNMI are good sources, they have a criteria for Storms.
Both say storms are:
• 24-hour average windspeed: >10 m/s
• Highest hourly average windspeed: >17 m/s
• Highest gust: >25 m/s
Oooorrrr… we could do METLUX criteria, >10, >16, >24 m/s.
@Dcs002:Basedonmyreadingofthesevarioussources. My understanding is that the term European Windstorm is a term that is used in reliable sources, to group the various types of depressions & extratropical cyclones that cause severe weather in Europe together. As a result, I believe that there is no single set definition of what qualifies as a windstorm and as you correctly point out nor should we attempt to define one. Over the years, editors have attempted to replicate the various tropical cyclone season pages, with the names coming from the six naming schemes that are used by the various met agencies in Europe for severe weather. For various reasons though there has not been much success in developing the articles properly.Jason Rees (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
How about a section in the article that discusses the lack of a unifying definition, and maybe giving some of the common definitions, or features which are common across definitions? I would really like to see this article at least address the issue of what it's about. At the very least, what is necessary for a storm to be covered in this article? WP needs criteria for inclusion, even if those criteria don't constitute a definition. I have no experience with this article, or with European windstorms. I just wanted to learn about them, but this article didn't even tell me what they were, not even in broad terms. I'm afraid I can't be the one to WP:FIXIT because I'm just not familiar with European weather or which authorities are considered more or less authoritative.
A statement that reads something like this might be helpful:
While there are no definitive criteria in Europe for what constitutes a windstorm, weather systems that meet criteria A, B, and C are included in this discussion.
I will have a look at what I can do over the weekend to develop this article, the European Windstorm and the Weather system naming in Europe article a bit further. My belief is that the general criteria over the years has been to add a system to this page has been if a system has been named by one of the more formal naming schemes, however, that doesn't work too well as it excludes systems that arent covered by a naming scheme. It maybe that we need to split this article up into smaller ones, however, I am not sure if it has ever been discussed or precisely defined what belongs in this article.Jason Rees (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@Lacunae: As a long term editor of European Windstorms, I was wondering if you were around to comment and help Wikipedia out what to cover and where at all? Jason Rees (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I used to use the following criteria: Notability criteria
Level 3. Named storms by a meteorological agency of Europe (though exceptions occur i.e. "Zeus" 2017) -listed in coordination table at 2018–19 European windstorm season. To include comparative names in various naming schemes and dates of impact.
Level 2. Storms listed at relative meteorological grouping page, or unified page, basic detail of warnings, image, short infobox. (It should be remembered that naming of storms is warning system based on forecasting, while Wikipedia deals in notable events which have occurred.
Level 1. Storms which are assessed by the external agency [www.perils.org/losses|Perils.org] as qualifying. Reach notability criteria (and usually enough material) to make a better than stub Wikipedia article of their own, and their own listing at List of European windstorms. Perils.org typically use a default value of €200 million, though do qualify notable storms which do not exceed this value ("Zeus" 2017 and Ex-Ophelia 2017), and so can be used for our purposes as an independent outside source for assessing notability. Lacunae (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
In the case of a post-tropical storm, when maximum winds and minimum pressure are given in the infobox, for what point in the storm's history should those values be given? For Danielle, there is a citation required template next to maximum gust, but the gust given is far lower than the storm's maximum. Should this be the quantity given the moment it becomes extratropical? When it makes landfall on European soil? If so, what islands are considered European? Or should it be the maximum gust in the history of the storm, which in the case of Danielle would mean maximum gust while it was a hurricane? (This is an extension on the question of what constitutes a European windstorm, and an example of the consistency I think this article needs.) Dcs002 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@Egghead2000 (talk·contribs) As in other articles the criteria is unsophisticatedly vital.
I’ve looked the past hour and have done a thorough inspection of the KNMI (Koninklijk Nederlands Meteorologisch Instituut) and the DMI (Dansk Meteorologisk Institut) and their explicitly construed criteria.
There I was able to find the following criteria:
KNMI: “ We spreken van storm als de gemiddelde windsnelheid minstens 1 uur gelijk is aan windkracht 9. Het KNMI gaat uit van storm of windkracht 9 als een uurgemiddelde windsnelheid tussen 75 en 88 kilometer per uur (20,8 - 24,4 meter per seconde) gemeten wordt. Volgens de schaal van Beaufort is er sprake van storm als er een 10 minuut gemiddelde windsnelheid tussen 75 en 88 km/u gemeten wordt.”
DMI: “storm >20,8 m/s, national >30%, regional 10-30%;
Klasse:
Kraftig storm til orkan, ≥ 28,5 m/s
Stærk storm, (orkanlignende)
≥ 26,5 m/s
Storm,
≥ 24,5 m/s
Stormfuld,
≥ 20,8 m/s“
As a Dutch-Danish I’m all in for valid criteria, but inasmuch their criteria slightly differs from one another, I would knowledgeably elect the preferable option.
It shall be one of the two, as for me, it doesn’t matter which one, as I give preference to both options.
Perhaps it’s a pristine notion if we estrange the University of Berlin named storms, as they are relatively underwhelming.
As I understand, there are more than these two institutions that have their own criteria. I don't think either should be given primacy. I think the article needs to describe the range of criteria, perhaps focusing on the closest commonalities among the different definitions. More than that, I think the article needs to be clear about which storms are covered in the article and why they were chosen for inclusion when others might not have been. Dcs002 (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
In addition to your sources, I found this from the Met Office in London:
"A storm event is defined as the 72 hours centred on the storm’s peak intensity along the track, available for each storm event (the maximum wind speed at 925 hPa and within a 300-km radius of the location of the vorticity maximum)"
For me it doesn’t really matter which agency’s criteria we use. Wether it’s from British, Danish or Dutch meteorological institutes. Egghead2000 (talk) 07:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
You have referred to an "informant authority" in this and in other posts. What authority do you mean? I am not aware of this term being used in WP policies or guidelines. Are you referring to the use of reliable sources? We have common policies as our authority on WP. Is that what you mean?
This article is not about the UK, Danish, or Dutch windstorm season, or the European season as defined by any single agency, so I don't think we can arbitrarily pick a single set of criteria from a single agency. How have editors been deciding which storms to include? I haven't seen any real dispute of inclusion criteria here (other than "not BUP naming"), and I have no intention of creating one. I just want whatever it is to be in the article so readers like me can know what the article is about. If notability is the only inclusion criterion (comments above made me wonder), that still leaves the question open as to what a European windstorm actually is (wind with non-significant rain or snow?), and therefore what this article is about. Is it simply any notable storm in Europe? Dcs002 (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Vandalism protection
If this talk page is protected so IPs can't edit it, how would they make suggestions to ruin it? Maybe drop it down to a pending protection or something? ✶Mitch199811✶03:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
My mistake. I see there was some interesting vandalism to this page that was dealt with by a 2-day protection, which has now expired. The disambiguating ip editor, as I understand was blocked for 3 days (their range of ip's anyway), but that was of course not actual vandalism. I confused the two issues Dcs002 (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
:As I understand there is a 3-day block on a certain range of ip addresses that includes our disruptive ip editor, not all ip editors. (Unless there has been further action that I'm not aware of?) I favor protecting this article and talk page against all ip editors for a period because the disruptive editing has made this such a hostile environment that I think it could have a very detrimental effect on participation among WP editors, particularly newer editors who were particularly ill-abused. I think that is a pressing need that trumps an ip editor's desire to participate. They can simply register, establish a minimal history, and be confirmed (just like the rest of us) if they want to edit a protected page. I think it's a small sacrifice to preserve the integrity and community-driven nature of our encyclopedia. What happened here was quite serious. Dcs002 (talk) 04:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Removing University of Berlin named Storms
I was thinking of removing the university of Berlin named storms, because they don’t meet the criteria.
I’ve been debating on wether or not to do it, but so that nobody will go apoplectic, I haven’t yet. But I’m just mentioning it here 2A02:A44C:6682:1:8C29:B67B:43F6:93EE (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
The problem we have is that some will meet the criteria with the Central European group is now using them when a status orange is issued. It will also be useful to include them like we do with PAGASA names when a storm is named by one of the European NMHSS. Jason Rees (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
What is a status orange? Is that what's required for naming by the Central group? Can that be described under the Central European Group section? I just linked the Amber warning under the Western section to an article that defines what it is. If a status orange is the requirement for the Central European Group to name a storm, and the definition of status orange can be linked, that would give me the kind of information I'd like as a reader. Dcs002 (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
By status Orange, I meant an Amber Warning but it was more of a presumption on my part of what they use based on the UKMO system. I will see what I can dig up in the next few days though.Jason Rees (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
If we are gonna remove a few, I think at the very least they should have caused a warning to be on our list. Could someone explain how European warnings work? Here in America, we have watches and warnings by events. ✶Mitch199811✶23:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Mitch, from what I've been reading here and in a few other places, these amber and red warnings are like watches and warnings from the NWS in the US. (Amber = "Be prepared," Red = "Take action.") I added this link in the article: amber weather warning That explains what they mean - yellow, amber, and red, at least according to the Met office. Yellow is like an advisory, amber is like a watch, and red is like a warning. One thing that has been repeated a few times is that in order for the Western group to name a storm, an amber or red warning has to be issued by agencies of the member nations. Finding and linking these definitions to the different groups could go a long way toward resolving the issue I've been carrying on about - naming criteria and criteria for inclusion. (To me, the definition of a windstorm is less important because there isn't one, and the lede says the article is about named storms.) Dcs002 (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Watch seems a bit low and high at the same time, many tropical storms are just chilling in the middle of nowhere and they get mentioned. At the same time, (I think) we don't mention every single time there was a Severe Thunder Watch. My biggest issue is that these are just random lows they name, it's the Weather Channel blizzard naming issue again. ✶Mitch199811✶01:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, to use your analogy of tropical storm watches, sure, they are not terribly significant to anyone but mariners and oil rig workers, but if the TS exists at all, it gets a name, and it is covered in detail on the year's Atlantic hurricane season page. A storm that exists might be climatologically important, even if it never results in a warning. The number and intensity of actual tropical storms and hurricanes per season is a very important piece of data concerning our evolving climate, and I think the same could be true for European windstorms, if only some order could be brought to their definition for statistical purposes. The storm is important regardless of whether anyone is hurt or property is damaged because it reflects on the current state of the climate. (That's one reason why I personally don't like the "warning issued" standard being used.)
I gave it some thought, from the perspective of a reader (and really that's how I see myself here, though I've become quite involved now, which I haven't done in a long time), and I wrote my opinion, fwiw, making a case for keeping the FUB-named storms at the bottom of this section. There is precedent in last year's article. Mention them in a list at the end of the article, whatever, but I think they should be included in some way. (It's not a very strong opinion though.) Dcs002 (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Jason! I think that will really help. I should mention that the link I added for the amber warning is to a WP article on UK Met Office warnings, so I don't know if it actually applies to all nations in the Western group. I didn't think of that until after I made the link. Still, IMO as a reader, it's better to have a representative definition than nothing. Dcs002 (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@Jason Rees (talk·contribs) that is one of the reasons I decided not to remove them. Because there hasn’t been an election yet on the preferred criteria.
My preference goes to the Danish criteria.
24-hour average windspeed: >20.8 m/s (75 km/h) [Moderate Breeze]
Average hourly windspeed: >25 m/s (90 km/h) [Strong breeze]
Opinion: I know the FUB naming system is far from ideal (subjectively I'd call it a mess), and it includes storm systems that might not achieve notability on their own, but I think windstorms (not pressure systems) named by FUB should be listed or at least mentioned in this article, perhaps as was done in the previous season:
The storm season is notable, and not all information pertaining to the notable subject of the article needs to be independently notable.
Users might be curious about a storm they heard of by name, and I think WP should be a place where they can find information like that.
The lede says this article is about named storms during the season, and even though FUB-named storms are not always as significant as other named storms, still they are named storms, named by a notable meteorological authority.
I know WP isn't a repository for trivial information, but I think articles should be comprehensive, within practical limits. Dcs002 (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I will properly respond to this conversation more later but for now I will note that FU Berlin names every single low pressure area and every single area of high pressure. So some sort of criteria (using that word as softly as I can) is in order. Jason Rees (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I've been reading. Nobody at FUB claims their naming system is related to windstorms at all. As you said, and according to their own website and publications, it's only pressure systems. (Note that neither wind nor storm appears on that page.) So, maybe only verifiable windstorms associated with FUB names should be kept. Dcs002 (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
If they were actual windstorms, I think they should be kept. Someone at the FUB met. dept. emailed me saying a storm means >=8 Beaufort (I think they meant >8, or 9 or higher, per the Deutscher Wetterdienst), but a lot of their academic pubs use other data (>= 98th percentile maximum wind in the given area + minimum duration and area). Is there a simple way to tell if FUB-named storms met any specific criteria? Dcs002 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need wind data if a competent European meteorological agency labels something a windstorm, either in documents after the fact or in warnings. FUB simply does not name or declare storms at all (they referred me to Deutscher Wetterdienst for that), but the pressure systems they name might include storms, which should have their own documentation beyond the naming of the pressure system.
It seems to me that a BUP name is completely irrelevant concerning whether a windstorm has occurred, but if a windstorm has occurred, and it is commonly known by the BUP name for the related pressure system, it should be included. (Don't remove actual storms solely because they have an FUB name.) I think all we need is a competent meteorological agency describing it as a windstorm, and somewhere in the article a blurb about how the definition of a windstorm might differ among the different agencies. Dcs002 (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I am going to write up a paragraph or two that discusses the variety of windstorm definitions, the variety of naming conventions, and the criteria for inclusion in this article, using the following guidelines:
For windstorm definitions, at least two cited examples and a statement that there is no universal definition;
For naming conventions, statement that there is no universal convention, cited examples from at least two regional groups, and a cited explanation that FUB names apply to all pressure centers, and don't in themselves imply a storm occurred;
For inclusion criteria, it must have a name (per the statement in the lede giving the scope of the article), and it must be described as a windstorm by a meteorological institute that has some official standing in Europe. (Any required cits should be in the storm's section.)
I imagine this will be a subsection of the Background and naming section, maybe the first paragraph. (That area needs cleanup anyway.) Does that sound good? I didn't want to be the one to do the writing, but I'd like to see this finished. Dcs002 (talk) 02:27, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![[1]](https://www.met.fu-berlin.de/de/wetter/maps/Analyse_20221025.gif){kind=link}
![[2]](https://www.met.fu-berlin.de/de/wetter/maps/Analyse_20221026.gif){kind=link}
Done
