Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota weather records
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 20 days, 2 support, 0 oppose. Fail. Not enough supports to pass. --Crzycheetah 17:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| Current Opinion | User |
|---|---|
| support | Circeus |
| Support | Geraldk |
| Neutral | TonyTheTiger |
Self nom - This list was an off-shoot of Climate of Minnesota. I wanted to include more climate extremes without cluttering that article up so I created a new article for them. I feel that this list hits on most of the notable weather records to have occurred in Minnesota without providing too much unimportant detail, and that it's properly formatted with relevant images. Gopher backer 04:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI intensely dislike the unbordered table. I think it is much less legible than the usual class="wikitable" format- -
I'll work on this.Done, is this better?
- -
Disambig precipitation- - fixed
That tornado image should be in the Tornadoes section- - I had inadvertantly removed another tornado image, and I have restored that. Does that look better?
- Yes. Much
- - I had inadvertantly removed another tornado image, and I have restored that. Does that look better?
Mid-June 1992 Tornado Outbreak should be linked- - It was linked, just in a poor manner. I've redone it under "catastrophic damage". Speaking of that, does it matter if these articles are linked in the image captions vs. the main list?
- I think the link is still not clear. I don't expect a link a link to the event with the text "catastrophic damage". I definitely think the best link location is in the table. Ideally, a mention of the event to link the image would be good too.
- - I'm not sure if this is what you were looking for, but I added a bunch of "see also's" under the respective tables. All of them hold some kind of Minnesota weather record, whether they're mentioned in the article or not. Is this prudent?
On second thought, 2 images of tornadoes seems a bit too much, especially seeing the location of the first. Are there images for flooding that could be used, by any chance?
- I think the link is still not clear. I don't expect a link a link to the event with the text "catastrophic damage". I definitely think the best link location is in the table. Ideally, a mention of the event to link the image would be good too.
- - It was linked, just in a poor manner. I've redone it under "catastrophic damage". Speaking of that, does it matter if these articles are linked in the image captions vs. the main list?
Consider linking Tornadoes of 2001 too- - Good idea, thanks. Done.
Integrate a link to Climate of Minnesota in the lead instead of the "See also" section.- - Done
- Overall, though, it looks very good to me.
- Circeus 04:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I shoved the links down into "see also", and integrated three others in image captions, adding two new ones in the process. I think I can support this. Good work. Circeus 21:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment River stages are missing despite having a flood stage picture. You also might want to consider having something on straight wind speeds. In other records you should have wind chill temp to go along with heat index.--BirgitteSB 17:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - I've added the record flood states for 2 Minnesota cities along each of its three flood-prone rivers. Will this suffice? Gopher backer 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wind Speed: I did find a record measured wind speed of 110 mph. However, based on the Fujita scale for measuring the strength of tornadoes, it's a certainty that on numerous occasions there have been winds speeds in Minnesota over 110 mph; any tornado more than F2 strength would acheive that. However, the problem here is that those winds speeds have never been officially measured. With that in mind, I chose to omit the 110 mph measured wind speed from the list since I felt that it may be a little misleading to the reader. However, maybe I was wrong. Thoughts?
- Wind Chill: Again, I did find some information on the lowest wind chill in Minnesota, but they only provided a range of wind chills, and over a vast area. I could be very general about it, and say something like "-90 to -100 (old scale) * Northern Minnesota * January 1936" or something like that, but again I chose to omit this because even though they have a good idea the lowest wind chills were in this period, they didn't specify a value or date. So like with the first one, should I attempt to add something in anyway?
Flood: I'll see what I can find. Gopher backer 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Tornadoes are circulating winds and straight winds are a separate measurement. They were historically an important nautical measurement and are now important for flight, so with the lake bordering this state and modern airports, there should be continuous records on this. If you think the wind chill is inaccurate to use that is fine, it is just seems to be the natural companion to heat index.--BirgitteSB 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add in both Wind Speed and Wind Chill, and put a note on it describing the concerns about accuracy that you mention. Geraldk 23:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - I've added in the estimate wind chill values, along with a pretty solid wind report (actually was more than an older source I found) from the NCDC. Gopher backer 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Geraldk 12:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done - I've added in the estimate wind chill values, along with a pretty solid wind report (actually was more than an older source I found) from the NCDC. Gopher backer 04:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak OpposeNeutral I find it hard to believe this meets WP:WIAFL 1b. Unless every state agrees that these are the complete set of records than this is an arbitrary list in my mind. What makes this comprehensive? For example, why isn't precipitation kept by month like temperature.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I really have an answer to that, other than to say I don't think that any such standards exist. If you started researching this on your own I think what you would find that is that certain states will highlight certain different aspects in their weather. For example with Florida, you'd find a lot of records on hurricanes. Arizona, drought. California - Washington, snow. Oklahoma, tornadoes. India, precipitation. As a resident of Minnesota I think that temperature is the one aspect of climate that most defines us, so that's why I included the level of detail that I did (I mentioned in my nomination for this was that I felt this was a comprehensive list of relevant information w/o too much less important detail). Gopher backer 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I second Gopher backer's response. "Unless every state agrees" is an unreasonable and impossible criterion. However, this list does not fit the usual pattern of lists at FLC. It may have problems with 1b and (related to this) since each entry does not link to an article, it is currently required to pass 1a3. However, sometimes our rigid criteria get in the way (WP:IAR) and we must use our judgement on whether this is a good and useful list. It may be worth discussing the issues on the FLC talk page. Colin°Talk 09:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K., so you have convinced me that each state may have a different set of records. Can you convince me that an independent party attempting to follow WP:FLC and general WP policies would come up with the exact same list of Minnesota weather records. If you can convince me of that then I would consider it comprehensive? If not can you convince me that a Minnesota meteorologist would consider your list the proper list regardless of whatever other list another Minnesota researcher arrived at? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not. The best I could do is to point out that my two biggest refs I use both are sourced at the Minnesota Climatology Office. One is a website with some of the general records on it [1], and another is a book, and the author of that book (Mark Seeley) works in that office as well [2] Gopher backer 02:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K., so you have convinced me that each state may have a different set of records. Can you convince me that an independent party attempting to follow WP:FLC and general WP policies would come up with the exact same list of Minnesota weather records. If you can convince me of that then I would consider it comprehensive? If not can you convince me that a Minnesota meteorologist would consider your list the proper list regardless of whatever other list another Minnesota researcher arrived at? --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I second Gopher backer's response. "Unless every state agrees" is an unreasonable and impossible criterion. However, this list does not fit the usual pattern of lists at FLC. It may have problems with 1b and (related to this) since each entry does not link to an article, it is currently required to pass 1a3. However, sometimes our rigid criteria get in the way (WP:IAR) and we must use our judgement on whether this is a good and useful list. It may be worth discussing the issues on the FLC talk page. Colin°Talk 09:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]