Jump to content

Talk:Clear-air turbulence

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

Comments

[edit]

Also refer to the "Richardson Number" which actually helps in forcasting the presence of CAT

I noticed conversational tone (heavy use of contractions) and inconsistent style throughout the article text (style of lists, lead, organization), which is why I marked it for tone/style. Midnightreport (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion between CAT itself and its effects of aircraft

[edit]

There are two closely related, but different, topics being confused within this article:

  1. CAT itself, as an atmospheric and meteorological phenomenon;
  2. The effects of CAT on aircraft.

I think we should try to separate them where reasonably possible. I could try to start, but I know virtually nothing about the topic. Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Clear-air turbulenceClear air turbulence

  • The subject of the article is referred to as 'Clear air turbulence' (without the hyphen) throughout the article, so the title should be consistent with it. I've already sorted out the dab page. Giuliopp (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without the hyphen, the expression is ambiguous between "clear-air turbulence" = "turbulence in clear air" and "clear air-turbulence" = "(air turbulence) which is clear". The meaning is more obvious with the hyphen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly is the difference between "turbulence in clear air" and "air turbulence that is clear"? --Giuliopp (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – the hyphen is clarifying the structure and meaning of the phrase. It was a majority usage in sources through at least 1980, and still very common in more recent decades, as it follows the typical trend of sources dropping the hyphen from compounds that become more familiar or "permanent", especially among specialists to whom it is very familiar. But for the general readership, the hyphen still has value, and it is within WP style to use hyphens in such contexts to help the average reader, as opposed to the specialist reader. I'd fix the text to agree more with the title; do not add hyphen where the "clear air" stands alone as a noun phrase, obviously, but do where it modifies "turbulence". Dicklyon (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed; only two were missing hyphen; also added one in lee-wave turbulence for the same reason. Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one adjective.--Giuliopp (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.