Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Plan

@Hurricanehink and Jason Rees: I plan to undertake a decent portion of the grunt work, starting with changing over the climate articles so we can have a count on those. We currently have no clue how many there are in total since no project contains them all or has detailed stats. Noah^Talk 22:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unsorted weather articles

Hello, WikiProject Weather,

I'm not sure if any of your members is responsible for putting articles in this red link category but please stop doing so. You either need to remove these pages from this nonexistent category or create this category yourself, it can't continue to exist as a red link category with pages assigned to it. See WP:REDNO. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice

I have nominated Great Lakes Storm of 1913 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plans

My plan is to continue moving items over related to climate. I included climate change by continent, but I don't think we need to go to the country level. I found out there are a bunch of articles that lack wikiproject banners so I am going through the climate set with a fine-toothed comb. This likely will take at least a couple more weeks to complete. We can proceed from there once that's done. Noah^Talk 12:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan. I went ahead and created project pages for Weather by year. Should we have something like Floods in 2021, and get that started so we can keep adding to it with every new flood event? I noticed, when I made the page for weather by type, that we have yearly articles for tropical cyclones back to 1992, tornadoes back to 1950, and wildfires back to 2016. At some point, we should have Droughts in 2021, Floods in 2021, and Heat waves in 2021, among others. Lastly, Jason Rees (talk · contribs) created the list of weather type articles by every location around the world. There are a lot of red-links, but I think the long term goal of the project should be creating lists by weather type for every area. Taken to the extreme, that could mean Snow in New York, which would likely end up being a yearly article because there would be so many events each year. One might argue that if we made that now, it could break Wikipedia rules, that Wikipedia isn't meant to be a directory. I'd argue that weather events are deadly and costly events that affect many people every year, some more than others depending where you are in the world. I think it would be useful for the world to have essentially a global weather database. How much damage or deaths are there each year? We can guesstimate, or we can document everything to the best of our abilities. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Note that severe weather and non-tropical storms are now task forces of this project. PearBOT II should take care of the talkpage template cleanup once it finishes the job it is currently doing. We need to fully integrate these former projects into WP Weather. I would like to devise a way to keep TC basin assessments without taskforces for each one. Noah^Talk 01:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That seems easy. Make the WPTC a sub-project. For the WikiProject template on every talk page, I'd just add the Weather WikiProject to it, and make every WPTC category a sub-category of WP Weather. As for the task forces, they should be kept, but I'm not sure how much we need most of the WPTC pages. There isn't much that affects the entire TC project, and what issues there are (for example, the recent copyvio bit) are likely issues for the entire weather project. The WPTC talk page can be kept as a legacy talk page for all TC articles and discussions, but hopefully that discussion will shift to the Weather project over time. There will be some pages that aren't needed - ACR/Project review seems like something that would be ideal throughout the Weather project. The assessment page can remain, since it is so detailed. I think it could inspire similar assessment type pages for other weather events. For example, there are yearly winter articles for the NHEM, and ones for Europe. Those would naturally be in the same Winter storms assessment. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Cyclone Intensity Lists Challenge

Hi all, as many of you will have seen I have been implementing the convert template to our tropical cyclone intensity lists, in order to make sure that we are consistent with the rest of Wikipedia with our conversions. Before anyone worries, the coding that has been implemented allows us to add the value in knots and converts it to km/h and mph, before presenting it as just km/h and mph. Anyway while going through it came to my attention that the Tropical Cyclone Intensity Lists and our season articles are not consistent and sometimes spew out different information. As a result, I was wondering if some of our younger/inexperienced members eg: @Chicdat, HurricaneEdgar, LightandDark2000, Super Cyclonic Storm Corona, Destroyeraa, and Hurricaneboy23: and others such as @CodingCyclone and CycloneFootball71: would be able to go through and check them against the season article and or the various BT Databases such as IBTRACS, HURDAT or the BoM's. I personally see this as a valuable chance for you all to gain experience, of using the databases and may even lead to an FL nomination or two.Jason Rees (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR notice - Katrina meteorological history

I have nominated Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 21:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave

New stub: 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave. Improvements welcome! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Good luck with your article. I have removed WP Met from its talkpage as I am in the process of moving everything over to WP Weather (sorting). Noah^Talk 01:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah, No prob, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, article now at 2021 Western North America heat wave. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article on a heatwave

Hi, at what point is a heatwave considered notable? I know about notability for a lot of things but this is a new area for me. There is a heatwave currently happening in the UK but I'm worried creating an article is premature. It has passed the amount of time needed to officially class as a heatwave in the UK. There is a ton of sources but I don't want to go against WP:NOTNEWS or create it too soon. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 12:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 weather topics

Weather of 2018

9 articles

Floods in 2018

Wildfires in 2018

2018 Pakistan heatwave

Non-tropical storms in 2018

Droughts in 2018

2018 Japan, Korea, and China heatwaves

Tornadoes of 2018

Tropical cyclones in 2018

Floods in 2018

articles

2018 Southern California mudflows

February US floods

2018 Hawaii floods

2018 Maryland flood

June 2018 Texas flood

July 2018 Eastern US floods

August 2018 Eastern US floods

Hurricane Lane (2018)

August 2018 Wisconsin flood

Hurricane Florence

October 2018 Texas flood

November 2018 California flood

August 2018 Canada flood

Tropical Depression Nineteen-E (2018)

February 2018 Bolivia and Argentina floods

January 2018 France flood

June 2018 European floods

2018 European floods

February 2018 Indonesia floods

May 2018 Afghanistan and Pakistan floods

November 2018 Middle East floods

October 2018 Iran flood

2018 East Africa floods

2018 China floods

July 2018 Laos and Cambodia floods

2018 North Korean floods -SK too

Cyclone Fehi

May 2018 Australia flood

Non-tropical storms in 2018

articles

2017–18 North American winter

December 2017–January 2018 North American cold wave

January 2018 North American blizzard

March 1–3, 2018 nor'easter

March 6–8, 2018 nor'easter

March 20–22, 2018 nor'easter

Tornado outbreak and blizzard of April 13–15, 2018

Apr 4–5 Canada storm

Apr 14–17 Canada storm

2018–19 North American winter

December 2018 British Columbia storms

2017–18 European winter

Feb 23-Mar 2 Central Europe storm

2017–18 European windstorm season

Storm Eleanor (2018)

Storm David

Storm Emma (2018)

2018–19 European winter

2018 British Isles cold wave

2018–19 European windstorm season

Hurricane Leslie (2018)

Storm Adrian

2017–18 Asian winter

Jan 1–7 India/Nepal storm

Jan 2–5 China storm

Jan 21–25 Japan storm

Jan 24–29 China storm

Apr 2–18 China storm(s)

2018–19 Asian winter

Dec 30–31 China storm

Tornadoes of 2018

10 articles

List of United States tornadoes in April 2018

List of United States tornadoes from August to October 2018

List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2018

List of United States tornadoes from June to July 2018

List of United States tornadoes in May 2018

List of United States tornadoes from November to December 2018

2018 Port Orchard tornado

Tornado outbreak and blizzard of April 13–15, 2018

Tornado outbreak of November 30 – December 2, 2018

Droughts and wildfires in 2018

Droughts in 2018

articles

Drought in the United States (2018)

2018 Chinese drought

2018 Indian drought

2018 Central American drought

2018 Argentina and Uruguay droughts

2018 European heat wave

2018–2021 Southern African drought

2018 Australian drought

Tropical cyclones in 2018

92 articles

2018 Pacific hurricane season

Hurricane Bud

Tropical Storm Carlotta

Hurricane Hector

Tropical Storm Ileana

Tropical Storm Vicente

Hurricane Willa

Tropical Depression Nineteen-E

Hurricane Walaka

Timeline of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season

2017–18 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

Cyclone Ava

Cyclone Berguitta

Cyclone Dumazile

Tropical Storm Eliakim

Cyclone Fakir

Timeline of the 2017–18 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

2018–19 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

Timeline of the 2018–19 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season

2017–18 Australian region cyclone season

Cyclone Kelvin

Cyclone Marcus

Cyclone Nora

18U Flood article

Timeline of the 2017–18 Australian region cyclone season

2018–19 Australian region cyclone season

Cyclone Owen

Timeline of the 2018–19 Australian region cyclone season

Discussion

@Hurricanehink and Jason Rees: I still have to do a droughts and wildfires one tomorrow, but here are some preliminary tables for potential topics in 2018 outside TCs. Noah^Talk 02:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Separate pages for weather disasters by year?

Given the prominence of climate change as a topic deserving encyclopedic coverage I (and presumably others) regularly come to Wikipedia looking for articles on recent extreme weather. I see that there are articles such as Weather of 2020 occasionally but they don't seem to get much traction or linking to by places like Portal: Current Events, and finding relevant articles by the search function, wikiwalking or Googling tends to be slow and laborious.

I propose creating a separate subpage for various articles of the form Weather of 19XX/Weather of 20XX called either Extreme Weather of 19XX/Extreme Weather of 20XX or Weather Disasters of 19XX/Weather Disasters of 20XX and providing overviews of such, which the users and editors of other parts of the wiki would be able to easily navigate to without having to spend time looking for the article for the specific event that interests them, which in the case of non-cyclone extreme weather is currently a coin flip as to whether the article can be found at all.

I'm kind of an outsider here though (my wiki experience is solely restricted to editing the SCP foundation wiki from 2014-2016) so I'd love to hear input as to the quality and viability of this idea, or the lack thereof. (Hopefully the former).

2A02:C7D:B747:2500:FC2A:1D9:C778:E709 (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2A02:C7D:B747:2500:FC2A:1D9:C778:E709: We are already trying to make weather of YYYY articles. Such an effort would take time as we need to get a format finalized for them. I oppose doing extreme weather event as that is very subjective and seems ton be excessive on language. Again, not every weather event is a "disaster" either. We should keep a neutral title. There is a lot of coverage across weather that is lacking right now and thus why I made the above post relating specifically to 2018. Noah^Talk 20:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Weather § Template needs a few updates

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Weather § Template needs a few updates. Funandtrvl (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove Future-Class and Needed-Class from project's template

Hi, in Template:WikiProject Weather/class, out of 15 task forces and over 9,000 tagged articles and pages, there are no items in either the Future-Class or Needed-Class project categories. I can delete them from the classes in the template, as I think that the "Draft-Class" covers new articles that would pertain to the project. Let me know if anyone can think of an idea of why to keep them. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Funandtrvl: The issue is people have improperly tagged future season articles as Start or stub class rather than future class. I know this involves only a few to a dozen articles, but it makes it easier to find them when they are properly tagged. We may also have weather satellites that could be tagged as future as well for upcoming ones. I want to leave our project open since space weather is being incorporated as well. I also feel we should keep needed class and tag all redirects where articles have been requested. This may help with getting articles created on the notable, requested storms. Noah^Talk 23:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes sense! But I do agree that people don't know how to use the Future, Current, Needed, etc., classes. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Space weather task force?

Hello, WikiProject Weather folks,

I've been going through unused WikiProject categories, mostly from inactive and defunct WikiProjects, and came across a few categories that are tagged as being part of a "Space weather task force" that is part of this project but I can't find any more information about this "task force". I'm not sure what "space weather" is or how it is a part of what this WikiProject monitors so I thought I'd see if anyone here could provide information on whether this was actually an existing task force that did things or an invention from years ago that is long dead. If you can help, please reply. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: This wikiproject is trying to improve the quality and coverage of weather on Wikipedia, which has involved the creation of various taskforces including one to deal with Space Weather. If you read the discussion above, you will find a rough idea of what is intended to be included in the task force.Jason Rees (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021 North America heat wave

New stub: August 2021 North America heat wave ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can project members please help decide if August 2021 North America heat wave is worth expanding, merging, or deleting? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - merge the stub to create Heat waves of 2021.

Using this stub, and any others, to create the article, will help add to Wikipedia's documentation of another form of natural disaster. Most heat waves will cause some deaths and drought, and not every one needs to have an article, but they should be documented. Most countries have a strict definition of "heat wave", so it's not like the article would mention any just warm period. Eventually, we should have heat waves for other years. Let's start with this year so we can develop the series. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to move August 2021 North America heat wave to Heat waves of 2021 (or, 2021 heat waves?), if editors decide that's a reasonable path forward. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:05, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to tread very carefully around these heatwave articles (PS Heatwave not heat waves etc), as it maybe better to have an overall article talking about the Weather in Summer 2021 in the US especially with today's news that it is the hottest summer on record in the US.Jason Rees (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have the article created than be too worrisome about the title (it is two words btw according to the article title). Most summers are the hottest on record. Having a US focus might mean we miss heatwaves elsewhere. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance to move or do something else with this page, which will be deleted tomorrow! Thanks either way ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I merged the article (along with two other low-notability heat wave articles) into an article for heat waves in 2021, or should it be heat waves of 2021? Anyway, I think the 2021 British Isles heat wave and the 2021 Eurasia winter heatwave could probably be merged as well. Eventually we can create yearly articles for other heat waves. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP Met merger: Hidden category for articles

In order to implement the merger of WP met, a hidden category will be added to every remaining article to ensure the unsorted articles (no taskforces) are added to a list and can be sorted into taskforces at a future time. Noah^Talk 02:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hurricane Noah - just leaving a message to let you know I've created Category:WikiProject Weather article with no task force as requested, and will shortly begin a AWB run to add the category to the articles listed at https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Meteorology (classed as C, Start, Stub, Future, and List). I'll be starting with the 153 "C class" articles - these will be entirely supervised edits ~TNT (she/her • talk) 17:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: 153 C class articles have been added to Category:WikiProject Weather article with no task force ~TNT (she/her • talk) 18:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope nope nope. Hurricane Noah, the way it's set up, anything that transcludes {{WikiProject Meteorology}} without a task force is in its own set of categories. To use TNT's cat above, everything in Category:C-Class_meteorology_articles is (by definition) an un-tasked article. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I have stopped the run pending all that jazz ~TNT (she/her • talk) 18:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Is there anything specifically showing which articles are in taskforces and which aren't? We have an entire set of articles that needs to be separate until someone can sort through them all and add them to taskforces. I am not seeing any way of telling this via these categories. Noah^Talk 19:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get that by definition every quality and importance category is untasked, but it doesn't show which are not actually in task forces. We need those kept separate when we merge the projects or else will be unable to differentiate between the C-class articles in taskforces and the C-class articles without taskforces. Noah^Talk 19:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in a task force, it's not in one of the subcats of Category:WikiProject Meteorology articles because it's in a task force subcat. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: That can't be correct. There are ZERO articles in this category. Look at Talk:Climate of Colombia for example. It's not in the category even though it doesn't have a taskforce. Noah^Talk 20:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um... yes it is? It's in both Category:Start-Class meteorology articles and Category:Low-importance meteorology articles, both of which are subcats in the WikiProject group. Primefac (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC) update: I realise now that I didn't specifically say "subcats of" when I posted it; updated now. Primefac (talk) 20:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: You aren't understanding what I am meaning in this whole thing... ALL ARTICLES that are in task forces are displayed in BOTH categories by default. Look at Talk:1993 India floods. It is a met article and a floods article. If we were to merge all of Met into weather, every article without a taskforce would be lost in a sea of articles. Every single article would display weather by default and any task forces added to them. At least for that specific article, the parameter is the same so it would just roll over. Most of the articles left under WP Met are not in taskforces period, so it presents a major problem. Noah^Talk 20:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I'm not quite sure how I missed that on the pages that I looked at before (I could have sworn they were in only one cat).

That being said, it is still a waste of time to do the whole "let's edit hundreds of pages and add categories that we'll have to remove later". Set up a Pet Scan where you include the Met categories and exclude any of the task force categories. Saves edits and automatically updates as you go. Primefac (talk) 20:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes Storm of 1913

This has been considerably re-worked at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Great Lakes Storm of 1913/archive2, but the latest version could really benefit from some focused weather people attention, and prose fine tuning. Please weigh in if you are able. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Weather of 2021

I have a bit for different weather types except tornadoes. I wondered how best to present that. There isn't any good running list for tornadoes around the world, which is a similar problem for other weather events. I wondered if anyone had any thoughts for what a yearly weather article should look like. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Tornadoes of 2021 includes tornado events around the world. Noah^Talk 00:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make the point that we need to cover the ASIAN Winter which can be quite severe. This article in particular be a summary of the sub articles and I would like to see a breakdown section discussing the damage and deaths for each disaster type. Noah^Talk 00:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was just basing the draft off of what stood out from the 2020-21 North America winter season, and nothing had stood out from the European season. I don't know how much should be added to make the overall topic of "Weather of 2021" comprehensive, without it listing every weather event. Honestly, we should have an article for 2021-22 Asian winter, the way we do for North America and Europe. At some point, perhaps the 2021 Southern Hemisphere winter should/could also be created. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a Japanese blizzard. I'm sure there were blizzards in other areas, though, so I don't want the article to only be a list of major weather events in developed countries, where the economic damage would be most significant. For example, there were floods in Afghanistan this year that killed more than 100. Worth mentioning? Should we have some sort of criteria, or just try and provide a good overview as best we can, and figure out the details later? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the draft into article space and I added a timeline based on entries from the Current Event Portal, which has some of the more notable weather events. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weather by Year Timeline Discussion

As a WikiProject, we should probably go ahead and determine the exact standard for the timeline of weather by year articles. I just spent a few hours adding some of the weather events to Weather of 2021’s timeline. Here is what I based off of while creating it:

Any fatalities were added to the timeline…With a condition that the fatality had to be mentioned in a separate place (Tornado by year, Winter Storms by year, Portal of Current Events, etc…)
If it has a dedicated article, it is on the timeline. (Example: 2021 South Moravia tornado)
Records broken were added. If it was a part of a very large event (aka more than a month), then it was added on the day the record was broken. If it was part of a storm (aka short term event), then it was added into the storm’s blurb.

If it passed one of those three criteria markers, I added it to the timeline. I want to get some feedback if the WikiProject agrees on those 3 criteria checks. The timeline isn’t actually large at all with all of the months having 12 or less entries. In my mind, those 3 criteria checks will create a nice worldwide timeline of weather for a year, while preventing 80% of things from being added. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I Support those three criteria for becoming the “official” criteria for weather by year articles. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Can someone please explain the difference between Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather? We do not have separate Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Life, Wikipedia:WikiProject Hydrology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Water, Wikipedia:WikiProject Horology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Watches nor any other similar pairs. It is looking like every talk page is in the process of getting double tagged, which makes no sense to me. As I fist opened this question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology#Question, it propbably makes sense to respond over there. Any help would be appreciated, thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't fully explain it, but I have some explanation for why they are two separate WikiProjects. Weather and Meteorology are not actually interchangeable (Except in a few instances). The Weather WikiProject will put a higher priority on "weather" articles, like Tornadoes of 2021. In that article, WP Meteorology does not apply as it isn't about Meteorology. Likewise, WP Meteorology will tag meteorologists, but WP Weather won't. It is a weird thing because weather is just a lot of events. Biology and Life are the same WP because in that case, having them in two separate WP's would actually double tag articles. In reality, only a few hundred (Maybe up to 1,000 at most) articles overlap between the two WP's. WP Weather has over 9,000 articles tagged while WP Meteorology has just over 2,000. Grammatically, you can interchange the words at times, but for Wikipedia, it is more of the "science" (WP Meteorology) vs the "science history" (WP Weather). Elijahandskip (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Tropical Storm Allison

I have nominated Tropical Storm Allison for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Essay for Weather

A member of the WikiProject Articles for creation asked if I could work on creating a notability essay page for weather events. So I began Draft:Wikipedia:Notability (weather) and wanted to let the WikiProject Weather community know so they could contribute. Weather events are different from the notability for normal events because of what weather is. For example, a tornado with 0 deaths/injuries can easily be notable for an article, while a tornado that kills dozens might not be notable for a unique article. Per the notability for events, that would be switched around. So over time, we can build out that essay and submit it for the WP AfC community to use for notability guidelines around weather events. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Finally!~~ Thanks for the notice! I'll try to contribute whenever I can.

Chlod (say hi!) 20:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has any extra points to add, please do so by Monday (12/20), as I plan to move the draft into Wikipedia space as an essay and begin the process to have it become policy on Monday. Once it becomes an essay (In Wikipedia space), changes to sections will most likely need discussions to add/remove points per how policy guidelines work. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely missed this being here, so I'll copy over what I posted on the essay's talk page:

"A tornado outbreaks in the United States, can be notable for an article if the Storm Prediction Center (SPC) issues a moderate or high-risk level.

If the Storm Prediction Center does not issue a moderate or high-risk level, the outbreak should not have an article, but be merged into Tornadoes of (Year) article."

Am I misunderstanding something? Shouldn't notability be based off impact? Or is this for before the outbreak? Sorry, just trying to understand this. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question Skarmory, it is a yes and no. I just added some extra information to help clear up that wording. Yes, to be notable, it is determined by impact, but once a moderate/high risk outlook is issued, it is a high chance that a outbreak will occur, so a draft can be started to update the preparations for the outbreak and such. That way, the outbreak article might not be moved into mainspace as a stub, but rather start/c class. Also, a draft can be pinged and spread around via WP weather editors (and other editors who often work with tornado outbreak articles), to improve it before it becomes widely known and before it is posted at Portal:CE. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (weather) has an RFC

Wikipedia:Notability (weather) has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need immediate attention

Please some admin or senior editors close the AfD at Cyclone Jawad and move Draft:Cyclone Jawad to mainspace as its ready. 2402:3A80:6FD:B303:55D:9023:51BF:FF3E (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not ready yet. No notability (yet) to show it is ready for main space. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FASA

Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Great Lakes Storm of 1913/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Composite image for yearly weather article.

I think we should have a composite image for the Weather of 2021 article, with an image representing different types of weather. Ditto eventually for Weather of 2020 and previous yearly weather articles. I think it could be a fun discussion to generate some great images for the top-right of these articles. I love seeing these composite images for different types of weather with a global perspective, so I suggest we represent tornadoes, tropical cyclones, wildfires, blizzards, extratropical cyclones, and floods. The goal is having a series of good images, so I'm not sure if a heat wave would be worth including, but who knows? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021

For 2021, I'm thinking something like tornado damage from the EF4 in Georgia in April, or perhaps an image of an actual tornado in May? I think representing wildfires could be a wildfire in Turkey, to have some global perspective. For tropical cyclones, perhaps Typhoon Surigae, as it was the strongest tropical cyclone to date. We'd need one for flooding (and I'd suggest somewhere outside of the US). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Image Discussion

Hurricanehink suggested File:EF4damageinNewnanGA-2021.jpg for the image. That was damage from an EF4 in Georgia. Hurricanehink also suggested File:Benkelman NE tornado May 26, 2021.jpg, which is an image of a tornado in May.

I suggest File:Moravská Nová Ves after 2021 South Moravia tornado strike (46).jpg, which is damage from an EF 4 tornado in the Czech Republic, which is extremely rare for the composite tornado image part. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would cover Europe, which is useful for some geographic balance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire Image Discussion

Hurricanehink suggested File:Urla Balıklıova Orman Yangını.png, which is a picture of a wildfire in Turkey.

I agree with that suggestion for the composite wildfire image part. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Cyclone Image Discussion

Hurricanehink suggested File:Surigae 2021-04-17 0710Z.jpg, an image from NASA of Typhoon Surigae.

I agree with that suggestion for the composite tropical cyclone image part. I also suggest we add File:Ida 2021-08-29 1835Z.jpg, an image from NASA of Hurricane Ida. That would mean 2 images of tropical cyclones. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that having two tropical cyclones is a bit much, since Surigae and Ida look rather similar - I'd rather just have a powerful extratropical cyclone for some balance in terms of structures (since I don't think any subtropical cyclone is worth showing). As for tropical cyclones, what about an image of flooding from Ida, such as in New York City? I feel that could be a rather striking image, such as flooding in the Bronx from Ida. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could get behind that flooding image in the Bronx. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image Consensus Listing

Listing images for the composite image after consensus.

(Saving Space)

2020

Cyclone Yasa was the strongest cyclone worldwide in the year. Other than that, not sure which images should be included. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI BT has shown that Yasa was not the strongest tropical cyclone worldwide.Jason Rees (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note for editors, I am going to be building the Weather of 2020 timeline, so we can start to discuss possible composite image candidates soon. (Also, please check my overall grammar and wording on the timeline every now and then and fix it if you see a problem or a better way to word an event.) Elijahandskip (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Tornado

I have nominated Tornado for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Noah^Talk 13:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Didn't know this WikiProject existed. I had made this back in March:{{The Weather Barnstar|put your message here ~~~~}} and placed it at WikiProject Meteorology. Can someone add it to the infobox of this project? I don't know how, thanks. Jerm (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |}[reply]

2022 C/B Class Drive Idea

I had this idea and before I created a organized page for this, I wanted to run it passed the talk page to see if people liked the idea.

So I was thinking about a drive, led by WP Weather, to get every new weather article created in 2022 to at least C class, with the goal to make a lot of new B class articles. Anyone like the idea? The organized page would be similar to the WP Canada 10,000 challenge, where they are trying to improve/create 10,000 Canadian articles. The page would list all the new weather articles created in 2022 and split them into their class categories, so we could see which articles passed C/B class and which ones need to be improved. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When would the cutoff for getting them to C class be? If it's Jan 1 2023 there would be problems with articles created in late Dec 2022 because there may not be enough time to improve them. It does sound like a great idea on paper, if it works in practice I think it's something that should be done. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Skarmory, I am thinking the cutoff would be February 2023 with a "goal" to have the articles up to C/B class within a month of their ending. It is ambitious, but if editors join the drive and work toward it, it can be done. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I would say let's get to work, but we're still a day away from 2022, so I guess let's get to work tomorrow? Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The project page has started. Still needs formatting done, which is being worked on, but feel free to join and mention it to other editors. Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/2022 C/B Class Drive. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Surface weather analysis

I have nominated Surface weather analysis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Noah^Talk 22:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weather FARs

Hello, I have been assisting with the WP:URFA/2020 effort and have seen we have many problems with older FAs that need to be addressed. I would like to ask if people could please try to save the FAs that we can and avoid large losses. I have highlighted issues with many articles (below) that should be addressed. It would be greatly appreciated if people would be willing to step up and save these articles so they don't have to proceed to an actual FAR. Noah^Talk 15:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FAR Noticed

Please see the talk page of these articles for issues that need to be addressed. The list of notices will be updated with a new header each week. Noah^Talk 15:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed from 1–5 December 2021

FARs will begin on 15 January for this group as needed

Hurricane Gloria 2021-12-01: Dylan620 working
Hurricane Nora (1997) 2021-12-02
Hurricane Esther 2021-12-03: LightandDark2000 will be working
Hurricane Gustav (2002) 2021-12-04 CycloneFootball71: will be working
~~Tornado 2021-12-04 FAR: 2021-12-23~~ - DELISTED
Hurricane Edith (1971) 2021-12-04
Numerical weather prediction 2021-12-04 FAR: 2022-01-15
~~Surface weather analysis 2021-12-04 FAR: 2022-01-01~~ - DELISTED
Yellowstone fires of 1988 2021-12-05 FAR: 2022-01-26
Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne 2021-12-05
Meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon 2021-12-05
Hurricane Dean 2021-12-05
Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean 2021-12-05
Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma 2021-12-05
Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan 2021-12-05
Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America 2021-12-05
Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004) 2021-12-05: Destroyeraa will be working
Tropical Storm Henri (2003) 2021-12-05
Tropical Storm Edouard (2002) 2021-12-05
Hurricane Irene (1999) 2021-12-05
Hurricane Fabian 2021-12-05

Noticed from 6–12 December 2021

Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C. 2021-12-06
Hurricane Erika (1997) 2021-12-06
Hurricane Isabel 2021-12-06
Hurricane Kenna 2021-12-06
Typhoon Pongsona 2021-12-07
Hurricane Danny (1997) 2021-12-07

Discussion

Please post here with article(s) you want to save or if you have any questions. Noah^Talk 15:33, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, I would like to help save Gloria. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 04:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: Added a couple more items I had noticed. By far the biggest issue on that one is the lack of academic literature. I provided a link to some at Talk:Hurricane Gloria. Noah^Talk 12:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: Noted with thanks. Hopefully I can acquire access through the reference department at my local library, or through my alma mater. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 04:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~I might give Fabian a shot; will be my first try at anything close to FA level so it may not end up working out, but it's worth a shot.~~ Skarmory (talk • contribs) 18:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm realizing I really can't work on more than 1 article, and I've been giving Heather quite a bit of an update and there's still more I can do there, and I'd rather focus my attention on that article. Sorry guys, got a bit overzealous. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 09:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620, LightandDark2000, CycloneFootball71, and Destroyeraa: Updates on progress? Noah^Talk 23:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment I have been looking over some of the academic literature and just looking over the article, I am planning to begin making changes to the article very soon. 🌀Cyclone Football71🏈 |sandbox 16:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was on WikiBreak. I'll take a look next week, after I finish with an internship application, and other college-related applications. Still planning to work on Esther. Will see what I can do with Isabel if I have enough time. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for going AWOL; I recently started a new job and I've been starved for free time. I'll try to get as much done on Gloria as I can tonight and this week. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 20:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request on assessment for an article and advices on improving the article's quality

The requested article: December 2021 Malaysian floods

Several of us have been working on this article for some time. I feel it needs a reassessment. I want to push the article's quality to at least B-class, or even GA-class. Any advices on improving the article's quality? Thanks in advance.

Notes: It is still a current event, the flooding has been going on in neighbouring states of my country for several weeks now, and I expect it to end in mid-January 2022.

Best wishes,
PenangLion (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PenangLion: Hey! Late response, but I would wait until the event stops and then work towards B/GA class while currently just updating it the best you can - it would fail GA criteria #5 if it is current, because it is not stable. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 12:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I'm afraid I will need to temporarily halt my contributions for a while due to incoming studies. I believe it is very likely the floods will fully recede within 2 weeks. - PenangLion (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Numerical Weather Prediction

I have nominated Numerical weather prediction for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Noah^Talk 16:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox weather event § Contrast issues in category headers

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Infobox weather event § Contrast issues in category headers. This is related to a recent movement to update the old infoboxes (particularly {{Infobox tropical cyclone}}, among others) to conform with newer infobox styles, and to add the ability to generate modular boxes which can consolidate different scales and/or related weather events (such as the October 2021 nor'easter). Chlod (say hi!) 21:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the Weather by Year articles

United States Man recently adding notability tags to the weather by year articles. Since 3 of them (2020 - 2022) are classed top importance and the rest are high importance, this should be a WikiProject decision. Are the "Weather by Year" articles notable or not?

Discussion

Keep as this style of article is not new to Wikipedia nor WP Weather. In fact, Global storm activity of 2010, which requires massive cleanup and work, was created in 2010. It even survived 2 AfD's with the first as no consensus and the second as a keep.) What I recommend is keeping the style we have like Weather of 2021 and in short, delete the previous styles (Created years ago) and update them with the Weather by year criteria, which was mentioned on the WP Weather talk page back in November 2021. Everyone agrees, not every event needs mentioning, but enough editors have worked on the timeline and so far, no one has questioned notability on it before, so let's keep it. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - When it was mentioned on the talk page back in November 2021, a discussion section had no other editors !vote, so Wikipedia:Silence and consensus is the most recent reason why these articles are notable. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You mention the AFD - here's the link to anyone who wants to read what I wrote back in 2010 when proposing to delete the article for Global storm activity of late 2010. My position has changed in the last 12 years, such that I now think it's a good thing to have these global articles. The way the global weather articles were handled was confusing, but I think the broader Weather by Year articles are much better as an overview for the year's different weather types. They are the parent articles for the year's weather types, much like Tropical cyclones in 2022 is the parent article for all of the season articles for the individual basins. By the way, I had totally forgotten about those old Global storm activity articles - I went ahead and moved them all to be "Weather of..." articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I may expand on my point, I'd love if we could make sure that all deadly weather events are documented in three articles – the article for the weather of the year it was in, the yearly article for the weather type, and the list of the occurrences of that weather type in a certain area. Let's take Typhoon Rai. It would appear in Weather of 2021, 2021 Pacific typhoon season, and List of typhoons in the Philippines (2000–present). For 1988 Yellowstone fires, it would be in Weather of 1988 (to be created), Wildfires in 1988 (to be created), and List of Wyoming wildfires (to be created). Ultimately, every weather event will exist in each of the three categories, as far back as we have good documentation. It'll be a lot of work to get there, but once it's there, the organization of all of these events will help so many people, rather than the scattered bits that we currently have. And these individual yearly weather articles will serve as a parent to the yearly articles for each type of weather. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Those three article types will be a perfect way to keep good and solid records on Wikipedia. I can slowly do the Weather of year timelines, since I sort of have been doing them since November. Maybe by January 2024, we could complete 2000-2022. That should be the goal to start with. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Weather of XXXX are just as notable for WPWX as Tropical cyclones in XXXX is for WPTC, or as Tornadoes of XXXX is for WPWX/Tornadoes. They are crucial to these WikiProjects. That, combined with the Top/High importance of them, is why I have removed the notability tags from the articles. Creating these is hugely WP:AVALANCHE. 🐔dat (talk) 11:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Vital Article List

I am proposing a new vital article list system that is more in line with what Wikipedia does for its own vital article list. This new system would consist of 5 levels of vital articles with level 1 being the most important and level 5 being the least important. In this proposal, the first 3 levels have been written up and are being considered for approval. Levels 4 and 5 will be added through individual or article group nominations at a later time. Keep in mind the goal of this list is to be fair to all weather topics. If you disagree with the inclusion or exclusion of something, please state which item you disagree with and why. Please note this list does include some articles that do not exist on purpose because they are vital ie Climate of North America, Climate of South America, etc.. Noah^Talk 23:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Level 1 Vital Articles

Level 2 Vital Articles

43/42 additional articles listed for level 2. Capped at 0.58% of the project's articles. The goal is for the article cap to reduce to 0.50% as the project's article count increases. Additional articles will not be added until the amount listed is lower than 0.50%.

Weather

Atmosphere

Climate

Meteorology

Space weather

Level 3 Vital Articles

Includes 43 articles from level 2. 166/166 additional articles listed for level 3. Capped at 2.9% of the project's articles. The goal is for the cap to reduce to 2.5% over time as the project's article count increases. Additional articles will not be added until the amount listed is lower than 2.5%.

Weather

Weather

Cyclone

Anticyclone

Anticyclogenesis

Cloud

Storm

Precipitation

Wind

Atmosphere

Atmosphere

Atmosphere of Earth

Diffuse sky radiation

Atmospheric circulation

Atmospheric layers

Atmospheric convection

Climate

Climate

Climate variability and change

Climate change

Climatology

Climate model

Drought

Meteorology

Meteorology

Meteorologist

List of meteorologists

Meteorological instrumentation

Weather front

Military meteorology

Space weather

Space weather

Extraterrestrial atmosphere

Stellar atmosphere

Aeronomy

Discussion

Please discuss whether or not you agree with the items listed here. This is not a place to either support or oppose the proposal, but rather a feedback process to see what people think. The ratification decision of the vital article list will occur at a later time. Noah^Talk 23:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say some individual storms should probably be in tier 3 (Katrina is the first one that comes to mind but there are others), and maybe Tornado/Tropical Cyclone in tier 2? Not really sure about the latter but the former I would say feels messing. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TC and tornado were placed in tier 3 because they are subtopics of cyclone. I feel it would open up a can of worms to have them be at tier 2 because of the argument "what about extratropical cyclones, they cause a lot of damage too?" and the same thing can be said about other ones as well. It makes it fairer to just put them all on the same level and not worry about the optics of one seeming more important than another. It isn't really that TC became less important, just that the measuring levels are different and some articles that would not have been core articles are now on the same level since tier 3 includes 0.51-2.9% currently (core was 1%). In terms of individual storms and events, these would likely fit better in tiers 4 and 5 as they are not as important as the subject-level articles themselves. We have to think of the big picture here. There are a lot of events across weather with huge notability. These cyclones would be near the top of the list for just TCs, but we have many other events to consider with all of weather, which is why none were placed in tier 3. With the limited spots we have at tier 3, it would make sense to wait until tier 4 to place top-importance events since we don't have to cover as many subject-level articles and have more spots available as well since the cap is larger. Noah^Talk 11:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that makes sense. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 15:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of surprised Monsoon isn't in here... ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 00:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More things missing: squall line (seeing as derecho is in the list already), weather balloon, and the entire concept of weather reconnaissance. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the Weather of year fatality charts accurate

What is the best way to use to make sure the fatality charts on the Weather by year articles is accurate? This question is coming after a new tornadic death occurred in Madagascar. An editor added that information to the Weather of 2022 timeline, then added the tornado fatality to the chart for Madagascar, but did not update the total's section. I updated it, but something like that could easily be missed during edit summary checking, so how should be go about keeping them accurate? Elijahandskip (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to do it other than combing through the edit history every day. Or just keep your own personal count based on the info in the article and you can make sure it is accurate. United States Man (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Yellowstone fires of 1988

I have nominated Yellowstone fires of 1988 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Noah^Talk 15:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone create the article for 2021–2022 Asia winter?

We have one for North America and Europe. That seems like a pretty big missing article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Where's the one for Europe? 🐔dat (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 European windstorm season. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhh. I thought you meant 2021–22 European winter. 🐔dat (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 European winter would probably work better than 2021–22 European windstorm season, but we have to remember that we are trying to target the most severe weather that occurs over Europe between Autumn and Spring of each year. Severe enough that it is named by the UKMO, Met Erriean etc.Jason Rees (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: what I mainly mean is that we need an article for the winter storms in Asia. Europe and North America are handled already. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. 🐔dat (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

End of the Tornado History Project has left numerous dead links

The Tornado History Project was a good database for tornado data and has been used as a source for many tornado articles, especially for older tornadoes. Unfortunately that website is no more, leaving a number of articles sourced largely or entirely with dead links. Some pages there are archived, but coverage is far from complete. NCEI database links could be used to replace at least some of them, and I think I could source some of it from Significant Tornadoes, though I have my own off-wiki stuff to figure out. I'll ping @ChessEric: here, since he was largely responsible for creating tornado articles for the twentieth century. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS: I've been doing that for awhile and I've been busy so I can't do it right now. I leave the archived THP refs alone.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cirrus cloud

I have nominated Cirrus cloud for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Tornado outbreak of mid-October 2007#Requested move 20 February 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tornado outbreak of mid-October 2007#Requested move 20 February 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Tropical_cyclone_classification

I have nominated Template:Tropical_cyclone_classification for deletion.Jason Rees (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Brookings effect#Requested move 25 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk: Brookings effect#Requested move 25 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --KJ7RRV (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:A/R/C

There is an ArbCom case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones Discord server for which this WikiProject might have been affected. You might be interested in giving statements regarding that case. Mario Jump 83! 12:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody know of some papers / sources?

I'm currently rewriting the altostratus cloud article, and have encountered multiple statements to this effect: ""It is widely considered that stratus, stratocumulus, altostratus, and cirrus clouds have the greatest impact on climate..." (Mavromatidis & Kallos, 2003). However, I can't seem to find any studies showing the gross warming and/or cooling effects of altostratus clouds. I was able to find significant sources on this topic when I wrote cirrus cloud. About the only thing I can find for altostratus clouds is Chen, Rossow, and Zhang's paper, but that gets extremely in-depth to the point that I'm hesitant to include its information since it might violate summary style.

Does anybody know of any sources for more gross statistics? Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about removing the fatalities section on Weather of 2022

There is an ongoing discussion to remove the fatalities section from the Weather of 2022 article. Feel free to participate in the discussion here. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2010 New York City tornadoes#Requested move 5 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2010 New York City tornadoes#Requested move 5 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 06:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox for Weather of 2022 and other such yearly articles

There should be some sort of infobox for the yearly weather articles. It would be nice if we had yearly weather deaths, with accompanying citations. That would be amazing to have yearly weather deaths and damage statistics by year for every country, and for every weather type. And then the image would be a gallery of a few images. Any thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I think we should find a fairly regular / uniform source for this kind of information, though, since trying to sum them up ourselves could end up with radically-varying totals. Does the WMO or some other organization keep track of these statistics? Master of Time (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Color issue for people who are monochromatic color blind

I know that you guys debated the color change but there's a new issue, the Cat 4/EF4 and Cat 5/EF5 colors (When converted to simulate Monochromatic Blindness) appear as the same shade of gray. I know this because i used a program that changes color to black and white using the new scale color scheme and Colors 4 and 5 are the exact shade of gray. Hope this helps with your finalizing your color choice. RaydenAG (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really much we can do about monochromatic blindness for the colors without redoing the entire scale, which is highly unlikely, given the immense difficulty in even reaching a consensus on this project for changing the colors. The only way that would even become a viable option is if we replaced the Blue Marble background currently used in the track map images, and IMO, such a change is much less likely to gain consensus than any of the color changes. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring old colors for now until the end of ArbCom

Given the dispute that the colors are involved in at ArbCom with regards to canvassing, I think its best to restore the old colors to the template until the ArbCom case is closed, which won’t happen for another month it seems. Plus, the entire debate was tainted by canvassing as admitted there so I think it’s more harmful to leave it the way it is now with it not matching the maps. I can’t edit it now since it’s fully-template protected. The info boxes not matching the maps is probably the most serious case of this since newcomers within the next few weeks will be confused (and the key does not help since that only appears on individual storm pages). Once the case closes, whatever comes out of it, we can restart the discussion anew. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 12:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind that @Chlod: reverted an attempt to restore the old colours yesterday and put a request for page protection in and the comments above, I personally feel that it is better that we maintain the status quo until the case is over even if it is another month or so. Yes you may not like it and people maybe confused by the new scale, but I do feel that those concerns are superseeded by WP:ACCESS.Jason Rees (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the concerns with WP:ACCESS but I don’t think it supersedes the other concerns of misleading information, especially given the fact, as stated above, that multiple people have raised the question. It’s better to create consistency instead of misleading color schemes for the rest of the ArbCom process, even if some think the opposite is true. I also don’t think WP:IDLI applies here as this is a genuine concern for our readers during this process (since the maps are significantly different from the infoboxes at the moment) and it is far more a better idea to restore consistency between them for the time being. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, we should keep the changes in place, pending the outcome of the ArbCom case and the RfC here. It is unlikely that the entire RfC will be overturned, and honestly, in the unlikely event that it is overturned, we will literally have to go through the entire discussion again, and you will have to rehash the entire fight with all of the participants, which will set tempers off again and result in more bad blood. Calling for such is counterproductive. As for the template protection, I think that was the best course of action. People need to stop screwing around with the colors, given that color template is highly-visible. We definitely should not have another version of the mid-April color wars at the Russian invasion map, which was extremely immature and a disgrace (the map is viewed by millions of people each day). Jason Rees is right in saying that WP:ACCESS applies here. And this really is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue, which isn't even a valid reason for overturning the changes. It is not really our problem that so many people don't like change. And either way, there's going to be temporary confusion anyway with whatever new color scheme is implemented, so I see literally zero point in reverting. It's going to be inconsistent for at least a few months anyway, as we can't redo all of the track maps all at once, even if the RfC were immediately concluded. People can get used to the changes, and they will. Also, the correct procedure for RfCs is to keep the status quo pending the outcome of the discussion, not revert back and forth to whatever was the previous version. The fact that you're still suggesting this, and the fact that someone tried to reinstate the old colors in spite of the RfC, convinces me that Chlod was right in requesting the template protection. We should not entertain or even allow the possibility of further color-warring. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that most of the articles and track maps technically are not consistent, since the track maps use data from the JTWC primarily rather than the RSMC's.Jason Rees (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again I really don’t think WP:IDLI applies here given this is a genuine problem for the entire wiki. The problem is that the color scale is different enough especially at the high end to create confusion for a lot of new readers ESPECIALLY for C4 and C5 compared to the maps and that’s not what Wikipedia wants to do right? The result of the ArbCom will in some way likely result in some or a lot of rollback, and given the original November 2021 and subsequent February 2022 RfCs were tainted heavily with off-wiki canvassing, it is in the best option and for the project in general to at least restore the legacy colors so as to not create confusion and then we can work out whatever comes out of the ArbCom result. I’d argue even a bit that WP:CCC applies here given the rigidity. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:45, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new colors were established by consensus. If the impacts of canvassing were great enough to warrant nullifying that consensus, then that is a decision for ArbCom to make, not us. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 17:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back when MarioProtIV first sparked an edit war on Module:Storm categories/categories, I thought of having the related pages template-protected but decided against it since modules fail to save if there's a syntax error. But considering the template does not have this same protection (after Modokai's edit yesterday that likely broke all usages of Beaufort, PAGASA, RSI, WSSI, and other scales that were added in the module), and knowing that an extended-confirmed user can add in a template error that breaks all cyclone pages, I decided to request protection given that there are +4,800 pages that will be affected if that happens. I really don't mind which scale is in use; the protection (and revert, since the template was reverted to a non-module version) was part of my duty as the primary maintainer of that module. Chlod (say hi!) 23:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm maintaining the same position I had when the ArbCom case arose, keep the Feb 2022 RfC results as it meets ACCESS which is the primary concern. Another discussion will begin once the ArbCom case is settled and they, hopefully, provide some input on these discussions and how we proceed and how to balance canvassed opinions. Whether or not people like the colors does not override ACCESS requirements. WP:CCC does not apply here as the root of this renewed debate is a canvassed shift in consensus after a closed discussion. The canvassing is most-evident in the March 2022 RfC, not the other discussions, as there was a sudden increase in dissenting opinions over the accepted RfC results. Why would one think the same canvassing applied to the others when the results were the exact opposite of the canvassed goals? Reverting to the original feels like WP:IDONTLIKEIT as L&D mentioned. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that this is only a temporary change until the case is finished and we come back to discussion. I’ve already repeatedly said I don’t think WP:IDLI applies here as this discrepancy is a genuine concern for newcomers too within the next month. Plus, the current maps and TCR adjustments are still using the old colors for consistency and I think temporarily returning to the old colors fixes this disconnect. I stated numerous times we can come back to this once the ArbCom case closes and eventually come to a new proposal and begin adding it to the tracks, but doing this quick fix for a while can at least not confuse new readers who might not understand the intensity on the track vs the infobox. Regarding the RfC, the first RfC in November 2021 was canvassed almost as much as the March case was, which in turn undermines the Feb 2022 case since it was essentially a revival and given the proposal in the Feb 2022 case was IIRC a canvassed one since numerous discussion happened off-wiki about it in November 2021. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who has supported the color change, I do agree with Mario that the template colors not matching the map colors is a problem and is likely to cause confusion. Honestly, I had assumed that we wouldn't go through with actually changing the colors until we were ready to change the maps, too. Doing so before we had bots ready and whatnot was rather hasty, in my opinion. Admittedly, I felt some implicit pressure not to bring this up, which I alluded to at the ArbCom request. We shouldn't overturn the color change on the grounds of canvassing because that decisionis up to the Arbitration Committee, and they may decided that WP:ACCESS concerns override concerns of canvassing in this instance. Similarly, while I might otherwise support reverting until we are ready address the maps, because ArbCom might overturn any decision made here, I say our best option is to wait. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:48, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I see with waiting another month is that opens the doors for confusion as you said. I know the ArbCom will decide the outcome but you also need to consider how this will affect new readers in that time period. I wouldn’t want Wikipedia advertising misleading colors for TC intensity between maps and templates as I would not be able to tell which was which. This discrepancy so to speak would prevent any adjustment IMO since the entire thing is in limbo bc of the canvassing issue. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discrepancy is not much of an issue. The maps still have keys with the old color scheme. In terms of being able to understand them, nothing has changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a big issue because as I’ve said, incoming readers will likely get confused and I honestly don’t think many check the key that is in the image (I know I don’t). The main issue here with the discrepancy is the big difference in C4/5, which can obviously confuse people (and not fixing this doesn’t lead to people adjusting as some might think). MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If readers are confused, they can check the key that is specifically for eliminating confusion. It's not like new visitors to these pages have embedded knowledge of the color scheme either. The color key objectively provides the answer. This argument doesn't hold much weight. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Read

This article on Bill Read, one of the previous director of the National Hurricane Center is ambiguously named. There is a also a famous Canadian indigenous sculptor named Bill Read, a footballer and others of the same name. I had to redirect many link to this article that were for those others and modify the Wikidata. Wouldn't it be better to rename the article "William L. Read", his proper name, in order to avoid this problem in the future?

Pierre cb (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pierre cb: Guidance material discourages the use of middle names and initials in titles, except where the middle name or initial is part of the name by which the person is best known, such as Harry S. Truman. If the title for the article Bill Read is proving troublesome, I suggest the title “Bill Read (meteorologist)”. If you look at William Read (disambiguation) you will see what I mean. Dolphin (t) 23:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress on this rename yet? 🐔dat (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Space weather task force

Bumping thread for 180 days days. Noah^Talk 14:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC) A few of us decided off wiki to make a space weather task force to cover the branch of meteorology dedicated to space weather. We need to outline every article that should be included here. Noah^Talk 00:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: What thoughts would you have on this? Noah^Talk 02:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I love the idea. Wikipedia should be thorough and reflect the body of information that is out there. I believe we might need an article for Climate of the Moon, if we want to be thorough. I believe our mission should be as thorough as possible, with as much organization as possible, identifying a logical structure to all of the information presented. Some of these redlinks and stubs might one day be the best source of information for researchers who haven't even been born yet. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ruslik0, Serendipodous, and Owllord97: Hello, I was wondering if you would be interested in having cooperation between our two projects. I would be interested to hear your input on what articles should be included in this taskforce. I have formed a preliminary list below of ones I have seen and feel should be included. Noah^Talk 00:36, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

solar wind, obviously. solar corona and nanoflare are the mechanisms generating the solar wind. thermoshere and exosphere if we're restricting ourselves to Earth, atmosphere of Mars and climate of Mars if we're not. Serendi ^podous 16:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Oppose creation. Space weather is distinct from Earthly weather. I guess we could include the climate articles for each planet in WPWeather, but solar storms and the like are quite unrelated to weather. Destroyer (Alternate account) 17:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- @Destroyeraa: I think it's worth including some of the space stuff in the article, as it has a big impact on our weather and the way we forecast it. For example, Katrina was partially attributed to variations in fluxes of galacticcosmic rays. However, my biggest question with the whole project is how far we should go with things where the weather played an important role and potentially changed history like World War 2 (D-Day or the German invasion of Russia) or the Miami Building Collapse.Jason Rees (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We need to cover all forms of weather as that is what this project is about. We can't pick and choose which ones we do and which we don't. Space storms have had a profound impact on people in the past and should be covered. Noah^Talk 20:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't really up for a vote. WikiProject Weather was set up to cover all areas of weather in general, and it was already decided that we would have a Space Weather Task Force to address the topic of space weather itself. Also, no, space weather is definitely still weather. The only difference is that it happens in space, rather than on Earth. Why should we exclude space weather from this project? There isn't any good reason for doing so. This is WikiProject Weather, NOT WikiProject Earth Weather. And space weather also constitutes a separate branch of meteorology, so it definitely warrants inclusion in this project. Given the significance and scope of space weather, the only other alternative would be to set up a separate WikiProject for space weather, but that would just result in a mostly-inactive project (like WPNTS) with numerous overlaps with both WikiProject Weather and WikiProject Astronomy, so this option is better. For the record, I support the creation of the Space Weather Task Force and its proposed organizational structure, as is. This branch of meteorology definitely needs to be covered in a general weather project, and I think that the organizational structure proposed below is an excellent one. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Organization

Bold titles in article leads for events without formal names

I've noticed that many of the storm articles we have repeat the article title in bold in the lead. Most of these titles are descriptive rather than actual names for the events, especially those that follow the [storm type] [date] format (e.g. Tornado outbreak and floods of April 28 – May 1, 2017. Reiterating descriptive titles like this is not supported by guidelines per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE. I've mostly seen this in tornado outbreak articles, since I don't often edit non-tropical weather articles outside of those, but it is present in other articles. I'm suggesting the removal of bold titles from articles like this. However, I figured I'd bring it up for discussion here first, since WP:BOLDly making changes en masse often doesn't go over well. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I have been trying to make these changes here and there for a while. I fully support making the change to every article to follow MOS. United States Man (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose as this is pretty much superseded by MOS:BOLDLEAD which says it can be there if accommodated in a natural way, which can be an easy fix. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Restructuring the lead sentence to accommodate the bolded title is not natural, so MOS:BOLDTITLE does not apply there. United States Man (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I know that its good form to do so but do we have to mention the title in the lead? After all sometimes it is better not to.Jason Rees (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It seems unnatural to restate the article title in the first sentence. The reader already knows the title before having to read it again. Apparently it is also against MOS, hence the RfC below. United States Man (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support for any event without a widely accepted name. The article titles we give for the vast majority of outbreaks are just the dates since there is no naming scheme available, giving bold wording in the lead lends to that being an actual title. LGS's and USM's rationales are sound. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - while as MarioProtIV observes, the MOS has a somewhat awkwardly phrased suggestion that we allow the article title to be bolded if it can be accomplished naturally, clearly in many cases this is not the bolded phrases are awkward and per the reasoning in WP:SBE, I'd prefer that we only bold where there is widespread use of the bolded phrase. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; it should be done on a case-by-case basis. There really is no requirement to use or not to use bolded titles in the leads of articles without a formal name. As such, I oppose enforcing a strict set of standards here when instead, we should be looking at each article on a case-by-case basis. Some of them, such as the list articles, shouldn't have their names bolded in the lead. But others can have the title accommodated and bolded in the lead, and I think that in some of those articles, this arrangement would be more appropriate. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support this provision. Makes it much easier to identify and correct the ones that shouldn’t be bolded instead of just doing a do-all approach. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Bolding article titles in lead

An ongoing discussion as to whether bolding the descriptive article title of tornado outbreaks and winter storms is compliant with MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE requires comment from others. As it stands now, tornado outbreak articles typically have the event type followed by the date while and winter storm articles have the date preceding the event type: Tornado outbreak and floods of April 28 – May 1, 2017, Tornado outbreak of April 4–7, 2022, January 14–17, 2022 North American winter storm, or January 2022 North American blizzard.

Per WP:SBE, bolding these titles in the opening line "gives undue weight to the chosen title, implying that it is an official term, commonly accepted name, or the only acceptable title; in actuality, it is just a description and the event or topic is given many different names in common usage."

Per MOS:BOLDTITLE,

If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence.

These titles are descriptive and not formal names.

Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way.

These titles require the whole sentence to be written around them, such as The January 2022 North American blizzard was a powerful and disruptive blizzard that impacted the.... This would also fail MOS:BOLDTITLE.

Input from others is requested. United States Man (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An easy fix can be done by stating “The January 2022 North American blizzard caused widespread and disruptive impacts to the Atlantic coast of North America from Delaware to Nova Scotia with as much as 2.5 feet (30 in) of snowfall, blizzard conditions and coastal flooding at the end of January 2022.” I do not see how that fails MOS:BOLDTITLE. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This implies that was an official name given to the event when it's merely a descriptor in lieu of an actual title. There's no reason to force bold text when the same information can be conveyed naturally and without undue weight. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sample at MOS:BOLDTITLE refers to the United States presidential line of succession blurb, which is able to use it in a natural way. This can be easily done with these pages too, given some are from a single low pressure area (and thus should follow what tropical cyclones use), and thus doesn’t fail that MOS. The only other option is to use TWC names which have some more recognition (particularly the high impact and most notable ones) but that’s a whole nother can of worms that shouldn’t be opened. Don’t really see how undue weight is given since it states what it did. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only other option is to use TWC names... this is only the case if you try to force using bold text in the lead sentence. There's nothing wrong with the current method being used, it's clear, conveys the event, and isn't awkwardly dancing around to avoid repetition. What you're trying here is more of a stylistic choice that you want others to use. USM is correct citing WP:SBE, severe weather events are exactly what that guideline covers. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The presidential line of succession is well-recognized contingency such that effectively has a name. This is not the case with the date-based title format for storm articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to say looking at two articles Special:Permalink/1082390258 & Special:Permalink/1082389857. MOS says: include the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way. The second link I gave incudes it, whereas the first link I gave is a natural lead-in to the topic and doesnt need to be changed. See WP:SBE this practice [Using bold in the first few words] is not mandatory and should be followed only where it lends natural structure (brackets added by me); Basically my not-vote is WP:AINT. Both seem fine, and If there are specific articles with lead issues, fix those, otherwise spend your energy on editing other things. WP:AINT: don't waste time and energy (yours or anybody else's) trying to fix it (that part about anybody else's is NOT a subtle dig at creating an RFC) Happy Editing--IAm Chaos 03:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I largely agree; the guidelines currently allow for avoiding long awkward bold titles in the article opening. So, technically, no change is needed. But if editors are commonly not taking advantage of this allowance, and are insisting on long and descriptive bold titles in the opening as if they were the common name of the subject, some thought can be given to strengthening the guidelines, or maybe just making an essay that other's can readily link when fixing this; it depends on how common this problem is. If the effort to improve the guidelines is less than the effort to correct the title use, then it should be done. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 14:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with these opinions. This really shouldn't be a big deal at all, as WP:MOS doesn't mandate us to go one way or the other in this grey area. I think we should approach these articles on a case-by-case basis. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as this is a common problem for recent not yet established events, and working on this is rather healing the symptoms than the illness. I guess that between 50 and 99 percent of all articles in category:2022 "suffer" that problem, i.e. lacking of official names, but regardless of that almost every article out is bolded. That does not mean that one could try better to find an article's name when creating it. Besides, there is existing a bunch of official "names" for storms of all kind. In the case of the example on top it would be January 14-18, 2022 Central and Eastern U.S. Winter Storm instead of the actual name [[January 14–17, 2022 North American winter storm. There are two problems I see with that: First, how to name if also Canada is involved. Second. mostly the NWS is adding them after the storm has got a wikipedia article, maybe days before, when the last day of the event is still days out. Fun fact from the German WP: Redirects on articles are only acceptable (in case of redirects from synonyms) ifthose synonyms are bolded in the lead of the article redirected to. --Matthiasb (talk) 06:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newest Proposal Yet

#Newest Proposal Yet needs to be closed. 🇺🇦 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:03, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d really wait until ArbCom tells us what to do giving that it is heavily involved with the case. That’ll take a few more days to perhaps a week. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes

Just an alert to editors that I have begun the draft for the list of F4 and EF4 tornadoes. It will be in draftspace for a long time while the charts are slowly getting filled out. Feel free to help. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not sure it's such a good idea, since such a page would be prone to the same issues as the F5/EF5 list, only compounded since there will be rating disputes from both the upper end and lower end. I think it may be overly long as well. As part of a school term project a few years ago, I made a map of all violent tornadoes in the U.S. 1900-2017 (based mostly on Grazulis); there were more than a thousand entries. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it will be long, but I think dividing it up by decades will allow searching to be easier. A lot of F4/EF4s receive a lot of media coverage, some as much or more than F5/EF5s, so I think the list is something needed, just the formatting will need some work. We have a lot of time to figure that out, because the charts won’t be done for a while. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay then. If other editors are on board with this page, I have a copy of Significant Tornadoes, which can be a source for a lot of pre-1950 tornadoes and some disputed ratings. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the "Mean maximum" and "mean minimum"

I updated climate values for Bend, Ore. and Juneau to the newest values, but I was at a loss when updating the mean maximum/minimum values. They couldn't have changed over 10 years by like, 5-7 degrees in either way. Please check if I put the correct values, and, if I'm wrong, please show me where you take them. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Szmenderowiecki: As long as you take your values from NOAA then you should be fine. I notice a link to the Weather Atlas on Bend, Ore which is where I strongly suspect the original values were taken from the first place and isn't a reliable source IMO.Jason Rees (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is also what I understand and I've taken the data from NOAA, but I'm not sure if I've taken the correct values given that I have such a difference. Can you run a check please? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones closed

An arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

MarioProtIV (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from closing, or reopening, any discussion outside their own user talk space. This restriction may be appealed after 12 months.
Chlod (talk · contribs) is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
Elijahandskip (talk · contribs) is warned about using off-wiki platforms in an attempt to win on-wiki disputes.
LightandDark2000 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
MarioProtIV is indefinitely topic banned from pages about weather, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
A set of best practices for leaders and/or moderators of off-wiki chat platforms to consider adopting

For the Arbitration Committee, --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:27, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones closed

Discord links

One of the recommendations that came out of the arbitration case is that off-wiki discussion platforms should be advertised on the relevant project pages. Currently, WP:WPTC provides links to the corresponding IRC channel and Discord server. And, I have just added a Discord link for WP:SEVERE as well. As it is, the WPTC Discord sever has become the de-facto server for WikiProject Weather, so thi project page should probably have a link to the WPTC discord and IRC channel as well. It might also be good to provide a link to the WP:SEVERE server for the sake of completeness, even though it's smaller. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Older weather by year articles

I have came across some articles like Weather of 2006, Weather of 2007, Weather of 2008, Weather of 2009, and Weather of 2010, but the issue with these articles are they don't focus on global aspect, and the focus isn't on the rest of weather but more on non-tropical storms. Some articles might need to be reorganized completely, and separate non-tropical storm content from the parent article. Mario Jump 83! 14:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, there was a series of articles called something like Global storm activity of 2006, which I retitled to just "Weather of XXXX". We need a whole series of articles, including North American winter season articles, European windstorms, Asian winter season, yearly flood/heat wave/etc articles. That way, the yearly weather articles can be a summary for the different types of weather, thus giving it a better global and nuanced perspective. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cyclone Nigel

The merge proposal on Talk:Cyclone Nigel has had no comments in seven months. The consensus appears to be in support of merging, though there is one "What's the point" comment. 🇺🇦 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chicdat: The merger is on my to do list at some point.Jason Rees (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed as stale (with no prejudice to a further request). 🇺🇦 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lint errors in over 150 articles

The Wikipedia community is working on clearing Wikipedia of lint errors, which include font tags no longer supported by HTML. Though these are not yet causing any problems to most editors, they will soon. Recently I noticed that every Atlantic hurricane season article uses the now-obsolete center tags around the timelines and the season-effects tables. It would be great if someone with AWB could remove these from the articles and replace them with {{center}}. Thank you. 🇺🇦 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 10:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Great Blizzard of 1899, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team}[reply]

Climate sections in articles on individual towns

Hello all- Please let me know if there's a better place to post this. I've run across a relatively new editor, 迷斯拉10032号 (contributions), who seems to be on a campaign to add climate sections to many small articles on individual towns, at the moment in France. I find the addition of these sections to be unhelpful and disruptive to the article layouts, and have reverted a number of them (prompting the editor to accuse me of "vandalism"). See my June 20 contributions here for my edits: Special:Contributions/Eric. Can anyone weigh in on how the Project Weather community would view this practice? I have run into this kind of thing before, and do not recall having found definitive guidance to which I can direct editors on such campaigns. Thanks in advance. Eric ^talk 16:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reversions seem to be because of layout issues. The use of the parameter "width-auto" in the template solves those layout issues (and realistically should be defaulted into the template.) Canterbury Tail talk 16:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the layout disruption is a problem. But I also find the implementation of a large climate section in a small article to be unnecessary at best. I could see such a section in articles covering a larger region, but to place one in every stub article on every little village in a country strikes me as overkill. Eric ^talk 16:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave the should as a separate discussion to others, I only know about how to fix it when it is added. It can also be set to collapsed by default which is also useful. Canterbury Tail talk 16:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with it being there, but would ideally like to see it collapsed by default. It certainly skews smaller articles badly. When the weather section ends up as big as the rest of the article, there is something wrong! The weather shouldn't really be 50% of a place's interest. If the template cannot be corrected to do the right thing by default, perhaps it would be helpful to agree on a typical parameter-set that is appropriate? Elemimele (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, according to the definition of reliable sources, data from Météo-France are official data published by the French Meteorological Service and meet the criteria of WP:RS. From now on, all climate data templates will be closed by default and must be manually opened to display. In addition, according to the current evaluation level of the article, any stub-level climate content will no longer be described in long text.

However, if some user insists on removing templates for climate data, please read the specification above at WP:POINT, and all removal of templates by someone above has been rolled back. 迷斯拉10032号 (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came over from ANI. I agree with 迷斯拉10032号 that the climate boxes should be kept (and collapsed to the table header if the article is too short). Article length should not be used as a criteria to determine what content should be kept vs. removed. And even if it is, the fact a solution (making the box collapsible) would have addressed any concerns about article layout. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The climate box is fine for articles on locations if it is specific to the location. I'm not so sure about cases where identical climate data for a region is displayed for all locations in the region. Regardless of that, it must be collapsed by default. For one thing, it really has to be the most ugly template in the entire encyclopedia. Zero^talk 12:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weather of XXXX as Top-importance

Apparently it has become precedent to rate Weather of XXXX as Top importance. I do not see why. For WPTC, we do not rate Tropical cyclones in XXXX as Top-importance, we rate them as high-importance. In the tornadoes task force, Tornadoes of XXXX is only mid-importance. 🇺🇦 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:16, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be top imo. It's a bulk dumping ground rather than cohesive coverage of major events or encyclopedic topics. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Hurricane Irene

I have nominated Hurricane Irene (1999) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible F5/EF5/IF5/T10 Section Clean-Up Discussions

Recently, TornadoLGS did some cleanup on the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes section about possible F5/EF5/IF5/T10 tornadoes, and it is very apparent from past discussions that some tornadoes need to be discussed about removal/addition to the list. The best course of action would be to have a discussion about the current list and probably dictate that a discussion take place for any future additions to the list, that way, controversy can be diminished now and in the future. Because this discussion is going to be a very long discussion, I have begun Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Discussion as a location specifically for discussions about the currently list and any tornadoes that should be added now or anytime in the future. Because this painful and much needed discussion was going to be so large, I broke it out of the normal talk page. Please see that section (Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Discussion) to discuss any tornadoes that are currently on the chart, should be added to the chart, or should be removed from the chart. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR for Wind

I have nominated Wind for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC to use Aon Damage Totals over NOAA Damage Totals

Alerting WP Weather members of an ongoing RfC to use Aon damage totals over NOAA damage totals. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RFC on Aon, particularly in weather related articles Elijahandskip (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god. The point of the RFC is NOT to decide if Aon is more reliable then NOAA, but if it can be used and how it should be used. Stop twisting the truth to get what you want. 159.118.230.50 (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hello, WikiProject Weather,

I was just wondering if Category:WikiProject Tropical cyclones 2018 FT task force articles by quality was still active. I was looking at the categories for WikiProject Tropical cyclones 2018 FT task force articles and only 5 articles had ever been assessed.

If this task force is inactive, I can indicate that on their page. You can always change the status if activity returns to a regular level. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need to assess the rest of the involved articles so anyone who is helping or wants to help can see where work is needed. I will get to that soon. Noah^Talk 20:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Esther Featured article review

I have nominated Hurricane Esther for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015 North American cold wave listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for February 2015 North American cold wave to be moved to February 2015 Eastern North America cold wave. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. Graham (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about mentioning of climate change on July–August 2022 United States floods

Alerting members of WikiProject Weather that an RfC was started about mentioning climate change in the July–August 2022 United States floods article. You can participate in the RfC here. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Matmo-Bulbul listed at Requested moves

An editor has requested for Cyclone Matmo-Bulbul to be moved to Cyclones Matmo and Bulbul. Since this article is of interest to the WikiProject, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). 47.16.96.33 (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2008 Vancouver, Washington tornado for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2008 Vancouver, Washington tornado is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Vancouver, Washington tornado until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

47.21.202.18 (talk) 12:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Typhoon Noru#Requested move 30 September 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Typhoon Noru#Requested move 30 September 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 07:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Alaska Floods

I need help on this article I want it to be on the main page. PopularGames (talk) 12:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Juan Featured article review

I have nominated Hurricane Juan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to original color scale

@Hurricane Noah: It appears pages such as 2020–21 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season still feature the purple C5 color in the timeline, which now makes it inconsistent with the infoboxes and effects table further down. Do you know how to rectify this? United States Man (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The color values would have to be manually changed back. Noah^Talk 23:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gotcha. I'm not as well-versed in that (or those basins), so I'll leave it. United States Man (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific typhoon season colors

Is there any reason we can't use the same color scheme in the West Pacific as every other basin? The similar shades of pink/red for the various typhoon strengths differ from every other basin and are more difficult to distinguish than the "classic" color scale we just reverted back to everywhere else. – atomic𓅊7732 23:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue was that WPAC was changed to include very strong and violent typhoons after we changed the colors initially. Any change to that scale would need approval. I would be okay with it, but just note it would only be temporary until we decide a permanent replacement. Noah^Talk 01:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't follow it super closely but I agree that the change to include very strong and violent typhoons occurred around or during the change to the color scales as a whole, cause I don't recall these different pink colors being used. If so, who picked these colors then and why did that not have to go through an approval process? And how do we start the process to make them match? – atomic𓅊7732 02:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plan

FAR notice

Plans

Tropical Cyclone Intensity Lists Challenge

FAR notice - Katrina meteorological history

2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave

Creating an article on a heatwave

2018 weather topics

Floods in 2018

Non-tropical storms in 2018

Tornadoes of 2018

Droughts and wildfires in 2018

Tropical cyclones in 2018

Discussion

Separate pages for weather disasters by year?

Discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Weather § Template needs a few updates

Proposal to remove Future-Class and Needed-Class from project's template

Space weather task force?

August 2021 North America heat wave

WP Met merger: Hidden category for articles

Weather by Year Timeline Discussion

Discussion

Question

FAR for Tropical Storm Allison

Notability Essay for Weather

Wikipedia:Notability (weather) has an RFC

Need immediate attention

Composite image for yearly weather article.

2021

Tornado Image Discussion

Wildfire Image Discussion

Tropical Cyclone Image Discussion

Flood Image Discussion

Winter Weather Image Discussion

Extratropical Cyclones Image Discussion

Image Consensus Listing

2020

FAR for Tornado

Barnstar

2022 C/B Class Drive Idea

FAR for Surface weather analysis

Weather FARs

FAR Noticed

Noticed from 1–5 December 2021

Noticed from 6–12 December 2021

Discussion

Request on assessment for an article and advices on improving the article's quality

FAR for Numerical Weather Prediction

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox weather event § Contrast issues in category headers

Notability of the Weather by Year articles

Discussion

New Vital Article List

Level 1 Vital Articles

Level 2 Vital Articles

Level 3 Vital Articles

Weather

Atmosphere

Climate

Meteorology

Space weather

Discussion

Keeping the Weather of year fatality charts accurate

FAR for Yellowstone fires of 1988

Can someone create the article for 2021–2022 Asia winter?

End of the Tornado History Project has left numerous dead links

Cirrus cloud

Requested move at Talk:Tornado outbreak of mid-October 2007#Requested move 20 February 2022

Template:Tropical_cyclone_classification

Requested move at Talk:Brookings effect#Requested move 25 March 2022

Does anybody know of some papers / sources?

Discussion about removing the fatalities section on Weather of 2022

Requested move at Talk:2010 New York City tornadoes#Requested move 5 March 2022

Infobox for Weather of 2022 and other such yearly articles

Color issue for people who are monochromatic color blind

Restoring old colors for now until the end of ArbCom

User script to detect unreliable sources

Space weather task force

Organization

Bold titles in article leads for events without formal names

Request for comment: Bolding article titles in lead