Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

WMO data on German precipitation days

It seems there is an inconsistency with WMO data on German precipitation days. WMO data regularly shows 40-50 more days of precipitation than the DWD or Infoclimat, while using the same threshold (that'd be 1.0mm). Examples abound, but the ones that come to mind first are Munich (compare Infoclimat) and Konstanz. My guess is that the WMO numbers are actually using a 0.1mm threshold and are mislabeled, or are otherwise inaccurate. I will start removing these parameters in a few days if there are no objections or explanations. Uness232 (talk) 19:13, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Uness232: In response to your query, it is worth noting that there is only one place where the WMO and Infoclimat get their data on German precipitation days from - the DWD. As a result, I took a look at the Munich article and noticed that the WMO source covered the 30 years between 1991-2020, while the Infoclimat source that you provided uses the period between 1981 and 2010. I would have to check with @Matthiasb: who is German, but I strongly suspect that over the last 30 years, it has gotten wetter in Germany. I hope this resolves your query.Jason Rees (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees I don't find that particularly convincing as an explanation: I have never seen a place get 50 days wetter with one decade of new data, especially as 1981-2010 and 1991-2020 normals reuse two decades of data from each other, essentially meaning that the rise needed to be even more dramatic.

But if that is not particularly convincing, here is the same station in 1991-2020; I did not use this period for Infoclimat as there was a few years of missing data (although in a 30-year-normal that shouldn't make too big of a difference), as you can see there's no real difference in precipitation days.

My guess is that the data is not 'wrong' per se, just mislabeled. A place with 130 days of 1.0mm or more precipitation getting 170 days of measurable precipitation in total is not at all unlikely. Uness232 (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe this is helping. Since the start of 2021 the DWD is unsing the 1991 bis 2020 averages as reference period, before then ist was 1961 to 1990. So we're not talking about the difference of one decade but three. The DWD does change its reference period only once every 30 years, next time in 2051.

This aside, when discussing climate change they still use the 1961 to 1990 reference period to compare with the last reference periode almost partly influenced by climate change. (This explaination is based on a lousy on the fly translation since I have the flu, so the semantics might be different.) Pityfully the PDF at https://www.dwd.de/DE/leistungen/besondereereignisse/verschiedenes/20210119_neue_referenzperiode.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=6 seems to exist in German only, but the given literature is english.

I have no clue what data the French website uses since this counts by day strongly overestimates weather events. It counts two days of rain when the rain occured between 23:45 and 4:00 in the morning, right? In another town nearby the rain started after midnight only, and it counts only one day with rain. IMO that's scientificial not really helpful. --Matthiasb (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Matthiasb You're right that it's not a perfect tool, but it is standard, and we use it in standard ways in Wikipedia. Differing thresholds exist for different countries; some use 0.1mm, some use 1.0mm, some count trace precipitation etc., but the standard remains the same (did it rain 0.1mm/1.0mm since midnight yesterday?), and that's goes for all countries and all websites. Also the 2 days/1 day of rain problem does not create large problems in other regions, as the 'midnight rain' problem tends to cancel out with large amounts of data: 'midnight rain' tends to strike different places during each rain, and that bias cancels itself out.

Going back to the data, it still does not make sense that there'd be 40-50 days of difference between sources when counting precipitation days in the same city center, during the same period (see the later Infoclimat data), using the same threshold. There's also another problem; that there are very large discrepancies in data around the borderlands of Germany. For example, Aachen allegedly gets 190 days of precipitation using the 1mm threshold, while Maastricht gets 125. That difference, with less than 10 percent difference in precipitation, in the same exact region with the exact same air masses, is impossible. Uness232 (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees, @Matthiasb; asking for opinions again; I do not think any concerns were answered with this discussion, and we seem to be basically at square one. Considering the 1991-2020 Infoclimat data that also contradicts WMO data, as well as the discrepancies in borderlands, what could be the explanation for this data, if not simply an error on the WMO or DWD's part? Uness232 (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow response, I have been rather busy in real life and will need to find some time to study the data further, however, I do wonder what makes Infoclimat reliable? Jason Rees (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees It alone would be less reliable than WMO or DWD of course; but in this context, it's not just Infoclimat that contradicts WMO data. It's also DWD data, as in Konstanz; as well as the neighboring state services, as in Aachen and Maastricht (see discussion above for more details on that). It's necessarily all the data I've talked about on here that leads me to believe that there's an issue with the WMO data, not just Infoclimat. Uness232 (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

More evidence for something strange going on: Stuttgart, with 650mm of precipitation allegedly gets around 169 days of precipitation using the 1.0mm threshold. Strasbourg, just across the border, gets 636mm of precipitation over 112 days, using the same threshold. This, again, does not seem to be possible.

There seems to be a labeling issue going on; the German data is likely using the 0.1mm threshold and not 1.0mm. Compare Luxembourg City to Saarbrücken: different thresholds, very similar numbers. Obviously we can not change the thresholds on our own accord per WP:OR but we could remove them as unreliable. Uness232 (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, Strasbourg it's not just across the border from Stuttgart. It's a 90 minutes TGV ride, about 100 miles. Landscape and climate are totally different. The height has difference of about 100 metres, 140 against 242+. Strasbourg is located in the wide rhine valley whilst Stuttgart in a valley kettle surrounded by hills in almost every direction. You can compare Strasbourg with Kehl oder Offenburg. But I guess there might be more complete data for the former Canadian air base and nower civil airport in Lahr. Matthiasb (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Matthiasb I suppose "just across the border" was not accurate, you're right. However, their precipitation values are still quite similar, and so are their temperatures; making the discrepancy between their precipitation day stats problematic.

All of that aside though, Lahr's data does not help. It supposedly has 176 days of precipitation; Strasbourg has 112. Still much the same problem. Uness232 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no explaination on this, other than, maybe, topography. Matthiasb (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Topography would have been believable to some extent if it was just one case; 50 days a year is already quite an extreme in a region without a mountain range division (even Istanbul, which is quite an extreme case, has around 25 days of difference between different sides of the city).

However, this discrepancy happens on multiple directions near the borderlands of Germany, is contradicted by both Infoclimat and DWD's own data. At this point I don't know if a consensus can be reached with this little attention being given to the topic (it's essentially us 3 here), but I'm tempted to remove this data pretty soon. Uness232 (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Uness232: I am unsure as to what to suggest as it seems like you are comparing Apples and Pears here, with data from Germany being made to data from Belgium, France and Luxembourg which would be different since we are dealing with different companies/standards. As a result, I would suggest that it might be worth dropping the DWD, Meteo France or the WMO an email before the removal of data.Jason Rees (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees I don't quite get what you mean by 'different standards'; precipitation days are calculated the same way everywhere, simply with different thresholds occasionally. All of the data I am comparing should be of exactly the same method; as they all have 1.0mm thresholds: that method would be "did it rain 1.0mm since midnight yesterday?" Uness232 (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Uness232: Precipitation days maybe calculated the same way everywhere, but my thinking around the standards was for example the equipment used and how the rainfall measurement was obtained in the first place. Lets not forget that we are seeing more and more automatic rainfall gauges turn up, which are probably more reliable than the human eye.Jason Rees (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jason Rees True, but the amount of difference does not fit this explanation. Surely it is possible that let's say up to 10 days of difference can be explained this way; in these days precipitation would be right around 1.0mm, and the human eye might misread it as below when it was, in reality above (or vice versa). But 50 days of the year? Essentially once every 2-3 precipitation days? Basically impossible. We're talking about places that get more than 600 milimeters of rain in about 100 days: that's 6mm/day of precipitation. How many of these could be right around 1.0mm? Uness232 (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

November 2013 North American storm complex

I proposed this article for merging so please chime in. 47.19.68.110 (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Colour Discussions

For previous discussions on this topic, please see WT:WPWX/Colour Discussions

Navbar for tornadoes by state?

Could anyone with template prowess make a template for the bottom of the page, so one can navigate from different "List of tornadoes in X" type of articles? We currently have several state articles, and I hope that by having such a template, maybe people would be more likely to make lists like List of Delaware tornadoes, or whatnot. There are currently lists for Alabama, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Washington DC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

We also have Cleveland County, Oklahoma (Moore's list). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Karl (2004) merge

Hurricane Karl (2004) is ready to be merged into 2004 Atlantic hurricane season if someone wants to implement the merger. Noah, AA^Talk 17:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Eric Berger (meteorologist)#Requested move 8 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Eric Berger (meteorologist)#Requested move 8 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

RfC on climate descriptions & appropriate terminology

An RfC on whether generalized climate types (e.g humid temperate for humid subtropical and oceanic) are appropriate in climate descriptions where climate classifications conflict, is taking place at Talk:Köppen climate classification#RfC: Generalizing climate type descriptions when classification systems conflict. Interested editors can chime in. Uness232 (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Is this a polar stratospheric cloud?

Hi, Maybe someone can help identifying this cloud. Is this a PSC or rather a Cloud iridescence. Taken near Windischgarsten, Austria. Thanks

• 

Tigerente (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Cosme (2007)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Cosme (2007)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Isaac (2006)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Isaac (2006)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Karl (1980)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Karl (1980)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Lili (1990)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Lili (1990)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Danny (2015)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Danny (2015)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Fausto (2002)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Fausto (2002)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Fred (2009)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Fred (2009)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Ignacio (1985)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Ignacio (1985)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Newton (1986)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Newton (1986)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Octave (1989)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Octave (1989)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Helene (2006)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Helene (2006)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Humberto (2001)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Humberto (2001)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Juliette (1995)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Juliette (1995)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Kate (2003)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Kate (2003)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Lili (1984)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Lili (1984)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Nora (2003)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Nora (2003)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Julia (2010)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Julia (2010)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Hurricane Karl (2004)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Hurricane Karl (2004)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah, AA^Talk 23:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Update climate maps

Crossposted from Climate change task force:

There's an excellent resource created with Koppen climate maps, which will be useful to update current climate in country/state X images. They are available here in TIFF format under the same license as the current ones. It's a PITA to work from phone, but maybe desktop guys will help. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Climate of Hungary

Hi, there is a debate here that Hungary would be "subtropical" country: Talk:Budapest#Climate

As a local Hungarian person I find that is very fringe, and no any Hungarians would say that Hungary would be "subtropical".

The user refers to Köppen

In the Köppen maps I see Hungary is clearly Dfb, Dfa which is continental.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Köppen-Geiger_Climate_Classification_Map.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Koppen-Geiger_Map_D_present.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Subtropical.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hungary_map_of_Köppen_climate_classification.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Koppen-Geiger_Map_HUN_present.svg

Hungarian wiki writes "continental":

https://hu-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Magyarország_éghajlata?_x_tr_sl=hu&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=hu&_x_tr_pto=wapp

This article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humid_subtropical_climate

"However, while some climatologists have opted to describe this climate type as a "humid subtropical climate",[2] Köppen himself never used this term. The humid subtropical climate classification was officially created under the Trewartha climate classification"

What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I did not say that all of Hungary was subtropical. I said that a specific weather station used in the Budapest article has a climate class of Cfa. According to contemporary Köppen rules, with its summer means above 22C and winter means above 0C, it does. This climate class is called humid subtropical climate most commonly, especially on English-language Wikipedia. Therefore I advocated for the use of humid subtropical to define Budapest in terms of the Köppen classification. As for the maps, they use older normals and are of a fixed resolution, which don't take into account recent climate change and most importantly, urban heat islands. Uness232 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I see this is a Köppen map from 2023, indeed in that map I see Hungary in Dfa and Cfa (climate change?) https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41597-023-02549-6/MediaObjects/41597_2023_2549_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp

Uness232 first referenced the self Wiki link to the Köppen map File:Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Map.png as reference. I said I see Dfa and Dfb, then Uness232 said the map is wrong, and he referenced that chart https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02549-6/tables/1. But still I cannot see on that reference "humid subtropical" term. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Budapest is part of Hungary, so if Budapest is "subtropical" then Hungary also... Budapest, city with 2 million people also very big with many different weathers, for example Buda has mountains and Pest is flat, Buda is always more cold than Pest. (personal experience) OrionNimrod (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hungarian wiki about Budapest climate: https://hu-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Budapest?_x_tr_sl=hu&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=hu&_x_tr_pto=wapp OrionNimrod (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Climate change indeed. See the term "humid subtropical" for Cfa here. Uness232 (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you answer? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02549-6/tables/1. I cannot see "humid subtropical" term. So yours source does not support your claim. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've given you a source. It's on the "here" link. Here's Britannica as well. Uness232 (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, you sent me the third source which does not support your claim https://www.britannica.com/science/humid-subtropical-climate "This climate type is found on the eastern sides of the continents between 20° and 35° N and S latitude."

Budapest is at 47°

"The coldest month is usually quite mild (5–12 °C [41–54 °F])" This is also not true for Hungary, Hungary is cold in the winter.OrionNimrod (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

See my response back at Talk: Budapest, please keep the discussion in one place. Uness232 (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Uness232, OrionNimrod, I'm not sure if you resolved the issue, but there are new climate maps that were published three months ago.

My original message:

There's an excellent resource created with Koppen climate maps, which will be useful to update current images. They are available here in TIFF format. It's a PITA to work from phone, but maybe desktop guys will help.

According to those maps, most of Budapest is in Dfa/Dfb zones (so continental and not subtropical), but it's also on the fringes of Cfa, which is subtropical. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That's fair, but it also conflicts with station data: according to the map, the station in the article would have to be in the Dfa zone, which it is not; it is Cfa. Maps should be secondary to stations, since they are partly model generated and not as accurate for a specific spot. Similarly, the maps show Tekirdağ bordering BSk, but that's because the dataset they use underestimates precipitation in the northern Marmara region (as most precipitation datasets do). Actual station data puts Tekirdağ far above the semi-arid threshold.

Obviously though, most areas around Budapest are Dfa. See the discussion on the Budapest talk page for thoughts on that, and the final compromise. Uness232 (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Wind shear GAR notice

I have given notice at Talk:Wind_shear#GAR_Notice that issues have been identified that would preclude Wind shear from retaining its GA status. The article will be brought to GAR in seven days if nobody indicates a willingness to fix the issues with the article. Noah, AA^Talk 01:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

GAR Notice 3X

I have placed GAR notices at Talk:History of surface weather analysis, Talk:History of numerical weather prediction, and Talk:History of Atlantic hurricane warnings. Noah, AA^Talk 14:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone GAR Notice

Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone has a GAR notice due to citation issues and an update needed for the history subsection. Please note the GA nom is retired and scrambled their password. Noah, AA^Talk 03:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Rain-on-snow

I recently started a draft covering rain-on-snow, which is a topic that's been garnering increasing attention and focused research in recent decades due to its wide-ranging and highly consequential effects on people and ecosystems. I am not very familiar with the topic, but it seems noteworthy enough to be the subject of an article and wanted to drop a message here to call attention from those who may be more familiar with the subject. At the moment, the draft is just a quick summation of some of the initial content I found regarding rain-on-snow, so it is probably rather unbalanced and not globally representative. Of course, that will hopefully change as the draft develops. –TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 22:32, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Squall line

Before I nominate the above article for a GA reassessment, is it possible for any editors to cite the tagged unsourced passages in the body? Please ping me if you can/have done so. Many thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion for Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023

There is an ongoing move discussion for the Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 article. Feel free to participate in it here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Help with a national park

Greetings. Can someone here help me get {{weather box}} right for Redwoods National Park? I am trying to match NOWdata to the labels given in the template but am not sure of either. This article Redwood_National_and_State_Parks#Climate is an FA but hasn't been updated for climate since 2006 to 2010 or so. I found the Eureka, CA station, and got NOWdata for the Crescent City, CA area (park service headquarters). That should fulfill our mandate. Should I omit "Mean daily minimum"? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I moved the new numbers out of a sandbox to here. Does it look right? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I am learning how to do this. Thanks anyway and best of luck to you for your project. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: first off, thank you for improving an old FA! Also, you added the mean daily temperature, but got rid of mean daily maximum, which you can also find in the NOWdata you cited. Not a huge deal, as there aren't a ton of featured articles that have the climate section. I don't believe that weather chart has been codified, so just the fact you've updated it and cited it is an improvement. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Hurricanehink, thank you for your quick reply. Would you be interested in helping me with articles in Featured article review? Frankly the task is daunting and our chances of success are never great. The {{weatherbox}} confounds me. Now I am working on Minneapolis in my sandbox. What I see is that someone came through and gave complete data but now it's all out of date. If you could help at least until I understand the problem that would be wonderful. In the past I have had to treat climate as a black box. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@SusanLesch:, count me in. It looks like the information lines up with the National Weather Service website - [1]. The other thing we need to note is that the monthly high/low/average are based on a 30 year average from 1991 to 2020, and also where the averages are based out of. Regarding where the info comes from (and how to cite it), I did some research, but I'm not finding much yet, so I asked an online weather forum (Storm2k), and I emailed the Twin Cities National Weather Service. We're gonna need a source for the weather data going back to 1873, as well as where that location is. Apparently it's the airport now, but it would be good to be able to say when it was placed there, and where it was before. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, joy! What a relief you are, Hurricanehink.

I am an election worker and unavailable for the most part until March 7. Minneapolis is my priority FAR (after the park, which just got one keep vote!). Discussion could be on Minneapolis talk, or better at Minneapolis FAR. Or I hope you'll be bold and edit in place. I just reverted to four days ago before I started.

My bias, and you can convince me otherwise: I like NOWData and Weather Atlas. NOWData has options dating back to 1873 (and sometimes before). I don't understand why we need outdated sources (NOAA 1991 to 2020, WMO climate normals 1961 to 1990). Perhaps we can present Minneapolis climate more succinctly (maybe a simpler version than the old one could omit relative humidity, dew point and sunny days). Weather Atlas has the UV index by month. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Location is explained in a footnote. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@SusanLesch: - done, I believe, added to the Minneapolis article! (hope I didn't mess up) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Wow, you are awesome. Thank you again. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Merge Proposal Active For Tornado outbreak of April 19–20, 2023

There is an ongoing merge proposal for Tornado outbreak of April 19–20, 2023. You can participate in the discussion here: Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 19–20, 2023#Merge proposal. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Climate of... articles

• Draft:Climate of North America
• Draft:Climate of Oceania
• Draft:Climate of South America

These three articles are all needed, and are of fairly high importance. They are currently redirects. Recently, I went through the other climate articles to make sure there were links for tornadoes and tropical cyclone effects. Africa, Europe, and Asia are all done, but could use some expansion. I think it's pretty bad that we don't have any articles for these continents, so I made drafts for the continents that need climate articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Tropical Depression 05F (2024)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Tropical Depression 05F (2024)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. HurricaneEdgar 11:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tropical cyclone basins

Tropical cyclone basins has been nominated for a 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Ongoing Requested Move Discussion

There is a proposed and ongoing requested move discussion to move 2023–24 US winter to 2023–24 North American winter. You can participate in the discussion here: Talk:2023–24 US winter#Requested move 7 March 2024. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

IF scale addition needed

Can someone who knows their way around template code add an option for the International Fujita scale to Template:Tornado Chart? The List of European tornadoes in 2024 needs a similar monthly tornado chart to the List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2024, so an addition/option for the IF-scale on the template would help with that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox storm

Template:Infobox storm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Noah, AA^Talk 15:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox flood

Template:Infobox flood has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Noah, AA^Talk 15:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox tropical cyclone

Template:Infobox tropical cyclone has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Noah, AA^Talk 15:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC - Criteria for Tornadoes of XXXX articles

There is an ongoing RfC to set the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia's Tornadoes of XXXX (ex. Tornadoes of 2024) articles. If you wish to participate in the Request for Comment discussion, you can do so here! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal - Criteria for inclusion on Tornadoes of XXXX articles

One of the biggest struggles in tornado articles has been the lack of clear criteria for what can be listed on Tornadoes of XXXX articles (i.e. Tornadoes of 2024, ect.). So, I am wanting to propose some base criteria for inclusion.

1. Signficiant tornado in an event (F2–F5 or EF2–EF5 or IF2–IF5)
2. Injury or death occurred from the tornado or tornadic event
3. A tornado outbreak outside of the United States (Significant tornadoes not required)
4. Rare oddities - Addition of event is assumed to be suitable under silent consensus until questioned. Once questioned, a case-by-case discussion can occur. (Example would be fire tornadoes).

• Any tornado or tornado event not qualifying under one of these criteria would not be mentioned directly on the Tornadoes of XXXX articles, however, it/they would be listed in yearly tornado list articles (US by month, Europe, Canada, Asia, ect.).

So, what does the community thing about setting this as the base criteria for Tornadoes of XXXX articles?

Discussion (Criteria proposal)

• Support as proposer. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Support We need some sort of criteria with the way we are changing up this article. The only thing I would caution against is saying any tornado outbreaks outside of the U.S.; I'm not sure I agree with that one. ChessEric 21:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  To be fair, tornado outbreaks themselves outside of the US are rare with maybe 3-4 a year. Chances are strong for it to pass the significant criteria or casualty criteria, but that covers things like unrated China tornado outbreaks (Tornadoes of 2021#July 11–13 (China)) where sometimes 6+ tornadoes occur with little to not injuries or deaths. That example had an EF2/EF3 with 9 EFUs. It passes the casualty criteria due to a death and 11 injuries, but things like that would be covered under that criteria. An outbreak is already 6 or more tornadoes from the same system. For now, I think having any non-US outbreaks would be fine since maybe only a handful in history would not pass any of the other two criteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Dumb me should have kept scrolling. Tornadoes of 2021#October 31 (England) is a perfect example of that criteria. 7 FUs and 1 F1. If that criteria was not in place, that outbreak would have to be excluded/removed from the article, despite being referenced by an academic published paper. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

  Hi, there! I'm very new here, and do not plan to make too many future edits, but I would like to offer a bit of insight. As a Chicago-area native, I felt inclined to add some more detail to the February 27–28 event, seeing as, though we have warnings at least a couple of times a year, we do not often have significant, confirmed tornado outbreaks.

  That said, I agree with most of your list, and I do appreciate seeing the tornado outbreaks outside of the US, as well.

  I do think it would be wise to add another point to the list: any sort of anomaly in storm watching is something that would be wise to include, in my opinion. February 27–28 is a perfect example: seeing 11 tornadoes touch down in one evening in Chicagoland is unheard of, even more so seeing that they hit highly populated areas north of the city, and in some towns that have never seen a tornado before. Since the outbreak consisted of mostly of EF0 and EF1 tornadoes, much of the outbreak might be considered null and excluded under your current proposal, but it's still notable. I'd imagine the same would go for another city like Minneapolis or Detroit, if they were to incur such an outbreak. I can't venture a guess what other anomalies might be, but something like this, an outbreak in a location that's normally still experiencing full-on winter at this time, is important to note. Scramblescramble (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Scramblescramble: I don’t think storm watching anomalies would qualify a storm system for inclusion unless it involved scientific research (i.e. Doppler on Wheels, ect…) Also, the outbreak would not be excluded under the proposed criteria. If only one of the (3) criteria is passed, then the entire tornadic event is included. The whole point of the Tornadoes of (Year) articles is to summarize the global impacts of tornadoes. Most tornadoes only need to have 1 or 2 sentences on that article, including strong tornadoes. The actual tornado summary is in the yearly list articles (like List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2024). For instance, in reality, the February 27-28 section you are referring to should be shrunk as only four tornadoes were actually significant. I’m not saying remove the information entirely about the weaker tornadoes, but only a brief summarized passing mention is needed for those, since the yearly list articles have the detailed summary. Basically, the events are included if they pass one of the first three criteria, with that fourth criteria point being for rare events that editors think should or may need to be included, but don’t pass one of the first three points.

  The February 8, 2024 (US) section on Tornadoes of 2024 is a good example of the criteria in use. There was an EF2, which caused an injury (so it actually passed two of the criteria at the same time). And since the storm system passed one (two) of the criteria, it is fully included, meaning the two associated EF1s also are mentioned briefly. Hopefully that explains the proposed criteria. So it isn’t removing tornadoes that don’t pass it, but rather saying if a tornado in a tornadic event passes the criteria, the event needs a mention in the yearly article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Mostly support – I only disagree with having a section for any EF2. We don’t necessarily need sections for days that have one EF2 or just 3 or 4 EF0s and one short-lived EF2. Those can be exceptions to the rule. United States Man (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Now if there is an EF3, it is likely worth mentioning in a section. Otherwise, we need to cut down on all these subsections because the page with get way too long and drawn out. United States Man (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. There were 160 EF2+ tornadoes in North America last year, and just 31 EF3+ tornadoes. Our criteria for inclusion/highlighting should be more restrictive than just "an event with a significant tornado". Penitentes (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Conditional support if it's restricted to EF3 tornadoes. North America had 129 EF2's in 2023 and 123 in 2022. Seeing as the US has their own monthly lists, I would prefer that the main yearly tornado articles make it as global as possible, therefore restricting only the most significant US tornadoes to the main list. I get why EF2 would be in the proposal, seeing as they're considered significant, but there's too many for my liking for a global yearly list. Imagine if every Category 2 hurricane would have to be listed on a global tropical cyclone list. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Alt Proposal

Based on some early feedback and comments, I am doing an alt proposal for criteria for inclusion on Tornadoes of XXXX articles:

1. If an injury or death occurs from the tornado or tornadic event.
2. If an EF3–EF5 occurs (In the United States)
3. If an F2–F5 or IF2–IF5 occurs (Outside the United States)
4. If a tornado outbreak occurs outside the United States
5. Rare oddities - Addition of event is assumed to be suitable under silent consensus until questioned. Once questioned, a case-by-case discussion can occur. (Example would be fire tornadoes).

• Any tornado or tornado event not qualifying under one of these criteria would not be mentioned directly on the Tornadoes of XXXX articles, however, it/they would be listed in yearly tornado list articles (US by month, Europe, Canada, Asia, ect.). Note: The tornado or tornadic event only has to pass one of these criteria for inclusion.

Alt Proposal Discussion

• Support as proposer. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pings for people who previously commented: ChessEric, Scramblescramble, United States Man, Penitentes, Hurricanehink. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support: I think these criteria should be sufficient, although I would continue to include larger outbreaks in the US even without EF3+ tornadoes. However, in my opinion some sections are a bit too detailed, especially as recent events have not been as big in comparison.

NovemberFog (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as "rare oddities," should geographic, temporal, or meteorological oddities be noted? The Broome EF1 I had added is not worth mentioning for its strength, but it's technically the 3rd recorded NYS tornado in any winter month, period.

While it's interesting to see a part of the 2/28/24 this far outside of the hatched risk zone, I can see why it's not worth mentioning if nobody was injured and it lasted a minute or 2, but other storms may not be as easy to sort.

My proposal is that possibly, temporal oddities should be included, but are not criteria in itself. Or do we all agree that such info should go on the list?

The problem I'm seeing here on this page seems to be that it doesn't know if it wants to list off significant tornadoes or describe them in detail. MidnightStudios16 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@MidnightStudios16: The idea of “rare oddities” is for case-by-case discussions, not setting exact criteria for it. Basically a clause in the criteria for when an editor thinks a tornado falls under a “rare” instance or occurrence. That tornado/info can be added. However, at the first challenge by another editor, a community consensus occurs to determine if it is a “rare” oddity case — WP:BRD. So “temporal oddities” don’t need to be added to the direct criteria as that would just fall under that “rare oddity” criteria and idea. Based on what I just said, if I may ask, do you support the five-point criteria? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say it's pretty satisfactory. It seems like we're saying if a tornado is added only because it has a "rare oddity," it will require peer review on a case-by-case basis-

So, it's in agreement that the Broome, NY EF-1 was too inconsequential to list here even with said anomalies? Would a longer path, more damage, or casualties had an effect on the consensus? MidnightStudios16 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure about that specific tornado as I've not really looked into it. Basically, though, anyone who adds a tornado/tornado event only because of the "rare oddity" case, it doesn't necessarily require any discussion to even occur. Based on Wikipedia policy, additions have presumed consensus for addition until someone actually challenges it. Once someone does challenge it, then a discussion occurs (following the bold, revert, discuss guidelines) and that discussion will have one of three outcomes: Consensus to add/keep the tornado, consensus to remove/not add back the tornado (not re-added without another discussion in the future), or no consensus (which means the item is not present, but any additional reasons outside that discussion could add it back in the future without a discussion). Hopefully that explains what exactly would happen for any "rare oddities". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you've explained it perfectly; I guess I'm trying to shift more into debating whether or not it's worth listing.

Essentially TL:DR for that tornado is it was weak and short lived, but also far outside the warned area (like, it hopped PA) and the third winter NY tornado on record. Wasn't detected on radar.

I added it to the article, but was removed by @ChessEric: This happens a lot with short-lived and squall-line embedded tornadoes (note how the Grand Blanc EF2 tornado received almost no warning before touching down and the Miltonsburg EF2 tornado didn't even have a warning either), so it doesn't need to be mentioned here (it can go in the description of that tornado on the list page)

It may have been assumed that the rare oddity was "unwarned" but otherwise... I dunno. I guess I would just like some input. Feels kind of silly doing this much work for a storm that attacked a blueberry farm and then lifted but it seems noteworthy in a meteorological sense, even if a big nothing to the way of life of those around it. MidnightStudios16 (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

As requested by @MidnightStudios16, providing my opinion on the Broome event. I think the discussion provided mostly answers the question. My specific thought is that this tornado, while notable in a meteorological sense, has not acquired enough WP:SIGCOV for inclusion in Tornadoes of 2024. What I look at for this is to see if there are any references available beyond general news articles published during or shortly after the event and/or beyond an NWS alert, local storm report, or public information statement.

Looking at the news articles I can find on the subject, I think the Broome tornado is appropriately covered in List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2024#February 28 event. The content there covers the main points of the tornado including the track, damage, time, reason for the lack of warning, and distance from the main severe weather. A brief mention of the seasonal rarity of this tornado in New York could be added to the list it is found in (with appropriate ref), but the result would still be a single paragraph and the rarity seems to have not been enough to generate SIGCOV.

At this point for this event, I think SIGCOV would be something like a case study by the local NWS office, SPC, or in an academic sphere, or additional news coverage discussing it published more than a week after the tornado (bonus for regional or national coverage). DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 23:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. I did my best to cover all the points you mentioned, although I didn't list the reason for the zero warning. Zero warning probably due to it happening so briefly and in between radar scans. There may have been a hook echo but as @ChessEric already mentioned, it may have been a squall-line embedded tornado.

No info is given on the genesis of this tornado. I know I'm asking people who probably don't know, but I actually couldn't tell you why this went undetected for sure, or even how anyone even know this was a tornado? It was quite windy, isn't there stuff like downbursts that have confused people?

All I know is tornado genesis varies by condition, I wonder if there was an actual funnel or if it was just a swirly gust of wind. MidnightStudios16 (talk) 23:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I will discuss the dynamics of this tornado on your talk page to avoid clutter here as I think this goes beyond the purpose of this discussion. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 23:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
• Proposed change: Two changes I would make are to limit the United States EF3-5 criteria only to tornado prone regions of the United States and Canada (Tornado Alley, Dixie Alley, Southern Prairies). Use the current "international" criteria for the American West and East Coast north of like South Carolina. Second, the "rare oddities" section needs to specifically reference WP:SIGCOV including a link to be less vague and point editors (especially inexperienced ones) in the right direction. I would write this as follows:

• Rare oddities: Tornadoes not meeting the above criteria may still meet Wikipedia expectations for significant coverage, warranting a stand-alone article or inclusion in Tornadoes of XXXX. Significant coverage involves references addressing the topic in detail beyond, but not excluding, general news coverage during and shortly after the event. The threshold for significant coverage is lower for inclusion in Tornadoes of XXXX pages than for stand-alone articles. Addition of event is assumed to be suitable under silent consensus until questioned. Once questioned, a case-by-case discussion can occur (ex: fire tornadoes).— Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Cane (talk • contribs)

• RfC for Ratification started – Apologies for another ping, but based on all the comments here, we have a decent consensus for these becoming the criteria (minor changes occurring). So, I have wrote them up in Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Tornadoes of XXXX criteria. Since we have had so many (too many to count) discussions regarding inclusion of some event, I started an RfC on the talk page so it gets more of a formal community consensus. As y'all commented here, I am providing a courtesy ping: @ChessEric, Scramblescramble, United States Man, Penitentes, Hurricanehink, NovemberFog, MidnightStudios16, DJ Cane. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree in general with the proposals above, namely in establishing some sort of guideline to make sure we get the important stuff, without being too US-biased. I think I'd like to expand on what's above. I think, as a principle, that all tornadoes are inherently notable, since they're sudden, can be unexpected, and cause a lot of localized damage. I do believe that there's a place on Wikipedia for every event. That doesn't mean it should automatically be on the yearly list. There was also discussion about rarer tornadoes, outside of the main areas affected, like New York. I believe that is where the usefulness of the lists come into play. There is a List of New Zealand tornadoes, just as there is List of New Jersey tornadoes, but no List of New York tornadoes. Eventually, that probably will be created, but I do believe that gap is worth talking about. Jason Rees and I have discussed a lot about the need for having these lists for every part of the world, beyond just the tornadoes by year, or listed at the continent level. That is along the lines of the tropical cyclone effects by area, along with the various lists for places around the world. This is similar to how there is a yearly list to find them, like tropical cyclones by year. However, the List of tornado events by year only goes to 1946. It's not like that's when we stopped having good records, although it is a few years before the start of modern US records. Again, I want to point out the usual United States bias, and how we need to focus more internationally. Therefore, I'd like to pitch a proposal that there should be a project goal to extend the List of tornado events by year should go back to 1900. I also believe that we need lists for a lot of places. It's going to take time and effort, and I think that effort should be established somewhere, similar to the ongoing effort of identifying and writing about every known tropical cyclone. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft for the current outbreak affecting the US

There is currently a large tornado outbreak underway in the US, specifically Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, West Virginia, Wyoming, Montana +others. Feel free to help, as it is impossible for one person to document the entire thing. Most of it is going to happen later tonight, so information is going to rapidly come in, so by tomorrow there will be a lot more info to build on. Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Computer simulation#Requested move 2 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Computer simulation#Requested move 2 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Project newsletter?

There used to be a newsletter for the tropical cyclone project. I still think it's useful to have something to let people know about what's going on. Have editorials, notices about newly improved articles, discussions, that kind of stuff. Maybe call it the Wiki Weather Weekly (and put it out however often we want). I think it could be cool to have a weather event of the week, which can highlight various types of weather. Maybe a blizzard happens one week in one part of the world, and there's a wildfire that happens over an entire month. Having some degree of newsletter across all of the projects could foster a bit of project unity and coordination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

New Proposed Criteria for U.S.-inclusion on Tornadoes of XXXX articles

TornadoInformation12 has proposed new criteria for the current inclusion criteria for Tornadoes of XXXX articles (ex. Tornadoes of 2024). You can see and participate in the proposal discussion here! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

RFC on Food and Health at Climate change

There is an RFC requesting that editors choose between one of two draft sections on Food and Health in the article on Climate change. Please take part in the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

RFC for Additional Proposed Criteria for WP:TornadoCriteria

There is an RFC requested that editors choose whether or not two additional criteria should be formally added to WP:TornadoCriteria. You can participate in the RFC here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox storm replacement and footers

Hopefully this ia a good place to bring this up. There seems to be an effort underfoot to replace {{infobox storm}} with {{infobox weather event}}, and since I'm doing my bit in cleaning up lint errors, I've come across cases where people have done this replacement, but didn't know they needed to include a footer (which {{infobox storm}} apparently didn't need), resulting in lint errors and issues with infobox display. I'm pretty sure there have been any number of similar cases that someone else has taken care of.

So, in order to minimize extra cleanup, it seems like it'd be useful to put up a notice about needing to add a footer - somewhere the people participating in this infobox conversion project would be most likely to see it, and I'm not sure where that would be. Gamapamani (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Although the template {{infobox weather event}} is currently semi-protected, if you need to put a notice before your account gets verified, you can discuss your suggestion on the template's talk page.

Once your account is verified, you would be able to add a larger notice to the template page directly (instead of the brief mention within the inline text). 2601:2C1:8B80:349F:4A93:1681:C693:D291 (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. This is kind of funny, because I actually added this comment to the template's talk page at first, but then moved it over here instead after reading the suggestions there about the page not being read much, as opposed to here. Anyway, I went ahead and changed the template doc to show the footer requirement more prominently. I guess I should have that in the first place, but I was thinking about some project page somewhere where people would be able to see the notice even if they didn't read the docs carefully. Gamapamani (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Changes to Portal:Tornadoes

The recent outbreaks section at Portal:Tornadoes has been changed into a section featuring the tornado content of the current year and will automatically transclude from a list of specified articles. This should make it easier to update since only links need to be added. This change has been made in part since this portal section has not been maintained since the MfD. Noah, AA^Talk 13:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather: Description of random radar images and loops as "public domain"

I figure that even though this discussion pertains to WikiProject Severe weather, since it involves radar, which has many non-tornado/thunderstorm-related contexts, it should also be mentioned here. Thanks. Master of Time (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Unifying monsoon page names

While I looked at Monsoon#Global monsoon, I noticed that all articles used in Template:Main are inconsistently named.

There is:

• North American Monsoon
• Monsoon of South Asia
• East Asian Monsoon
• Australian monsoon (note that monsoon is not capitalized in contrast two the first two)

There might be more pages about regional monsoon than just these 4 which also need to be accounted for.

Every page there is named differently. What should the preferred main article name be?

"Reposted" from Old revision of Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) as apparently this should be the right place. NetSysFire (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

As "monsoon" is not part of a proper noun, I think the appropriate way to title these is to use the Australian page as a model. I would name these "North American monsoon", "South Asian monsoon", "East Asian monsoon", and "Australian monsoon". DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 21:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Tornadoes of XXXX - Article format of 2022 and earlier

Not sure if this has already been brought up before, but thought I'd add this suggestion here.

Seeing how the format of 2023 and 2024 dedicate tornado sections beyond the US and differ from earlier lists (2022 and earlier), should the prior list format be updated to parallel 2023 and 2024? As it stands, the differences create 2 distinct formats for these lists, whereas there should (ideally) only be 1 format.

I understand that there are numerous template and format inconsistencies that are gradually being resolved regarding tornado articles, but the yearly tornado lists serve as the backbone for tornado articles overall. 2601:2C1:8B80:349F:4A93:1681:C693:D291 (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

You are correct. The older articles need to be updated to how the newer years look like. Of course, we can't force a mandate to change things, but there was a discussion about how best to present the yearly articles, with a consensus that organization by area, rather than month, is appropriate. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe the consensus was to finish out 2024 to get the kinks out and reach a good standard before starting work on bringing former years to the new standard. Pinging @ChessEric, @WeatherWriter, and @TheAustinMan who IIRC were involved in that discussion to confirm my understanding is accurate. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 21:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly starting to not be a fan of this. I like the events to be organized by month, especially since most events are in the U.S. We should finish out 2024 first before changing the older years so that we can get all the kinks out and come to a final decision. ChessEric 22:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Of greater importance, in my opinion, is to fix the refs on the tornado list pages. ChessEric 22:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I am actually with ChessEric on this. I honestly would say we should go back to the old format for the articles and to compensate for less-U.S. centric: (1) Continue to not include US-only stuff in the infobox at the top and (2) add "(United States)" next to the subheaders like we do in this format. That would fix the format (which is really annoying to me now) and keep it less-U.S. centric. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I pitched a different format so it wouldn't be so biased towards the US. They are commonplace in the United States, and there are already monthly articles covering every US tornado. Comparing it to tropical cyclones, it's like the tropical cyclones by year organizing the information (and the season articles) by basin (2024 Atlantic hurricane season, etc.) The same principle for tornadoes going by continent, which provides a much more global perspective than having the US info alongside the rest of the world. I say that because there are a disproportionate number of US editors, so naturally they are going to be a lot of editors writing about US events. What I want to make sure is that the currently biased yearly tornado articles (2022 and previous) should have a decent bit of coverage for other areas. Changing it to being organized by continent will reveal the articles that are missing any coverage from a given area. I strongly believe that is a better approach, since (due to their short-lived and isolated nature) there isn't likely to be a proper listing of every single tornado, everywhere around the world, in a given year. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Nice discussion. For now, I shall hold off on applying the 2023–2024 format on pre-2010 lists until we confirm a consensus on the format. By the time I got to 2011, I realized that there were several international tornado reports that were barely elaborated on.

In the meantime, refer to the (preliminary) formatting changes made for 2011–2022 to gauge whether the new changes are favorable or not. Sorry about applying the change to this many articles... changes have been made to 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011.

(reverted because of a misclick)

2601:2C1:8B80:349F:4A93:1681:C693:D291 (talk) 03:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly more of a fan of TWEW's suggestion. ChessEric 04:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Going back to the older format, and thus having it biased towards the US? I'm not sure the advantage here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I’m also in support of reverting to the original format. The new format is actually worse. United States Man (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you give specifics? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• The formal proposal to change the Tornadoes of YYYY article layout was started. You can visit this proposal here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles. Please move the discussion to the new proposal, as this discussion was simultaneously ongoing with a duplicate discussion on this exact same topic on Talk:Tornadoes of 2024. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Citations needed

Your WikiProject has been helpful in the past and I wonder if you would help again. These two sentences in Minneapolis#Climate need citations: Minneapolis has cold, snowy winters and hot, humid summers, as is typical in a continental climate. The difference between average temperatures in the coldest winter month and the warmest summer month is 58.1 °F (32.3 °C). Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

PDS watches list?

Why don’t we have a list of PDS tornado/severe thunderstorm watches article? The SPC doesn’t issue very many of them each year. We already have a list of tornado emergencies (which in some cases are issued more frequently than PDS watches). I’m sure the data prior to the mid-2000s might have a few holes in it but I think it would be doable. Any thoughts on that? 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea, although I'm curious as to what others (especially those who contribute significantly) have to say. Also, would a list like this just include the watches, or would it also list impacts (number of tornadoes/ratings, max wind, max hail size)? Mathguy Michael (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It could list whatever you want it to list. I was thinking the number of tornadoes, maximum rating, maximum (non-tornadic) wind gust (when applicable), max hail size (when applicable), probably the number of deaths/injuries. Of course the date the watch was issued. But it would also include the type of watch (as the SPC issues both tornado and severe thunderstorm watches with PDS wording, both types would be included under my proposal, but whether or not they are in the same article/list or two separate lists should be discussed) 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I would probably also think the watch number that the SPC assigns should also be mentioned somewhere. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

And as a side note. The SPC archive of watches goes back to January 1, 2004. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This link aught to help. https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/nws/pds_watches.php 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:B0CF:B19:B7BB:4811 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Still requesting comment on my proposal for a PDS watches list. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:5054:A7C6:AA2D:9AE2 (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I would support the idea of this. 2600:1014:B1E6:AC7F:0:1D:A4D4:2801 (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I have it listed in articles for creation. I am still requesting someone to make a PDS Watch list because I imagine the articles for creation isn’t patrolled very well. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:6933:B1B3:3A25:1D1A (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Draft list started: Draft:List of particularly dangerous situation watches. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Copyright of the famous 1997 "Dead Man Walking" image?

The following discussion 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.

---

This may not go here, so if it isn't supposed to be here, I'm sorry. Does anyone know if the famous "Dead Man Walking" photograph of the 1997 Jarrell F5 tornado is copyrighted? I can't find anything on the matter, or if the man who took the photo (Scott Beckwith) worked for the NWS. If anyone knows anything or has any information relating to this, thanks! It is arguably the most famous photograph of a tornado ever taken, so if it isn't under a copyright I'd be more than happy to add it. Thanks so much! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@MemeGod27: Beckwith worked for a local company (Jarrell Farm Supply), not the NWS. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 07:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind, the photo was on an NWS publication and hence PD. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@MemeGod27: Publication of an otherwise protected work by the U.S. government does not put that work in the public domain. See Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States. It is preparation of the work by an officer of employee of the United States Government as part of their official duties which releases a work under public domain. Unless you have some other proof that the image has been released under terms compatible with Commons, File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg and other files uploaded under this assumption must be deleted. Chlod (say hi!) 10:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

“By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others.

The NWS offers no compensation for any images or videos.”

-NWS, link can be found at https://www.weather.gov/fsd/disclaimer MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t add the template by the way MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Beck with gave the entire photo sequence to the NWS, and therefore it is PD. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@MemeGod27: The issue here stems not from the fact that the image was not published in a NWS document, as far as the info you've provided tells. The "submission" disclaimer only has historical internet archives going as far back as 2022, and the text of this disclaimer cannot be found in the PDF you linked to in the file description (which doesn't even include the picture). One would have to assume (again) that such a disclaimer existed all the way back to 1997, and that the sender had been aware of those terms if the had existed, considering the publication only states: Any such items received by the editor will be for use in STORMDATA only. Any other use will be with the permission of the owner of said items. Materials submitted will be returned if requested in the original submission., which is not good enough as a license release (both because it never states that all submitted images become part of the public domain and because Beckwith could have specifically withheld the "Dead Man Walking" photo from submission, especially considering its rarity). If it had not been published in an NWS publication and its copyright status is derived entirely from the assumption that photos in that sequence are PD, one cannot meaningfully assert that it is, in fact, public domain. It seems the earliest known trace of this photo is within a Time magazine article, which, is definitely not the NWS nor does it mention that the images were provided by the NWS with permission from Beckwith.

As Commons has a precautionary principle, the burden of proof is on you to prove that this image was, in fact, explicitly released by Scott Beckwith to the public domain or with a Commons-compatible copyright license. Without such proof, this and other files uploaded under this assumption must be deleted. Chlod (say hi!) 11:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That does make sense when referring to the Dead Man Walking photograph, and I now support the with-holding of that SPECIFIC image until a viable reason for undeletion is found.

The other images, however, should not be deleted, as they are or have been:

A. Made or produced by Tim Marshall, who in fact does damage surveys for the NWS. These surveys are public domain, and have been since they begun. While I cannot find a copyright/disclaimer for that time period on these, Marshall worked in part with the NWS.

B. Other images I uploaded have been used more recently, such as File:Jarrell tornado rope Curtis.jpg, File:Jarrell tornado as it hit F5.jpg, File:Jarrell tornado ground scouring.jpg among others, which have been released AFTER the copyrights were established (assuming they weren't established earlier, which would then constitute the "Dead Man Walking" photo). MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't dig into the other photos, but it's worth noting two other things:

1. Government publications may include works copyrighted by a contractor or grantee, which may not be under public domain. I have no knowledge of whether Tim Marshall actually worked for the NWS, but assuming that the damage surveys were contracted, these images would have to be (again) published by the NWS to count as PD.
2. I meant that any other image uploaded which had not been published by the NWS but were marked as so, purely hinging on assumption (like the Dead Man Walking image) should be deleted.

Chlod (say hi!) 12:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I can confirm, with reliable sources, that every other image was taken from an NWS publication. Also, I did see the edit summary, thank you for assuming good faith here. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, there is one other image that was found within the STORMDATA publication, I am actively working on it and will nominate it for deletion if needed. Again, the "Dead Man Walking" image was in good faith, and as I have stated, I was unaware of pre-2000 copyright laws regarding NWS and STORMDATA. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 13:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

See File:Dead_man_walking_Jarrell.jpg which WAS in the STORMDATA publication. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 13:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's in the publication, it should be fine. Those can be assumed to be PD. Chlod (say hi!) 13:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 13:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I may take that back. What about this, which was put into effect in 1988? It mentions it on the recent disclaimer page. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The law states that:

"Sections 401(d) and 402(d) shall not apply to a work published in copies or phonorecords consisting predominantly of one or more works of the United States Government unless the notice of copyright appearing on the published copies or phonorecords to which a defendant in the copyright infringement suit had access includes a statement identifying, either affirmatively or negatively, those portions of the copies or phonorecords embodying any work or works protected under this title."

Section 401(d) states that:

"If a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement." MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 11:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

These are not relevant to the issue at hand. Chlod (say hi!) 11:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Then why is it specifically mentioned in the disclaimer? I'm genuinely asking, I’m not mad or anything :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The law is 17 U.S.C. § 403, if you were wondering. It specifically implies that Beckwith was informed of the image being put in the public domain, and this law has been in effect since 1988. The tornado happened in 1997. Other images of his or from that time period SHOULD be PD under this statute. Unless I’m reading something wrong, this is what I see. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I really can't see how 17 U.S.C. § 403, as cited here, is relevant. This does not imply Beckwith was informed of anything. It just says someone can't absolve themselves of infringement if they used a clearly-marked copyrighted work that was published alongside a US government publication. Again, the Dead Man Walking image was not part of the publication released by the NWS. It does not apply here. Chlod (say hi!) 12:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. After looking back over the law, I did realize that I had read wrong in terms of copyrights involving the photo. I am currently in support of deletion, and I will say that I was unaware of the copyright statutes pre-2000 involving the NWS and NOAA. I'm also glad we could have a civil argument about this without it spiraling out of control. You made some good points, and I completely agree with them. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted from commons but if it has a purpose somewhere on an article here; it may fit the non-free criteria. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFREE 12.74.221.43 (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ll point out that the federal copyright law has no bearing on the official Commons policy. That policy is that if it’s copyrighted and the owner doesn’t want to release it under a license (or into the public domain), then it has NO business being on Commons. A copyvio can bring about a whole slew of legal problems. Including potentially a boat load of people who end up getting sued (or worse yet, the copyright holder could try to sue the Wikimedia Foundation). Not trying to scare anyone, just making a point about why Commons doesn’t host non-free content. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 15:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I will see if I can try to get it listed under non-free criteria, it is vital to the article and is arguably the most famous piece of tornado media ever recorded. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@MemeGod27: Unfortunately the image likely fails NFCC 1 and 8. It does not significantly enhance the reader's ability to understand the tornado or its impact in a way that a free equivalent could not. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@MemeGod27: A deletion of a commons image cant take place via a discussion on Wikipedia. Noah, BSBA^Talk 15:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I know, a nomination was opened. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to see the PDF that the image is supposedly on. Please. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• This is stupid at this point. English Wikipedia does not determine copyright stuff, the Commons does. If there is a problem with any image, open a discussion on the Commons. The direct image which started this discussion File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg is currently nominated for deletion on the Commons. The other image referenced by others and the one currently in use on the article, File:Dead man walking Jarrell.jpg is, as far as I am aware, public domain due to being used, without a copyright watermark, on a .gov URL website. If you believe otherwise, nominate it for deletion on the Commons. I am closing this discussion as this has turned from a discussion about the content to more or less a forum with the same repeated question, which is already solved/answered (or will be answered within the week on the Commons). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:40, 21 May 2024 (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.

VI Declined on File:EF4DaltonMNtornadoJuly2020.png

I'm just letting everyone know that File:EF4DaltonMNtornadoJuly2020.png, the famous photograph for the 2020 Ashby–Dalton tornado, was nominated for a Valued Image on the Commons, but the nominate failed for two reasons: (1) Image is not geolocated and (2) not the best image to represent Tornadoes of 2020. With that said:

1. Do we have any way to try to find the geolocation for the photograph? It was taken by Brad Nelson, so maybe someone could contact them to find out the geolocation of the photograph.
2. I was given no reason whatsoever as to why this photograph doesn't represent Tornadoes of 2020 the best, nor was any alternative out of the Commons - Category:Tornadoes of 2020. If we find the geolocation data, I would be willing to renominate the image and challenge the idea of it, in fact, being the best tornado-related image of Tornadoes of 2020, especially considering the crop of actual tornado photographs we have available during the year (Category:Pictures of tornadoes in 2020).

Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

How is a picture of a specific tornado that occurred in 2020 representive of the ŵhole tornado activity worldwide in 2020? Rather than a map of all known tornadoes that occurred worldwide in 2020?Jason Rees (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: It doesn’t have to represent the images of tornadoes worldwide in 2020. Per Commons:Valued images, “Valued images are images which are considered especially valuable by the Commons community for use in online content within other Wikimedia projects. A valued image is considered to be the most valued illustration of its kind by the Commons community” (bolding not by me). The 2007 Elie tornado photograph (File:F5 tornado Elie Manitoba 2007.jpg) is a valued image for the scope of “tornadoes” (earned title in 2010). It doesn’t represent all tornadoes worldwide, but on the Commons for that category, it is the most valued image, or at least was considered the best in 2010.

So, out of all the tornado-related images for 2020 that are free-to-use (i.e. the Commons - Category:Tornadoes of 2020), is it the most valued image and probably the best image there? If yes, then it, in theory, would be the valued image on the Commons and the best image (again free-to-use image) of a tornado-related photograph for Tornadoes of 2020. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe its just me but when I read the criteria and point 3 in particular, I notice it states that "the subject (photo) must be appropriate for the chosen scope" which leads me to wonder how its more appropriate or valuable as the best image of Tornadoes of 2020 than a map of all known worldwide tornadoes in 2020. If we were talking about the best image of that specific Tornado, then I might be more inclined to agree with you but we arent.Jason Rees (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

WebCite Archives: Imminent Danger Warning

The service webcitation.org is used frequently in weather articles particularly tropical typhoons and cyclones.

We believe it will go completely dark at some point in the future: All webcitation.org URLs should be assumed to no longer work in the future.

WebCite went completely offline for a year and half. Then it was restored, but in shaky condition.

Bots can not help for technical reasons. It will require manual intervention. After WebCite disappears, the citations will no longer be accessible, and there is a possibility the entire citation and the material that cites it could be deleted per WP:V. This situation could be devastating for all of these articles due to the scale of WebCite usage.

There is no immediate need to panic because we have no information of an imminent WebCite failure. However, preparations for failure should begin now before it is too late.

Please note that attempting to save WebCite links at Archive.org might give the appearance of working, but actually does not work, there is in insidious technical snare built into WebCite to prevent the Wayback Machine from saving their links (correctly). It is recommended to use archive.today if you choose. Even better is find the original link and find an archive for it at Wayback or Today. -- GreenC 17:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC: Thanks for the heads up and this has been something I have been worried about for a few years, and I am disappointed that the internet archive, despite appearing to work, will not save the links properly. Is there any way of getting a list together of all articles that have links to Webcite in them?Jason Rees (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Jason Rees thank you for your interest. I will generate a list of pages and URLs and post where to retrieve it. The impression count on enwiki is 37,148 as of April 24 (column H). This is non-unique count. As can be seen, there are still over 1.2 million elsewhere. It's unfortunate about Wayback, but creating copies on Archive.today should be possible. If they are saved on Archive.today, once there, my bot can do the work of replacing on wiki. The bot will find the webcite link in the article, look it up at archive.today, retrieve a new URL, and replace. Are you programmer or script writer? There might be some tools for mass saving a list of links at archive.today -- GreenC 21:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not a programmer or a scriptwriter, but we have a few lurking in the project. @Chlod: for instance. Anyway, Webcite is something that I and other project members have been worried about as a lot of our articles are impacted, as some of the links contain decent information about how a system formed, dissipated, its intensity etc. Some of these links can be found again or superseded by others or dropped as the sections are reworked, but first things first we need to get a list of articles impacted together on wiki so that we can work out how badly we are impacted and maybe even clean the sections up.Jason Rees (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Before I generate a final list, I want to cleanup the links. Edits like this Special:Diff/1210676215/1221876846 which prior to yesterday was impossible due to the WebCite API being broken. Or giving that appearance. I got it to work, they have bogus SSL so it required a hack. I am doing this as fast as possible while the hack is working. After this I'll try to convert these to archive.org links. -- GreenC 14:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Jason Rees Update: I'm converting the links, in about 20,000 pages. The rate might be as high as 50%, mostly to archive.today - it will take a week or two because it's slow for the bot to process, and I manually verify every link, due to the high rate of soft-404s at archive.today -- GreenC 02:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

WebCite is now down, probably for [days/weeks/years/ever] - but that's OK I got the data I needed. I can continue with the conversions to archive.today - and WebCite being down makes that easier because no one can complain about converting from a dead/unreliable site. -- GreenC 16:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Jason Rees, I completed the WebCite conversion project for now. I converted about 11,000 links to archive.today (the archive.org conversion was already done years ago). Whatever remains I can't convert (safely) by bot. There is work to be done manually, which I would be happy to discuss what could be done. There could be a project page describing the issue and what users might do to try and convert WebCite links. -- GreenC 15:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Here: Help:Using_WebCite#Moving_to_a_different_provider -- GreenC 18:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC: Thanks for rescuing the sources and please forgive me for not responding more quickly, but it's been a busy few weeks. Anyway, some of the sources that the Wikiproject Weather have used over the years will have been superseded by various reports, which is why I want to get a list together and see what we can do to improve the articles and remove the webcite links where needed.Jason Rees (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Jason Rees, the list is too big to post in a wikipage, the 26,000 URLs are here. Any WebCite URL without a "?url=" has not gone through my bot for whatever reason (parsing problems, templates, etc..), there are more issues to work on. It used to be over 500,000 links, it's now down to 26,000, the last 5%, the hardest cases remain. For weather article purposes, there are about 400 ".txt" URLs which I programmed to skip converting because of content drift problems. With WebCite back online, it should be possible to save them at archive.today. I just saved this to here you can see it worked correctly. If you provide me with a list of WebCite URLs that have been saved at Archive.today, I can add the archive.today URL into Wikipedia via bot. I don't need the new archive.today URL only the WebCite URL and knowledge it was saved at Archive.today -- GreenC 17:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC: That is an interesting list that I have whittled down to just weather articles and put it here for ease. It confirms my suspicions that the Pacific Typhoon seasons are going to be the hardest to sort out, but I was surprised to see how long we had been using Webcite for. The list also shows that there are several easy wins to be had with the list with several links to NOAA documents, which will either be archived in the internet archive or still alive and thus can be re-archived with archive today or the internet archive depending on what whims we have.Jason Rees (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

It is surprising even as late as 2020. Maybe we need an edit filter to alert editors. There are many links to gwydir.demon.co.uk which are themselves archives of noaa [2]. Is this site reliable, or content drift? -- GreenC 16:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes the gwydir.demon website is reliable as it was set up by an old editor in order to store TC warnings from the various warning centers, some of which are overwriten with every issuance and not stored anywhere else.Jason Rees (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

OK. Making progress. Need a few days. -- GreenC 19:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

User:Jason Rees sent you an email. -- GreenC 15:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@GreenC: I have picked up the email and will probably respond later today, once i have had chance to sleep and phrase it properly. :) Jason Rees (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)