The weather data of Khumjung, among some other locations in Nepal, has been a topic of discussion within the Chinese community.
The data presented in Wikipedia aligns with its source (tck), but it is clearly wrong. The original author also believes that the data of Lukla, Nepal, from another source (weatherbase.com), is inaccurate (too cold), but to lesser extent.
You can find some alternative source for climate in Khumjung, namely climate-data.org and weather-atlas.com, which likely are more accurate.
Before we replace the existing data, however, is there a list of "most reliable" websites available to prevent such issues in the future?
@Fireattack, the climate-data.org source looks good, it states explicitly that they use ECMWF data across 1991–2021 (or 1999–2019 for sunshine duration), and they appear to update it yearly. The weather-atlas.com entry points to their "resources" which is a list of every national meteorological agency, but Nepal's doesn't appear to publicly list climate data so I can't confirm where weather-atlas.com actually got their data from and I'm less inclined to believe it passes WP:REPUTABLE. The existing source (tck) is even worse as it doesn't even state where the data is from and their site's T&Cs page is somehow empty. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re weatherbase.com, they claim to use various public domain sources and namedrop NCDC, but there's no mention of where their data for the rest of the world comes from. They also have endorsements from various news sources, but it's all USA-based newspapers. I guess it would be okay to use for the USA but there's not much point when we can just cite NOAA/NCDC/NWS directly. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to come here, since I am currently in a disagreement with Drdpw over if we should solely trust the NHC archive for references, and not use the Wayback Machine for references, or if it is ok to use the Wayback Machine in references that source the NHC archives. What is the general consensus for tropical cyclone articles? I know multiple severe storm articles are riddled with dead NOAA links. A good example is the 2010 Moore–Choctaw EF4 tornado, which is sourced entirely by dead NOAA links right now.
So, for tropical cyclones, is the consensus:
Solely trust that the NHC archive link will never change?
Allow the Wayback Machine to archive the NHC links in references?
There's really no difference as long as the URL used isn't the automatically refreshing one (e.g. this which always gives the most recent advisory). Per Wikipedia:Link rot, Links added by editors to the English Wikipedia mainspace are automatically saved to Wayback Machine within about 24 hours, so there's no actual need to go out of one's way to archive NHC advisories. If the URL is live, there's really no difference whatsoever whether you link the archive or not (perhaps it would take a few milliseconds longer to load the page). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we wouldn't use both by adding a link to the internet archive in the archive url=field, however, there isn't a major need to since most advisories are still on its website with the exception of 1997. Jason Rees (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be the word "total" included at the end of the number of fatalities caused by the tropical cyclone. The debate started at Hurricane Hilary (2023) between me and @ChessEric:. In fact, Cyclone Tracy has a note that tries to prevent people from putting the word "total" at the end due to redundancy. Should it be added? foobarbaz20:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...I didn't know Tracy had that. Was there a change in the way we do things? The only reason I was so hard on it was because I had never seen anything about NOT adding it. If we're moving away from it, then I apologize FooBarBaz. ChessEric20:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. College just started back up for me this week, so I'm a little overwhelmed at the moment. After the incident and ban that I got back in February though, I'm trying to move away from starting conflicts, but this was the second near edit war I've gotten into the past two days (different project though). I almost went off there, so thanks for starting a discussion so I didn't make that mistake.
Getting back on topic, I feel like the "total" wording is necessary because it is important to differentiate direct and indirect death statistics. I can see why you think its redundant though, so maybe the infobox should have the fatalities as "x direct (+y indirect)". That's we do for tornado articles. ChessEric20:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea isn't bad. Maybe I can propose such idea in the infobox, having two parameters to list direct and indirect fatalities (or just reword the fatalitites section) foobarbaz21:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that, but it seems like overkill to me. I guess I've spoken my peace though and will let other people have a chance to say something. ChessEric22:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FooBarBaz and ChessEric: I am sorry to pour cold water on the direct/indirect idea but it would be original research to hardcode the direct/indirect thing in, as not all disasters or countries count the deaths from a weather event the same way. As a result, the word total is probably better for some weather events, while the direct/indirect thing would be better for others.Jason Rees (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I second Jason Rees (talk·contribs) on this. The direct/indirect distinction is minor. A car accident from slick roads? Indirect. You're struck by a fallen tree? Direct. If that tree cuts power, and you die because your oxygen tank stopped? Indirect. I think "total" is fine after whatever number we have. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can all the WikiProject “Precedents” be on some page?
Depending on what topic/article time, there is a lot of unknown/hidden “precedents” that aren’t that well known to users who do not edit those topics often. For example, apparently, some WikiProject Weather/Tropical Cyclone precedent is in place which prevents tropical disturbances from seasonal article, despite high media attention, and in theory, enough to pass WP:GNG.
There is several of these types of “hidden” precedents for tropical cyclones, tornadoes, winter storms, and general types of articles. Can we create a WikiProject sub-page which explains these “precedents” out and where previous discussions related to them can be linked to? This will help solve a lot of headaches and pointless discussion the WikiProject often has, like we just had with Invest 93L. This idea would also help separate ideas which are based on “past experiences” vs actual consensus ideas. I am thinking something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/General guidelines. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think proposing wholesale changes to an issue which has an obvious consensus during which you broke WP:3RR by adding the same content 5 times after being reverted by multiple editors is a good use of editing time. United States Man (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@United States Man: could we write down the general practices in these areas and affirm them as such so that way they can be referenced? I don’t think many changes are needed. We just need to have documentation of our practices. Noah, AATalk00:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That’s literally all I wanted. I didn’t want any changes as United States Man was thinking I did. I only wanted to ask if we could have some place where all the practices, methods, and discussions (like RfCs) conducted by the WikiProject can be listed, so myself as well as anyone can actually see what the general consensus practices are, without being told a basic “they are and trust me” reason. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)00:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Track map migration
@SolarisPenguin, HikingHurricane, Hurricane Noah, and Supportstorm: We cannot be continuing to use any old color scheme maps in violation of the consensus at the RfC. It's that simple. This means we have to treat the tracks as not existing when they only exist in the legacy colors for new pages. Using legacy colors also discourages the making of new-color maps, also in violation of the consensus of that RfC. If we are to do different then we need another discussion to change that consensus; absent that, there is no leeway to restore any legacy colored maps. Jasper Deng(talk)01:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: I look forward to seeing the brand new trackmaps that you are gonna create - I don't have the generator installed on my computer so am forced to use whatever trackmap i can get my hands on.Jason Rees (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed new title convention for Effects of (tropical cyclone) in (region) articles
I know I might be beating a dead horse here but would it be better if we changed Cat 5 from purple to to an ACCESS-friendly pink or so? Preferably because in cases where a storm reached Cat 5 multiple times it looks a bit jarring and offsetting (Freddy earlier this year as an example). Plus, I read that some did have this opinion and would actually make it more similar to other agencies and maps used which have a magenta/pink Cat 5 color (SPC’s high risk is a magenta/pink color) Note that this is not aiming to replace the whole scale again (that was a mess in itself). If no alternative compliant color can be found then we can just leave the purple Cat 5 color. Just wanted to ask this since it’s been in my head for a while but I needed to think it through. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinks have been brought up in the past, however, they tend to not work all that well on the maps. One such case in the last RfC showed very little difference between it and red. There is a much larger difference between the red and the purple which makes them easily distinguishable. Considering how many maps have been redone and the fact that we can't overwrite files, I would want to avoid making any changes that would require a third naming scheme and everything to be redone all over again. I think it's for the best if this topic is just laid to rest. Noah, AATalk13:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support changing the color from purple. I didn’t actually participate in the discussion to change the colors, but I enjoy the purple as it does match closer to NOAA colors (i.e. EF scale), and changing the Cat 5 color also changes the F5/EF5 color. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)14:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tested one bright pink color (#FF00FF) through this website and it didn’t have any issues as it was easily discernible from the C4 color in all cases. Plus we don’t need to create a third name set as we can just upload a new version to the existing "path" images (same vein as the 2000s color changes to the "track" files.) I know purple might work for some people but it really looks jarring especially with long-trackers that switch between C4 and C5 (Irma and Freddy for example) and does not follow the natural progression of colors even on the new scale (something people had issues with in the RfC). Like I said this is only changing the C5 color and not the entire scale again because that was a whole mess I’d like to avoid. I really think this particular issue should be looked at rather then leaving it be. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I had tested this by (hastily) crafting a mock-up of Lee’s track when it first became a C5. The bright pink shows up good against the red on the background. If there’s still an issue with the contrast I can try another color within the range of the bright pink. I want this looked at because as it stands right now, the purple stands out as an unnatural progression of the current scale (since it goes from blue for TD gradually moving to red until C4 before suddenly going back to the other end for C5). Worst-case if no pink is available just instead use a lighter purple (which I think was in one of the original proposals) to at least make the transition from C4 to C5 on maps more smooth, because right now the current C5 color makes it look out of place, and was probably the most contentious element of the discussion (something I read that other users had issues with). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t at all see where you are getting “accessibility-friendly pink”. That’s going to have worse, not better, accessibility than purple, since it is more proximate to the Category 4 color. Purple has always been understood to be higher than red in severity (for example, California’s COVID tiers). Quite frankly, you trying to relitigate this as soon as your topic ban was lifted almost makes me want to lobby for it to be reinstated, because your constant beating of this dead horse was a reason therefore.—Jasper Deng(talk)04:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unclear about what I would support earlier. I said that I would support anything; I have struck that out. I will only support a reasonable idea, which this does not appear to be. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!11:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: I was just trying to raise a legit suggestion (with a compromise) that I had and not try to inflame things. Sorry if you saw it that way. I was not trying to fall back to old habits before the topic ban, just wanted to address something that I saw people raise in the discussions. But I’ll drop it now so as to not make things worse for me. I hope that makes sense. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is happening with the colors on old track maps?
I've been out of the loop for a while (and my editing will be limited for the foreseeable future), but I was checking on some tropical cyclone articles (mainly because I am planning on a small bit comparing Ian and Charley) and I noticed that the track maps for pre-2022 storms are still using the old colors. Having two different color schemes across articles is potentially confusing for readers.
As I remember we discussed several options for doing this:
1. Change existing images (problematic because other language Wikipedias use these colors)
2. Create new images to go along with the old ones (my proposal).
3. Discuss on the matter on Meta.
I was wondering if anything was being done at this point to address the old maps or if we were just going to leave it at two different color schemes. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy maps will be kept as many other language wikis use them. The new maps are being uploaded as separate files to satisfy the RfC. It should have been to no ones surprise that the process of creating thousands of new individual maps and cumulative maps would be slow and incremental. Supportstorm (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there was some discussion about a bot that ultimately didn't move forward. Not sure the reason since I wasn't really following the conversation. Supportstorm (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I wonder if a participant in this WikiProject can help me find a reliable source for the snowiest and least snowy years in the city of Minneapolis (or failing that, in the Twin Cities). I understand snow can be measured by "season" and by "year," which might explain different answers, but I don't understand the ins and outs of measurements. The Minnesota State Climatology Office makes a claim for 2004-05 least and 1991-92 most. CBS News claims 1983-1984 for most. Extreme Weather Watch.com cites NOAA and agrees 1983 for most. Looking at other featured articles didn't help exactly (forex, Boston) and we don't have very many. A featured article review is underway, so this is a chance to get this right. Best wishes, SusanLesch (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have only just seen this and have had a quick look to see what I think, but cannot really help as its out of my comfort zone. Personally, I would lean towards the Minnesota State Climatology Office being more reliable and accurate then CBS or Extreme Weather Watch, since they seem to be the keepers of the keys on a local level as it were. If you really want to get it right though, send an email to nws.twincities@noaa.gov, mention that your are a Wikipedia editor and explain your predicament and see what they come back with. Hopefully, they will be able to push you in the right direction better than I can.Jason Rees (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.. NoahTalk21:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Level 4 Vital Articles
Includes 212 articles from level 3. 212/585 articles listed for level 4. The goal is for the article count to reduce to 7.5% over time as the project's article count increases. Additional articles will not be added until the amount listed is lower than 7.50%.
Discussion
This is a reproposal of the original project vital article list from back in 2022 with a few new additions. We need to have a vital list for the project as a whole. We had one for tropical cyclones specifically but not for global weather. Please list any additions/removals you feel are needed at level 3 directly below my comment here. NoahTalk21:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Level 1 ratification
Closing this one and starting the list of vital articles since level 1 is the smallest and least controversial of all the levels. No additions were suggested and no issues were raised with the proposed articles after one week's time. Level two's discussion can marinate for some time longer. NoahTalk22:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Level 3 ratification
Consensus exists to implement the proposed articles as vital articles at the third tier. Discussion has been open for 16 days and all opposed articles were removed. Noah, AATalk01:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oppose for now: Atmosphere of Venus is linked twice (Climate of Venus redirects to Atmosphere of Venus). Climate of Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune redirects to the planet articles and are not individual articles. For sure, the duplicate Venus link needs to be removed before ratification could take place, but we need to discuss whether or not redirects for Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune are ok before ratification. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did see that it was specifically stated that some articles that do not exist but are needed are listed here, correct? Also, it is possible to oppose specific articles rather than the entirety since it would be rather unproductive for it to be an all or nothing sort of deal. It's simply listed as one section since it would be cumbersome to have 100+ subsections for each individual article nomination. NoahTalk16:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could get passed the Climate of Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune and be ok to ratify those. But I would be opposed to having the “Climate of Venus” ratified as a vital level 3 article, since it just would redirect to another vital level 3 article. Basically, an excess and completely not-needed thing. Remove that and this is a support to ratify the list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)17:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am currently working on a topic that will eventually describe the history of weather system names, not sure what format it will take yet, but its important that we chuck that topic in the vital articles lists since its one of the primary reasons we are all here.Jason Rees (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only nominated articles under weather for cyclogenesis and TC for the time being. Feel free to make further nominations. Noah, AATalk00:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support all but Tropical cyclone structure - I agree the article should exist, but it should be created before becoming a vital article. I also added a few more, including Nina under tropical cyclones (it killed 229,000 people, including a dam collapse that caused majority of the deaths), 1931 China floods (which included a few tropical cyclones, also very deadly), the 1887 Yellow River flood (another deadly flood), the 1972 Iran blizzard (deadliest blizzard on record), the 2003 European heat wave (70,000 deaths), the Daulatpur–Saturia tornado (deadliest tornado worldwide), and the Vargas tragedy, which killed more than 10,000 people from floods and landslides in Venezuela.
Also, after adding my new suggestions, it made me think about how to build out the vital list. We don't want it to be too US-centric, where we happen to have a lot of information about deadly tornadoes and other weather events. But we also wouldn't necessarily want to dominate the list with tropical cyclones affecting the Philippines, China, Bangladesh, and India, because those countries are very natural disaster-prone, and if it's the 20th deadliest event in a country, is it really that vital in terms of worldwide significance? With that in mind, I did not propose adding any additional heat waves other than the 2003 European heat wave, which is well-documented to have killed 70,000 people. Now, perhaps because heat waves aren't named and they are longer events, we don't have some significant heat waves listed on Wikipedia in general. We have the 2010 Russian wildfires, which killed 50,000 people related to drought, wildfires, and heat waves, so perhaps that should be listed? I'm not sure what the lower cutoff should be, and with how much respect we should have to various countries, regions, and weather types. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I was thinking this morning about adding it. While I’m not sure if the deadliest in a basin is automatic grounds for Level 4 importance (AUS and SPAC’s deadliest only number in the hundreds), think these fatality numbers are up there with Haiyan, not to mention the damage in Greece. So I’d support adding Daniel, provided we figure out some sort or rhyme or reason for what else to add. I also added the Carrington Event, the largest geomagnetic storm recorded (thus top-importance for space weather). Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well... Libya's government stated the death toll WILL exceed 10,000 today and they also said 100,000+ are still missing. Their expectation is for sharp toll increases. This will be at least Hurricane Mitch level if not higher. It's really looking bleak. Noah, AATalk22:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need to work on filling out the other ones as time allows. Please see the list here for articles at levels 3.. the goal is to fill level 4 out under as many level 3 articles as possible. This is basically to achieve balance rather than it being focused solely on specific ones, although most will be likely be severe disasters that took place. I would ask that any nominations be put under their level 3 article here (as I did for TC and cyclogenesis) since I have to copy everything over once articles are confirmed via discussion. Noah, AATalk02:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I tried thinking of specifical examples for certain topics, like Tropical Storm Vamei for tropical cyclogenesis. I moved some Level 4 topics and organized them a bit more. I added the Braer Storm, at least until someone makes an article for the October 2022 SPAC cyclone. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One small detail could be a background section, for information such as estimating intensity for storms, and maybe the context of the Southern Ocean. It's interesting that the cyclone is in the body of water only officially recognized within the last few decades, so the term might be a bit foreign. You have a good start to the article. I just want to make sure it makes sense in the context of Earth, to someone who barely has an idea of what weather, or Antarctica is. A global weather project needs to treat all of its subjects equally, whether in the United States or Thurston Island. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more, with rationales for all of them hidden if you look at the end window. I added the most active season in every other basin. At this point I wanna make sure we even hit our target for the number of articles, without simply being a list of the deadliest events, thus resulting in tons of older disasters, or perhaps too many topics for a given area. I tried to limit the number of events in China, India, and the United States, so I didn't add Johnstown Flood or 2013 North India floods, but perhaps they should've.
Also, I have to say, I'm not sure about Hurricane Harvey. It tied Katrina for damage value, and it was the wettest American storm, but I don't know if it deserves a place ahead of another event that was perhaps deadlier and not American. I also note that we have both 2005 and 2020 Atlantic hurricane seasons, but I'm not sure we should have 2005 at this point, since 2020 was the more active one. So unless anyone disagrees, I'm going to remove Harvey and 2005 AHS, for reasons of recentism and being too US-centric.
I removed Hurricane Harvey and 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, and added List of the deadliest tropical cyclones and the deadliest floods, plus the 2022 Southern Ocean cyclone, given that it was the strongest ever extratropical cyclone. IDK how many other lists to add - retired cyclones? The strongest cyclones? The costliest cyclones? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (shrug emoji) If we did have the list of costliest TC's, then that would warrant Harvey being included, as the (tied for) costliest American hurricane (unadjusted for inflation). Not sure if that's getting too specific for a rationale. Also, given how long this page is, perhaps we should have a task force specifically for the vital articles? Both in terms of nominating articles for the vital list for level 4 and 5, and eventually the maintainence/improvement of said articles. Maybe have editing drives for a different vital article every two weeks or so. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minor update, the list is up to 86, which (in addition to the 212 from level 3) brings the total to 298 out of 585. That means we still need 287. I don't want the remaining 287 to just be the whole list of the deadliest cyclones (which would skew toward India and Bangladesh), or every single retired storm (which would skew toward Australia) I want to remain methodical with what we add. Do we want to add an example article for each of the other topics in level 3? I don't think subtropical cyclone needs one, not when they're usually an insignificant event in the context of weather in general. Similar for fog. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since the end of the colour RfC in February the progress in converting old maps have been very slow since the bot request apparently fell through. We need to update these maps ASAP as dozens of pages still use the old maps and therefore violating the RfC, and subject to removal (@Jasper Deng:already did this when several 2023 Atlantic maps weren't compliant a few weeks ago - which was soon fixed). @HikingHurricane, AveryTheComrade, Cyclonebiskit, and Supportstorm: As the most frequent users of the track-maker (aside from JD) and subsequently the current 2023 tracks, I strongly implore any of you guys to consider starting this soon to ensure we are compliant. I considered doing this myself since no one else has really done so, but alas I think the more frequent users of the track maker are better suited for this task, primarily because installing the track maker on a MacBook Pro (which I use) is quite a hassle (even trying Ubuntu method as I wrote this which apparently doesn't want to open now - joy!). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we’re running out of options we might not have much else to turn to. Partially the disconnect between the new tracks and the infobox and timeline changes which were added immediately after the RfC finished, we’ve lagged on the track portion for a while and it’s crucial we do something to make this go quicker (personally if you ask me I would’ve waited to change the timeline colors and infobox color headers until after we had the maps ready, so that things would be nice and smooth. However I know time was of the essence during the RfC and changing to compliance was probably the foremost thing in most people’s mind then). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for updating the existing maps. All I'll ask is if can we first upload the new track maps before removing and replacing the old maps? — Iunetalk20:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JD has done so I believe in the diff I linked with 2023 Atlantic. A starting point should IMO be the summary maps as that’s the first thing people see when they load the page (but for now they have to stay there even with incorrect colors, as leaving it blank just is not an option here). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I feel that just randomly removing the tracks and not replacing them with the path image is vandalism and disrupting the wiki to prove a point. We all knew back in February that the track maps were not going to be replaced overnight and I note a tracking category has now been set up to make sure we know which pages use the old style maps.Jason Rees (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not random. Its limited to storms occurring after the RfC. What's disruptive is inserting additional old-colored maps after the RfC, in clear defiance of the consensus. We already are grandfathering in maps that occurred before the RfC. Please assume good faith.--Jasper Deng(talk)00:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: Did I go back to the future when I saw @MarioProtIV: remove the maps from 2020, 2021 and 2022 AHS earlier without replacing them with the paths and threaten to do more? Mo I didn't think so either and those maps would have been inserted before the RFC.Jason Rees (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees: My incentive for that was to hopefully at least spur some action into replacing these maps since its been a slow process. I used JD’s rationale with 2023 to those three seasons, and it seems to have some progress (with 2022’s summary map being updated now). I wasn’t planning to go back further but wanted to at least do the most recent ones. In my summary I did say I applied WP:BOLD with this and in one case of reversion, raised this discussion I made similar to JD did while reverting a similar reversion several weeks ago. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV: I'm in agreement with Jason, the action of removing track maps was a clear violation of WP:POINT. This is going to be a very slow process given the lack of help from prominent track uploaders and an inability to acquire bots. Be mindful that your topic ban for disruptive behavior in weather articles was only recently lifted. If Jasper did the same exact thing in another instance, I missed it and my same sentiment of removal (not replacement) being POINTY applies. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit: Fair. Didn’t read that one first and now I wish I didn’t remove those improperly. But as I stated before, in my opinion we should have waited until the maps were ready to change timelines, infobox headers and statistics. Because as of right now with the slow process of this, a discrepancy is going to exist which may end up confusing some readers. I don’t know how the conversion worked in 2005/06 when the colors were changed for the first time because that was so long ago but I have to imagine it was probably just as slow as this process. It would help though if @Supportstorm: dropped his vendetta (not sure if that’s the correct wording here) against the new maps since he’s one of the most frequent users of the track maker. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV: A very strong word of advice to you and other project members would be to tread carefully around the whole issue of the colours, since the whole subject has proven to be like opening pandoras box or a can of worms.Jason Rees (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous; I had to revert three such edits just now. Thus I've requested an edit filter; see the below section and please comment on the proposal.--Jasper Deng(talk)09:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JD, please reframe from stating I am overriding the RfC as you did here in your edit filter proposal or putting blame on me that the RfC is not being followed on wiki in future discussions. I have not replaced any tracks since the RfC closed. If no one is willing to upload new tracks then step up and do the work. Supportstorm (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to point fingers but I gotta agree with JD. The process is slow and as you’re the primary user of the track maker, it would be best if you help update the other tracks since as @Jason Rees: explained, people don’t have the track maker itself for various reasons or don’t update as frequently as possible (which then leads to those edits JD just mentioned about users trying to add your maps onto new storms - see Lidia). This “stonewalling” (not sure if that’s the best term) seems to be entirely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and this notion of “If no one is willing to upload new tracks then step up and do the work” just falls under this. It would be really nice to finally get the older maps updated according to RfC. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Supportstorm: Whether you intend it or not, your creation of the maps has had the effect of fillibustering; one reason new maps aren't being made is that others see it as acceptable to use your maps. You cannot disentangle yourself from that, and your comments on your Commons talk page show your intent pretty well. The comment stands.--Jasper Deng(talk)21:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not accept your comments nor blame for the slow process of the map conversion. I am not the only user who is uploading tracks regularly so to single me out is wrong. Regardless I allocate my time to what I want to contribute, of which still serves a purpose in improving other Wikis, see WP:VOLUNTEER. Supportstorm (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Supportstorm:WP:DAW. You are the only one who has steadfastly produced legacy-colored maps only, and the empirical evidence says people will reach for the low-hanging fruit, so it's squarely on you. I wouldn't be so harsh if you explicitly marked the maps in the description as not for English Wikipedia use and not ACCESSIBLE-compliant, but you have not. The fact that an edit filter needs to be considered is bad enough.--Jasper Deng(talk)22:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll bite, I wanna help with the backlog. How again do I download the track software? What's the link to everything? It'll be easier once everything is moved over, and I wanna help with that process. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A-class has largely been a forgotten relic, with most favoring GA and FA which themselves are attracting fewer and fewer participants. I attempted to revive the A-class process, however, there really isn't a good base of reviewers to keep the process maintained. A-class is not something that should be assessed by a single editor per WP:A-Class. Given that there haven't been any proper A-class reviews in over 2 years (even then we only had a few completed), I believe it is time we deprecate A-class and remove it from the WikiProject assessment. A-class would be folded into either B-class or GA depending on whether or not the article is a Good Article. This affects 128 articles currently. Noah, AATalk00:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remove A class per request. This class is a relic in almost every WikiProject, I do not think weather project is the exception (summoned by feedback request bot).--ReyHahn (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a good usage for A-class, even if it's not used that much. I believe the process should be simplified, that A-class should be an additional review after the GAN stage. It functions as a second set of eyes, which is useful before going for FAC, hopefully minor pedantic issues will be caught. Since a good article focuses on the prose and the comprehensiveness (plus sourcing), an A-class review is going to be nitpicks, making sure there isn't too much jargon, that sourcing is all correct, images are properly licensed... basically apply the FA criteria to an article in anticipation of a future FA run. That means that a user can't unilaterally raise an article from GA to A-class, unless there is a review, and that means the reviewer shouldn't be the person who did the GA review (or the writer). Assuming all of that, I think we can keep the A-class. It's not meant to be used that much, because in theory the article should be able to pass a featured article review (unless both the GA and the ACR missed something big). It exists as a stepping stone, even if it's not used much. Therefore I oppose this proposal. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: unless the project-wide A class criteria are changed, A single reviewer can’t promote the article. It says that at least two uninvolved editors are required to get a promotion. Much of WP has done away with A class since peer review exists. IMO we don’t need multiple processes for the same thing. Noah, AATalk22:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I’m saying is that WE can’t do that. At least not on our own. It would take consensus from WP as a whole to change the A class criteria to make it require only one uninvolved editor. Local consensus can't trump project-wide consensus. If you look at Wikipedia:Content_assessment#Statistics, you will see how few A Class articles exist project-wide, being even rarer than FAs. Over 5% exist within this project alone. While it is true that A is technically a stepping stone between GA and FA, I will tell you that outside editors have absolutely no respect for the rating and are quite skeptical whenever they see it because it is not a WP-facilitated review process. I can attest to this because I tried to get top icons implemented for A-class and it got snow opposed for that reason. Given that WP doesn't really even believe in the rating anymore outside WP:MILHIST which has an established and active review process, why should we continue using it? Additionally, A-class reviews tend to be a very back-alley sort of deal that is poorly advertised and doesn't offer much timely feedback. It would honestly be better for us to focus on sending articles towards WP:PR where they can potentially get feedback from a number of individuals, including those from outside the project which could honestly be quite helpful. FA and PR have been suffering from a lack of reviewers so I think the best option for the encyclopedia is to move to using those official processes and contributing via quid pro quo as possible. While an editor doesn't get to claim a new status for their article, it would be prepared for a FAC which is what matters most. Noah, AATalk23:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Damn I've been around Wikipedia too long to not know that was baked into the A-class policy about the multiple reviews. Well, I don't wanna be one to hold back progress and efficiency. Especially seeing as it's not really being used, I think it could better incentivize the current A-class articles to become future featured articles. Maybe we could have a task force of editors identify the best of the good articles (which would likely include the current A-class), and apply the A class or FA criteria. Not that doing such a task force should be tied to this proposal, I just like the idea of a bit of a FA incubator, and by getting rid of the A-class, we're kind of losing that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh I think a whole reassessment of all the GAs is in store considering the age of many of them. A task force does seem like a good idea, however, I do agree that's for another time. At least with unofficial reviews or a peer review, there isn't a set time limit like there is for other quality reviews. The amount of people going for FAs seems to have slown to a trickle due to lack of interest from newer editors and the regulars being busy. There seems to just be a lack of interest in getting articles promoted to both GA and FA when it comes to newer editors. Most people seem to be casual editors rather than ones who will write and shepard an article all the way. Noah, AATalk01:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of A-class. It's hard enough to find reviewers for GA and FA already. It's better to simplify the process and focus resources --Ita140188 (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I’ve found very little helpful about A-class. I have been attempting to prepare an article I created to nominate for FA status for a while and have found comments from other users and peer reviews have provided much more assistance than a two-year long request I put in for an A-class review that was never answered. It really is a defunct system, at least within this project, and most of our GAs can make the progression to FAs without the A-class step. JayTee⛈️ 02:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support deprecation of A-class as a presently unnecessary stepping stone between GA and FA. Editors seeking to jump the gap should go to peer review, which is more active and has a more diverse group of reviewers (i.e. non-WPWX) akin to what one would experience at FAC. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support I honestly don't even know what the A-class is for. I've even tried to get articles I've made to the A-class, but could not find information about how to do so. If you aren't even using it for anything, it can go. ChessEric21:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Future FAC's, former A-class articles, and other quality content
Now that A-class has been eliminated, that leaves 1,298 good articles in the weather project, of which 258 (or 19.87%) are featured articles. On a related note, the recent FA stats were published, and there has actually been a net loss of featured meteorology articles in the last two years. I'd like to discuss maybe starting a collaboration toward identifying high-quality A-class articles, doing the spot checks for the FA criteria, and identify prospective featured articles. It is important that we don't canvass for votes - this discussion is merely about collaborating toward new FA's. Anyone interested? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello project members! Note that per WP:PIQA, all the class ratings are being harmonised across different WikiProjects so we are looking to remove any non-standard classes like Current-class and SIA-class from your project banner. Would you like to keep track of current events in a different way, perhaps by using a parameter |current=yes or a new parameter |status=current which would then populate a category. Alternatively it could just be removed and then the articles in Category:Current-Class Weather articles would inherit the quality rating from other projects on the talk page. For the SIA-class, we could perhaps automatically reclassify them as List-class if that would be acceptable to you? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: The reason the project uses current and future class is not to keep a track of current articles, but because the season is ongoing or the weather system hasnt dissipated. Maybe its time we had a look at the classes we do use.Jason Rees (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I BOLDly disabled needed class since we aren't using it and never have since before this project was created. I had had the idea of using needed for redirects where an article should be created so these items would be categorized but it never happened and whenever I did put needed class, other WPWX editors would simply revert it back to redirect class anyways. The other classes (besides future and current) all have a decent amount of pages within them. If you disagree, it can always be re-enabled but we would have a decent amount of work to do in identifying articles that need to be created and then tagging them as such. Noah, AATalk11:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink and Jason Rees: What are your thoughts on this? I wouldn't be opposed to either option for needed-class. Either we keep it disabled or I can re-enable and this would take the place of lists of articles needing to be created. Noah, AATalk11:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that SIA class should be reclassified as List. As for current, IDK, it's hard to assess a season article while it's ongoing. A while back, there became an informal rule that a season article would be only be start-class if there is written prose for every tropical cyclone. Without current class, then there might be attempts to go for GA status while the season is active, which would make it too unstable. Perhaps then, if we got rid of current class (since it is only a few articles), there could be a rule that it isn't eligible for GA class or higher (much like you wouldn't expect a featured article for a future Olympic event). That way, the current season article could be rated C-class while it was active (assuming every storm had a section, was well-written and comprehensive, and was sourced). That could be an easy way of identifying the faults in current season articles, like when a section is empty, or has too few sources. I'm going to bring up a possible solution to my concerns about getting rid of current-class (similar to the discussion about removing A-class) - we could have a task force for the current articles: the current seasons, plus any currently active cyclones with an article. If such a task force was set up, then I would be ok with getting rid of SIA, current, and future class. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: I had the smart of idea of making a template for SIA talkpages and I believe most were tagged with the template so if they are converted to lists, nothing should be lost as long as all of them are tagged and remain that way. There are at least 40ish pages not tagged currently so those would need to be tagged. Noah, AATalk20:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent foresight Noah! For what it's worth, I still don't think we need almost any of the individual SIA's, and that they should all be merged into the individual storm names by letter, like Storm Daniel being merged into all of the D storm names. That way those would all be in individual lists, which could then be eligible for featured list if all of the sourcing is there, and it truly has every storm (including European windstorms, heat waves, unofficial subtropical cyclones, and other names for storms, even floods and storms named after saint days). I know, I'm thinking ahead, as usual, but it's something I want to consider if we go down this process of streamlining things. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Outside editors opposed big lists like that when we tried to get that implemented last time. Tbf video games have lists of that nature so I'm not sure what their issue was. Noah, AATalk21:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just chiming in since I had one of my List of storms named X creations sent to draftspace and I don't think this has been brought up before – since set index articles are considered a subset of list articles (and not disambiguation pages), the same standards for sourcing content in lists apply to SIAs, meaning the descriptions of individual storms, retirements, name meanings, etc. would all need to be cited. I suppose a barebones list with only the names and designations would not need references as long as all the entries are wikilinked but I'm not particularly sure. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I think it could be a good thing enforcing the citations. Right now I'm working on Draft:Weather of 2005, where I'm making sure there is a citation for every single death. I'm starting with tropical cyclones, and I realized that some of the citations and info for the 2005 PTS has barely been touched since it was active. That same problem happens in these giant lists, as well as older seasons that don't get the attention required to get them cited well and comprehensive. That doesn't mean get rid of the articles, mind you. It's just something to consider as a next step to the problem that is eliminating the SIA category, which of course doesn't need to be halted just because I'm going on a tangent. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SIA-class has now been removed. These will now classify as List-class. Just waiting on your decision re Current- and Future-class. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any further comments on this? FWIW I just added a future parameter to the WikiProject Eurovision template so they can keep track of future events. Would be easy to add |future=yes or |current=yes to the few articles that use this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that Severe weather, 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 — MusikBottalk00:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]
This timeline (one example) as it is is presenting FALSE data by showing Issa as a 25-30 knot depression (the blue color) because the best track lists a 50 knot subtropical depression. I propose changing the color to match the wind intensity for every SWIO and ATL subtropical cyclone (the two before NHC changed their policy) while retaining the RSMC status of subtropical depression and subtropical cyclone within the infobox and timeline. Please see Module:Storm_categories/sandbox#Full_list_of_available_values with the new sd2, sd3, sd4, and subtropicalcyclone2 statuses. sd2 has the MTS color, sd3 has the STS color, sd4 has the TC color, and subtropicalcyclone2 has the Cat 1 color. This should cover all currently observed wind ranges. Noah, AATalk00:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question is the problem with the subtropical depression label or that Issa was labeled as a subtropical depression despite max winds that might have qualified it as a tropical storm? If this change is made, would it end up coloring subtropical depressions with windspeeds lower than 55 mph/89 km/hr incorrectly? Looking at 2021–22 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season § Subtropical Depression Issa, it seems like the naming/labeling of Issa is more the issue. What other storms would be impacted by this change? I think I see where I got confused... This proposal would shift the color based upon windspeed despite the name of the story remaining "Subtropical Depression X", correct? If so, Support. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for "Subtropical Depression" in the article title, gives these results (which wouldn't capture subtropical depressions that don't have a redirect):
@Tcr25:Hurricane-force subtropical cyclone trackThe label of "subtropical depression" despite the wind speed isn't the issue. The coloring of the label is the problem, especially on timelines since in cases like this it displays inaccurate wind information. The short answer to your second question is no. We would manually change the legend of timelines to display the subtropical depression at the appropriate wind speed. In the case of the infobox bar, the status would remain "Subtropical Depression (MFR)". The color sd is the current subtropical depression color. That one would be used for subtropical depressions that are 25-30 knots. sd2 is the MTS color and would be used for subtropical depressions that are 35-45 knots. sd3 is the STS color and would be used for 50-60 knot subtropical depressions. The sd4 is the TC color and would be used for anything 65 or over (unless something in the future comes up that would warrant another change). Similarly, the subtropicalcyclone2 color is the Cat 1 hurricane color and would be used for the two subtropical cyclones in the Atlantic that were at/above 65 knots before the NHC changed its policy on subtropical cyclones to automatically assume they become tropical at such an intensity. Any other subtropical systems outside those two in the Atlantic as well as the SWIO basin are outside the scope of this proposal since no changes are needed elsewhere. The other storms you mention would also be affected by this proposal (other than the SD 22 '05 which isn't included). Not sure if there are more subtropical depressions prior to 1998-99 (would have to check). The goal here is to keep the label itself the same, but simply change the coloring to match the intensity of storms that were entirely tropical. Our track maps already do this for the SSHWS since the subtropical cyclone is just indicated by a square. If one were produced with the MFR's scale, it would use the appropriate wind intensity color with a subtropical square. Does this answer your questions? Noah, AATalk14:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As this issue only affects one basin, it would have been better if this issue had been discussed first rather than going straight to an RFC, as the WMO RA I TCC challenged MFR over the subtropical depression designation at last years extraordinary meeting who were told to bring it up in this years full RA I TCC. As a result, I oppose making any changes at the moment to the colours.Jason Rees (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jasper Deng: It is false data... We are presenting the storm in the timeline as being a 25-30 knot storm based on our legend which is not the same as what the MFR is saying. They stated that Issa was 50 knots. That clearly is US presenting false information there. This has nothing to do with the subtropical depression designation but rather what color is being used to depict it within timelines. Also, are you opposed to the two Atlantic ones getting the Cat 1 color in the timelines for their winds and in the infobox status bar? The status wouldn't change in the infobox oc, just the color used. Noah, AATalk20:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The official classification by the agency overrules what the number would suggest. For example, a 35-knot remnant low is still a 35-knot remnant low. Most commonly, a 55-knot tropical low is still a tropical low for BoM basins.--Jasper Deng(talk)20:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a TS-colored triangle on the track map. Why can't the infobox reflect what the wind speed actually was? A hurricane-force subtropical cyclone = Cat 1 square on track map but TS color in the infobox/timeline. How does that make sense? As long as we are stipulating a specific windspeed for the subtropical depression that doesn't match what it actually produced, we are running afoul here. We would literally need a disclaimer stating what you exactly said above but then again WP doesn't allow disclaimers. Something has to give here. Another potential option that would be easier to implement would be to just make subtropical depression show up as white or some other pre-programmed color in both timelines and infoboxes with no wind speed indicated in the former. That would solve the false data issue and be a temporary fix until the rest is sorted out by the WMO. Noah, AATalk20:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then the only other option is to do as I said and give them their own timeline color without any winds specified. It wouldn't be difficult to do at all. Noah, AATalk13:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Important Alerts For The WikiProject (NOAA Copyright Decision on Commons)
On the Commons (Where 99.99% of the images used on Wikipedia come from), there was two important and recent deletion discussions which everyone in the WikiProject should be aware of:
In short, at the present moment, it still seems to be undecided whether NOAA-webpage images are automatically public domain, and the commons seems to be in a disagreement on that within the last few months. Just wanted to make sure the WikiProject was aware of these 2 discussions and what they mean for NOAA-public domain images. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, it was recently raised at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#New subsections for some very populated topics that there was a chunky subsection at Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences#Meteorology. These subsections should strike a balance between being overly small (useless) and overly long (unreadable), say ballpark between 25 and 100-200 articles. In splitting this up, I noticed a few oddities, such as Outflow (meteorology) and Outflow boundary being in different subsections, and the small (6) "Meteorological observatories" subsection containing items that were not meteorological observatories. There is a "Weather" subsection which does not seem to have a clear identity, and the current "Climate" entries seem ill-defined as well.
Putting aside the extensive lists of weather events (pretty clearly defined and easy to understand), some input would be appreciated for useful ways to break up the remainder (currently Climate, Climate change, Meteorological observatories, Storm sciences, Weather, as well as the currently empty overall Meteorology" subsection which can hold items that don't fit into a child subsection well) into reasonably sized subsections whose titles would be understandable to a casual reader. Best, CMD (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may be dumb, but I scoured dozens of pages of the internet for any official data on SST for Le Touquet, a seaside resort in N France, but I could find nothing at all. I know Méteo France tracks SST but I see nothing like the average air temperature data from there.
There is this page which claims to give sea temperatures and they even provide measurement data, but no idea where they take it from, what period does it refer to (1991-2020? 1981-2010?), so rather unreliable.
The best I can recommend is NOAA 5km SST climatology with files available at this website. I don't know how it would compare to Meteo France data. The link to the relevant software to use these files is also provided on the same page. DJ Cane (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Need for a standard that will make "Tornadoes in year" pages less U.S.-centric
Hi all,
A process should be started to resolve the U.S. centricism in articles listing tornadoes by year (ex: Tornadoes of 2023). As it stands, these artices have significant U.S. bias written in ways that can't be justified by tornado climatology. It is true, of course, that the United States has a large number of the world's tornadoes as well as a significant amount of English-language content about tornadoes including public domain maps and data from NOAA. I do not think, however, that this is a justification for U.S. centricism in lists that are global in nature which I think is manifest in the following ways:
Images in infoboxes being public domain maps and charts from NOAA/NWS relating only to the United States.
Infobox datapoints specifically listing U.S. values rather than global values.
Each month of the year specifically noting how many tornadoes were observed in the United States, often without mentioning tornadoes in other regions, before the sub-sections giving details for specific events.
Community consensus is obviously important in determining how articles and lists are written. I don't claim to have the holy grail in fixing this, but here are some thoughts I have that can help us overcome this problem:
Using Commons images of tornadoes from the relevant year instead of NOAA/NWS charts in infoboxes.
Possibly a single image, but could be a collage similar to what is present on the articles for some cities (ex: Seattle).
Not specifically calling out the number of tornadoes observed in the U.S. each month, this is more appropriate for the U.S. specific articles.
Acknowledging that, at a global scale, these lists may never be complete due to lack of data and using Template:Dynamic list.
Expanding the navbox for that year to include not just links to outbreaks but also links to relevant lists, including the global list, U.S. lists, and whatever others for that year are created.
This is also an opportunity to have links to the previous and following year in the navbox.
I hope we can get a good dialogue going to resolve this issue systemically and I am interested to hear thoughts, ideas, and opinions from everyone else. Obviously with the United States having the majority of sources, tornadoes in the United States will constitute the majority of content. That does not mean that we can't make these pages more global in scope. If we can come to a consensus, that should be written in a specific Manual of Style page to be readily referenced (and changed when appropriate). DJ Cane (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be inappropriate to turn this into an RfC? I agree that’s probably the best way to go to get the best discussion. I’ve been an editor for a long time but this is the first time I’ve initiated such a discussion so originating this process is new to me. DJ Cane (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maintaining a global focus is important. What about instead of going by each month, it listed it by continent first? This way, Africa, Australia/Oceania, Asia, and Europe would go ahead of North America. And then by continent we could split it by month if needed. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the listing by country idea is that the United States would still dominate the article AND would get its own article REGARDLESS. The idea of making the main tornado pages less-U.S. centric is correct in theory until you realize that most tornadic events, especially significant ones, occur in the United States. Plus, the weather agencies, news organizations, and storm spotters within this country have made it a point to locate and document every tornado that takes place throughout the year along with damage cost, death toll, etc. Other than European countries to an extent, no other country does that, and the only reason why some tornadoes are even documented in some countries is through the use of video and/or when a severe storm leaves a damage path that is obviously tornadic. Additionally, that idea may work for modern years, but it doesn't work for earlier ones; tornado event documentation in other countries (excluding the United States and Europe of course) is essentially NONEXISTENT throughout the 20th Century unless the event caused major (and I mean MAJOR) impacts. As a result, those articles would, again, literally just be about the United States and Europe anyway. This is why most of the tornado info from outside Europe and the United States goes in the country list pages we already have (i.e. List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks in Asia and List of Southern Hemisphere tornadoes and tornado outbreaks, although I will admit that those articles need some serious clean-up as info normally just gets chucked in there without sourcing IF we remember its even there). To put it simply, I just don't think that there is enough information (and reasoning) to justify such a change; that's something that could be done in the much larger "Weather of XXXX year" articles.
The presentation of the article is also a problem. Again, most tornadoes, especially significant ones, happen in the United States anyway, but most of the regularly observed tornado count for each month ALSO come from the United States. In fact, I kind of see what the whole stink with the March 2008 tornado list page from earlier in the year was about now; listing every tornado event from every region of the world is literally IMPOSSIBLE. The Template:Dynamic list would be a good idea in that sense, but that information is already noted in the lead, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the main tornado pages prior to 2000s. However, I will admit that maybe we should add how many other tornadoes (that we know of that is) occurred in other countries. I will also note that prior to me coming on, the number of United States tornado reports was also included with each month, which I eventually removed since I found that confusing and unnecessary. The United States listed tornado number, however, is mostly for record-keeping purposes; most global tornado records come from the United States since the number of tornadoes that touch down and are documented in this country in any given year is more than all of the countries in the world COMBINED. A compromise would be to say how many tornadoes occurred across the globe for a certain month and which country had the most...okay maybe not that second one. The reason why we try to limit the amount of sub-sections for other countries is due to the fact that most of the tornado events from other countries tornado are isolated and weak (a lot of them are just waterspouts moving ashore to be totally honest). We are currently trying plug in more and more information about tornadoes in the main and list pages, so isolated events like that just don't fit in. Also, I'm going to say this right now; I'm not in favor of photo collages in the infobox for two reasons: (1) most public domain photos are from the United States so that's not solving the U.S.-centric problem and (2) the amount of arguing I've seen about which photos should be included for INDIVIDUAL tornadoes is bad enough; we don't need debates over collages too because NO ONE will be satisfied.
At the end of the day, what I'm saying is that there are ways to make these pages less U.S.-centric, but that's not easy to do given the documentation habits of other countries besides the United States and European countries. There is one thing that I do want to clarify though; what do you mean by adding relevant lists in the navbox? As I mentioned earlier, we do have such lists in the "See also" section. ChessEric20:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of that. That's why I suggest listing the events by continent as the first subdivision. That way, if we only know of one African tornado in a given year, OK, put it with the African tornadoes. Ditto Asian and Europe. When you go back far enough, yea, there might not be any recorded tornadoes outside of the US. In that case, the "Tornadoes of 1910" would probably skip having the continent subdivision. Imagine if the article was formatted like tropical cyclones, and instead of basins, it goes by continent. Sure, in some years, there might be a lot more in one particular area. Having an intentional continental split would acknowledge the heavy bias toward the United States, rather than letting it get hidden when we list all of the tornadoes by month. Any given April or May is going to have many more events in the US. As an example, take Tornadoes of 2021's section on "May", which opens with "There were 259 tornadoes confirmed in the United States in May. This was the first time in recorded history that no F3/EF3+ tornadoes touched down in May, despite near average activity." Automatically, I expect it is going to be biased towards the US, even though there were events in Japan, Poland, China, India, and Canada. If the article was structured by continent instead, then the Japan, China, and India events would be listed under Asia, and the Poland would be listed under Europe. Canada would be included in North America alongside the US, which makes sense given that some outbreaks cross the border (illegally :P). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tropical cyclone idea is actually what I was basing my argument off of, albeit I was going by the basin ones and not the big overall one. My main issue is how content forks would work; tropical cyclones are easy to split by basin, but splitting tornadoes by continents would mean a TON of more links and navigations and more pages to maintain. One thing you have to remember here is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather covers all severe weather, not just tornadoes. Navigation and information filtering through pages is extremely important and we should watch that if we do this. ChessEric21:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have continental weather articles, such as 2023–24 North American winter and 2023–24 European windstorm season. If there are enough tornadoes in Europe in a given year, there might end up being a List of Europe tornadoes in 2023, particularly if reporting becomes more standardized. The end product, in my opinion, should be to have every single tornadoes, available in three different ways - one for the given year, one for the location, and one for the intensity. The Teton–Yellowstone tornado appears in the Tornadoes of 1987 (under the sub-section for North America under July). It would also appear in List of Wyoming tornadoes, which is not yet created, but there's more than enough tornadoes to fill a list - there are hundreds. The tornado also appears in List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes. Elsewhere in the world, the Daulatpur–Saturia tornado appears in Tornadoes of 1987, List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks in Asia (arguably there should be a List of Bangladesh tornadoes), and List of F3 and EF3 tornadoes, if that were ever created. Starting by changing all of the yearly tornado articles isn't doing enough, in my opinion. There needs to be more wiki infrastructure for all of the events that happen all around the world. And not just in the 21st century either. I always enjoy reading about the earliest recorded tornado in Mexico in 1521. That one should appear in Tornadoes of the 16th century, if that were ever created, and perhaps part of List of Mexico tornadoes, of which I'm sure there are more than enough to support an article. Perhaps creating more of these articles would encourage future editors to add to these lists whenever they hear about it, which will make it easier in the future to compile the worldwide articles. I think just about any populated place in the world that experiences tornadoes could support a list. Some will be so lengthy that it might be a yearly article, like List of Oklahoma tornadoes (2023) or List of Florida tornadoes (2023), but just becauses they are common doesn't mean they aren't worth the effort. I say that having written a lot of List of Florida hurricanes and List of North Carolina hurricanes, some of the most commonly affected parts of the United States by tropical cyclones. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to get some thoughts about whether the Tornadoes of 2018 article would be a good example of at least a less U.S.-centric lead would probably be. The event section of the Tornadoes of 1950 article, which I wrote up myself, could also work. In the meantime I've also changed the lead in Tornadoes of 2023 article as a preliminary measure. User:CapeVerdeWave also made a small article (unfinished; its still in his sandbox) about Tornadoes of 1972 in Florida, so that could also be a model.
One thing I would say is that the project has gotten away from the synopsis and events section at the top of the article. That was an area where we could've summarized major global events. I've been meaning to bring that up with the project for awhile now, but just haven't gotten around to it. I think this would be a good time to bring this back up. ChessEric23:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While separating it by continent and then by nation removes this being a U.S. centrism issue, I don't think each month section saying how many tornadoes were observed in the U.S. (or even globally) is necessary in a global summary article/list. WP:NOTSTATS doesn't perfectly apply here but it combined with the context that research shows even in the United States tornadoes are significantly undercounted making that figure not so notable to be placed in this setting. List of volcanoes in the United States may be a good example here as each state/territory isn’t prefaced with “There are x volcanoes in y state,” it just gives the list. Like tornadoes, the count of volcanoes isn’t a comprehensively determined number.
While not part of my original meaning for this discussion, I think it wouldn’t be a bad thing to decrease the amount of prose dedicated to tornadoes that fit into another non-global list or an article regarding it/the outbreak it occurred in. DJ Cane (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond to other points further down the thread but I made a mockup of the sort of navbox update I'm thinking of in my sandbox. I realize now the infobox has links to adjacent years, so I don't think that needs to also be added to the navbox. Something like this could eliminate the Main Article: List of United States tornadoes... after every month, decreasing U.S. centrism. DJ Cane (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like what's being articulated here. An overwhelming majority of tornadoes do occur in the U.S., but the articles are written and structured in a way that introduces the subject in an all-encompassing, global manner but then presents U.S.-centric statistics and plots. I support Hurricanehink's idea of dividing the pages by continent/region. It would allow summary-level information to be contextually regionalized instead of confusingly overlapping with other areas. The navbox mockup from DJ Cane looks good. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits)16:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it goes without saying that we will need some sort of draft/model article or something like that to go off of. Ironically, however, we could use the future Tornadoes of 2024 article for that. ChessEric21:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody else can get to it beforehand, I can make a draft in my sandbox this weekend to look at the continent separation using Tornadoes of 2023. This will likely be a multi-phase project while we come to agreements on how best to handle things (and on what not to change). DJ Cane (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, I have recreated Tornadoes of 2023 in User:DJ Cane/sandbox2 by sorting the events by continent, then nation, then date (pulling continent organization from Lists of volcanoes). Aside from removing the monthly "there were x tornadoes in the United States for y month" I only made minor changes for grammar due to splitting up a handful of multi-national events. Please let me know what you think.
There were fewer multi-national events than I expected, especially in North America. I thought that would be a major issue but it appears not.
Seeing the proof-of-concept makes it pretty clear to me that this format is far better than what's currently used. Sectioning the tornadoes of XXXX articles by region could also allow for further details regarding broader weather conditions and summary statistics/information that are often organized by region (e.g. details relating to ENSO). —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits)20:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(1) As I expected, the U.S. and Canada sections are WAY too big to have all the events in it. They need a small general summary and a separate article for everything. Additionally, the charts and maps are best served in the individual articles and should be taken out.
(2) Puerto Rico is part of the United States, so it shouldn't have its own section.
(3) Splitting by countries does not work very well, especially for European countries, because (no offense) tornado outbreaks do not have to respect country borders. For example, the tornado outbreak that affected the U.S. in late-August also, impacted Canada. The tornado table next to that event reflected the total number of tornadoes in the United States AND Canada. Splits like this make the article harder to follow and creates many instances of redundant sections. Land mass splits work better in this case.
(4) Certain events need to be categorized more specifically. For example, the U.S. October 11-12 was only for tornadoes that happened in Florida that day. This may sound vain and hypocritical to what I said above, but I believe its important to note stuff like this for not just readers, but also editors.
(5) The article badly needs {{clear}}, so that events and pictures aren't stacked up on top of each other the way they are.
(6) We will likely need a new infobox for the top of the article so that we can make the article more focused on being on a global scale. This will likely have to be done after getting opinions from the members of this project as well as coding design work.
I know that was a lot, but this was a great start. Like I said, we should start use the Tornadoes of 2024 article to put this into action, although I will say that fixing up all the other years along with the other stuff we have to change up will be a real pain. ChessEric07:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have other thoughts than to say that I separated Puerto Rico because it is typically considered a dependent country in this context, much like the United Kingdom’s relationship with Bermuda and the Falkland Islands, Denmark’s relationship with Greenland, and Aruba’s relationship with the Netherlands. (See: List of countries and dependencies by area) DJ Cane (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal to create MOS:Weather with RfCs and discussions during 2024
I am wanting to get the WikiProject's feel on a topic which has been brought up by several editors lately, including DJ Cane and ChessEric, and several editors over the past 2 years. There is no written-out guidelines for weather-related articles. What do I mean by that? There is no place, for instance, which says when to make a tornado outbreak article, when to make a stand-alone tornado article, or when to make both an outbreak and tornado article. There is no place that says when to make a tropical-cyclone article vs just a section in the yearly articles. There is no written guidelines for a Floods of XXXX (like Floods of 2023) article.
So, with all that said, what is the WikiProject's feel on working through different discussions to create a draft version of MOS:Weather throughout 2024 and then have it become standardized guidelines for all the weather-articles? Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)23:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good first step may be to review Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado and submit it as MOS:TORNADO, fold whatever we determine for the tornado by year articles into it (possibly with a MOS:TORYEAR shortcut) and possibly use it as a template for a general MOS:WEATHER and maybe a few other weather-related MOS if needed. DJ Cane (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That needs to be re-written entirely via new community consensus discussions, since (1) it's clear basically no one knows about that since it has never been linked to me in 3+ years and (2) past and technically ongoing discussions dispute it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)00:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"When" sounds like the job of an WP:SNG, not the MOS. MOS handles the "how", not the "when". WP:NWEATHER already exists; improving that and getting consensus to turn it into a guideline sounds like what you're looking for (besides Floods of XXXX, which is the only thing that should be on MOS). Chlod (say hi!) 01:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do recall; that's why I said "improving that" prior to saying "getting consensus", and why I don't agree with beating around it by placing these de facto notability guidelines in MOS instead of an SNG. You even said it had "potential to become an official guideline in the future". Putting it bluntly, only the Tropical cyclones section is fleshed out and precise (though even that has its issues). Every other section is a mere collection of bullet points and vague "probably notable"s instead of clear "what is" and "what is not"s. Perhaps a good starting point for improvement is reading through the comments on that RfC to find out exactly why it failed. Chlod (say hi!) 02:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clear things up a bit: the question of "when should [specific weather event] get its own article" is a matter of notability and answers should be consolidated at WP:NWEATHER, perhaps formatted similarly to other SNGs. Would note that individual weather events are already themselves subjected to WP:NEVENT, and so NWEATHER should be similarly strict, for example with regards to WP:LASTING.
The structure of said articles, as well as overarching articles (e.g. Floods in [year], Tornadoes in [region] in [year], Tropical cyclones in [year], etc), is a style issue (dealing with the presentation, and not the meat); use of certain templates, section headings, etc can be codified (if so needed) somewhere that would fit under Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (science). Whatever recommendations given there should generally be in line with existing Wikipedia MOS e.g. MOS:TABLES, MOS:ACCESS. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like we have a decently standardized list of weather events that we have each year, but oddly, floods isn't one of them. We have Floods of 2021, but not in any other years, so that's something to consider making as a draft for 2023 and 2024, both as a proof of concept for the year that just happened, and then to get it prepared for the future. Once we have good or featured articles for each weather type, which would then be a good basis for establishing an ideal article structure. There isn't a MOS for yearly flood articles because we barely have any, but since we have FA's like 2018 Pacific hurricane season and 2001–02 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season, then we have a decent MOS that's already in place. We don't have any FL's for, say, Tornadoes of 2003, which could be useful for codifying a MOS for tornado list articles. Ditto for other weather types. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New Weather Infobox
79.1%
Infobox weather event adoption (2200 / 2783) as of 00:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Phase 1: Introduction & Development I
What's this about?
Many of our infoboxes have existed for quite a while without undergoing any serious changes. This has led to infoboxes becoming outdated coding-wise since some features are now obsolete while there are also new ones. Infoboxes such as Tropical Cyclone, Floods, and Storm are a mess of coding which makes it difficult to modify them without causing errors and thus limits any additional functionality we desire. This is in large part a result of having so many different scales that are used within our infoboxes. We have several infoboxes for various events while it is possible to use the same infobox and have everything centralized by using a modular style. Storm colors and images have already been modulized for quite some time. The benefit of using modular infoboxes is that you can only include the parts that you need within an article. This means we can more easily edit our infoboxes to add new features as we desire. The other issue we have is that some topics lack proper infoboxes, such as space weather, droughts, cold waves, and heat waves. I propose that we start with these topics in order to get a baseline established for what we want to include in the general infobox and we can develop specifics for the sub-infoboxes for each of these events. NoahTalk14:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on parameters specific to these events? Scales used in other countries? Keep in mind these scales currently here would ONLY be used within infoboxes and are designed to match up with the maps produced by the National Weather Service. Additionally, this is not optional. We have to at a minimum develop and implement the infoboxes for these events above that do not have infoboxes. We already have the basics created such as met history and effects. NoahTalk15:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, with the minimal participation on this project for the past year, I don't expect there to be much comments on this. Might as well just implement these scales boldly and see who screams. I do have one comment though: please avoid using high-saturation colors. This isn't an image or graphic map; the colors need to properly contrast with text. Blindly following the colors that the NWS uses without considering how it would actually look in front of text would be a mistake. Chlod (say hi!) 01:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chlod: It's likely we would just use white text in these cases like other projects do. Earthquakes, for example, switches between white and black text depending on which is more accessible. This does workNoahTalk03:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Yeah, but this (even if it's AAA) looks... bad... I'm sure other editors would carry the same sentiment. Most infobox templates only use desaturated or pastel colors because it's easier on the eyes. The only exception I can find that's in wide use is {{Infobox YouTube personality}} (but even then, the background is dark enough that white can comfortably fit on top of it). It gets worse if you add links into the mix. Chlod (say hi!) 02:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We unanimously agreed (at least a small group did during the colors debate; you did support said proposal) not to include any links within the colored portions of infoboxes due to that being issue with colors already in use as well as potential new colors. Nearly all the infoboxes you linked would not compare since they aren't trying to convey information with the colors. The colors are solely aesthetic in nature rather than trying to provide information. Considering it's only a number or a few words at most someone would need to read, it shouldn't cause that much eye strain. It would be much different if it was the infobox background or a page background. You run into problems with temperature scales where you have nearly two dozen colors or in the case of climate tables, it needs to adjust for any value put in. The climate tables use colors like this, such as at Death Valley#Climate. The issue people take up with pastel or desaturated is they think it looks bad. If there is a feasible solution that keeps the differentiated colors in tact, that would be good. It likely could be taken to the climate box temperatures as well. Anyways, I am going to sleep since I have to get up early to log onto my computer to do class work. Having covid is a big pain in the ass. NoahTalk02:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the excellent work Chlod has done thus far on {{infobox weather event}} (and its docs; alone deserving of a hearty pat on the back), I'm more than happy to see them taking this all the way. It's not a controversial change to update inline with de facto standards; as long as the appropriate tests are run beforehand and everything works when it's switched over, there'll be no screaming worth a damn. Let me know if I can be helpful. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs03:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My comment is that we need to figure which paramaters we really need to present in the final implimentation of these boxes. For example: Do we really need to present the hghest level of warning for every island/country or every single meteorological agencies take on a system, when they are generally speaking the same. (Bar in the WPAC). I also note that the Aus scale as presented needs a bit of work, Cat 5 on the Aus Scale starts at 110 knots (Scientifically 107 kts?) not 111/115 and that 3 of the main warning centres are missing (MetService, Jackarta, PNG).Jason Rees (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the use of the JTWC subbox is generally allowed on all basins besides those which use the Saffir–Simpson scale (North Atlantic/Eastern Pacific/Central Pacific), other agency subboxes [...] should generally be used only when the storm is not recognized by the basin's RSMC.
Regarding the Aus scale, I did not implement this, but Noah did. It's been fixed, and it was a two byte change; no need to mess with many different parts of the template to get it fixed (unlike {{Infobox tropical cyclone}} :P). As for the three other warning centers you mentioned, provide a link to their scales so they can get added. It won't take more than an hour of work. I started off with just those in Tropical cyclone scales, since those are the ones most likely notable. Chlod (say hi!) 01:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in Tropical cyclone scales MetService, PNG NWS and TCWC Jakarta all use the Australian scale, but we need them adding since there are times when systems are monitored by the warning centers at peak rather than Nadi/BoM. As an example, MetService named Eva last year.Jason Rees (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. I wonder if we could tweak MFR to just MF, as it would be good to present Meteo France French Polynesia's intensity estimate for Cyclone Nisha-Orama in the infobox alongside Nadi's/NPMOC's. In fact thinking about it, I wonder if its worth adding in the Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center to the infobox even if their nickname was Never Push Me On Cyclones, as it is their estimates that are used in the SEPAC between 1980 and 2000 rather than the JTWC.Jason Rees (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Rees and Chlod: I reconfigured the TC watches/warnings to have the link on the warning type (ie Tropical Cyclone at this point, but others will get it later) rather than on the warning itself since it would violate MOS:ACCESS to have the link on certain colors. The plan was to have the highest warning level in the infobox for each event type (TC, flood, cold wave, winter weather, etc). Not sure whether or not we want to continue to use this on events that have ended, but it certainly gives perspective to the land impact a tropical cyclone had since not all storms hit at peak intensity for their winds or a snow storm that had widespread, yet severe impacts that didn't register that high on RSI. Thoughts? NoahTalk00:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be much more beneficial to instead have icons that link to the proper warning system (if an article is available for it) and/or have appropriate alt text, much like how we currently have the NFPA 704 (fire diamond) and GHS pictograms for chemboxes (see Hydroflouric acid). Colored text scattered all over that area is a nightmare, and an easy way to get smacked with {{overcoloured}}. Chlod (say hi!) 00:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with having the highest warning level in the infobox for stuff like TC's is the widespread nature of them. For example: are we really wanting to add the highest warning for Micronesia, Palau, The Phillippines/Taiwan, Eastern or Southern China, The Malay Archipeligo or Japan/Korea. Personally it seems very OTT and unneeded.Jason Rees (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This might be something that should be !voted on by the project. In my view, it's a good way to quickly categorize the actual damages (compared to storm intensity, which isn't a good indicator for damages) within the infobox, aside from the monetary damages (since inflation and costs of living can skew perception on that figure) or deaths. Whether this is useful for the reader, it depends. Chlod (say hi!) 01:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two ways I can think of to go about this: create icons for each agency (or use existing ones), or include the agency logo and the relevant warning as text. The latter encounters issues with contextualizing the warning though, since we can't link to other pages lest we risk contrast issues. Chlod (say hi!) 04:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
MFR box moved to MF, acronym can be changed with |agency=. As for the NPMOC, could definitely make that a box too. There's no limit to what scales we can add in, even if it's historical. If we do plan on adding it in, did they also use SSWHS or a different scale? Chlod (say hi!) 02:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Gandt: w/r/t the footer, there's some points you raised in Template talk:Infobox tropical cyclone that also apply here. Luckily, I can make it so that the "related" sections appear as if they're in a different box when transcluded, since it always goes at the end of the infobox set anyway. Let me know what you think should be done here. Chlod (say hi!) 02:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno how you're thinking of handling the switchover, but at the end of the day I think it best if the related stuff isn't even remotely part of the infobox; it simply shouldn't be. If you're thinking of a temporary visual separation; consider how temporary can very often unintentionally turn into permanent. As was already said (wherever the hell it was said...) by Gonnym at Template talk:Infobox tropical cyclone; related equates to "see also", and as such, belongs in some kind of related series box as can be seen on many other related article series; something like "This article is part of a series of articles about PAGENAME" kinda thing. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs03:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth here, but I see a lot of editors just rejecting change because it's change, rather than taking stuff on its own merits. The funny thing is the result of disabling the new template there is so obviously horrible; the only change in data I can see is the completely reasonable rounding of damage costs, but the presentation is rendered, because of that edit, gawd-dammed fugly 🤦♀️ Fred Gandt · talk · contribs01:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Gandt: There tends to be a lot of resistance to change, especially when things have been the same for so long. This infobox has been largely untouched since 2006. I can attest that it is a huge pain in the ass to attempt to edit it because of the complex and outdated nature of the coding. I tried to make a simple edit last year (removing a link) and ended up breaking something as a result. There tends to be a lot of resistance to any changes. I remember a university prof telling me how professors protested the changeover from quarters to semesters. That went through anyways despite the opposition. NoahTalk02:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't beat yourself up; pre lua template code can be enough to drive an editor crosseyed. So many braces @_@ But yeah; change. The weird thing is; if things didn't change the universe would...n't be. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs02:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to see how the above discussion constitutes "consensus" for moving the infobox's color strip below the image. We can and should use multiple agencies' data but the top of the infobox looks quite bare without the color.--Jasper Deng(talk)09:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are that our infobox is outdated both coding and style-wise and is cumbersome to edit by nature. We need to bring our infoboxes into line with other infoboxes. Quite frankly, having the color strip above the image is an inconsistency between our infobox and others. Other infoboxes have section headers, which is what the color strip would be in this case. The section header needs to be right above the data that is displayed below it. Our infobox currently does not have section headers period, which is inconsistent. This new infobox also introduces padding, which the lack of is another inconsistency we have. The infobox is outdated coding-wise since it has been largely unchanged since its inception around 2006. Having jumbles of code all in one basket makes it hard to fix issues and add functionality. Using a modular infobox makes it much easier to include new items that we want to showcase in the infobox and eliminates the need to have several infoboxes. While I had started this discussion initially to deal with the topics that didn't have infoboxes, editors outside our project independently brought up issues with the TC template. We are obligated to fix these since our infobox must be consistent with the other ones. NoahTalk22:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think it makes more sense to have the colour strip above the intensity information rather than at the top of the infobox away from the various Met stats especially when the met stats directly control the colour stip.Jason Rees (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The strip being put above metrics also contextualizes information, so that we have the proper data for varying observation intervals (10-minute or 1-minute) or agencies. Chlod (say hi!) 02:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The text put on top of the category (e.g. Tropical depression ) acts as the label for that header. The color is for presentation. We could do away with it entirely, but it's a very quick and easy way to know how severe a storm was without needing to read the text. Chlod (say hi!) 02:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With a legend it's quick and easy; without it's just a color. Perhaps a collapsed legend could be included? Too much clutter? If the label terms are linked to an article, then the color legend can be on each article perhaps? No series of articles? That would be odd; perhaps an explanatory page on a suitable WikiProject? Surely there has to be a reader friendly way to provide context for this color; us knowing what it means isn't really very useful. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs04:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fred Gandt: Each scale should link to a relevant agency, with the scale detailed in the article and containing all the colors. If the relevant agency doesn't have the scale in its article yet, we could consider adding in its relevant scale in summary style and link to Tropical cyclone scales as the main page. We could also link to the scale itself on Tropical cyclone scales (or its respective page, if one exists). Which of these would be better (or should we look for other options)? Chlod (say hi!) 03:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This could work, although I feel like there are some who would be opposed to this as it means having to put a 'Notes' section in all existing typhoon articles (or else it will fall to the bottom of the page). Chlod (say hi!) 04:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I see what's wrong with adding a notes section for notes, an collapsed legend right there in the infobox seems preferable to having readers navigating here and there to simply know what the color represents if a notes section is horrifying. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs05:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chlod: Personally I feel that the articles for the warning centers should not contain any major information on the TC scale that they use bar a sentence or two as it isnt relevant to the agency itself.Jason Rees (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
w/r/t the infobox change, it probably shouldn't have been done until after this discussion has been finished. For the most part, we haven't actually decided that the infobox is ready for use. I think it's worth providing a copy of the box in that revision here though, for example purposes. Chlod (say hi!) 02:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
w/r/t the top of the infobox looking devoid of color... that's just how every infobox on Wikipedia looks. The 11(?) years of having that same infobox just makes it feel like it's "normal". Chlod (say hi!) 02:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
^These are what colors look like: sails onions monday
@Hurricane Noah: Not yet; it is currently exam week and I'm only able to do small bursts of wiki work. I will be (temporarily) free from the clutches of the academic cycle of suffering next week (starting February 6); I might be able to work on it then. Chlod (say hi!) 16:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nor'easters, and any other storm which does not need special treatment, should use {{Infobox weather event/Storm}} and supply a valid |type=. I'll work on documenting all these after a few hours; as I have some personal matters to attend to. Chlod (say hi!) 02:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few things I noticed looking through the documentation for Infobox weather event:
{{Infobox weather event/MF}} is missing the lowest classification for Zone of Disturbed Weather/Tropical Disturbance.
Are the colours for typhoon and severe typhoon in {{Infobox weather event/HKO}} supposed to be the same? Would think it should mimic the JMA scale's progression.
Should there be a parameter for references somewhere in {{Infobox weather event/Effects}}, or maybe at the end of the whole infobox? Though this technically wouldn't needed if all effects are cited in the body, but just to be safe. In the same line of thought, maybe a ref to IBTrACS would be needed to support all agencies' intensity estimates.
Damage conversions to USD in {{Infobox weather event/Effects}} should be rounded to avoid giving the sense of false precision. A source should also be provided for the USD conversion (perhaps a note copying the refs at {{To USD}} would suffice), as that'll likely be brought up at FAC (personal experience here).
Great changes overall and I'm looking forward to getting used to these – I actually prefer the new aesthetic and don't mind the coloured bars in the middle at all. Just want to see some details ironed out before I'm comfortable with supporting implementation. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting {{Infobox weather event/CMA}}, since IBTrACS consistently features their estimates for WPAC (scale here).
A function similar to |damagespost= in {{Infobox tropical cyclone}} would be really useful where the figure is not clear cut and a footnote is needed.
Damages and losses conversions now bear the same significant figures as its original input with Special:Diff/1141492604. I'm unsure how to implement the reference thing, however. It seems you solved it on Cyclone Berguitta by using a footnote within prose, which seems like the best approach here. Since the data may not always come from the IMF (e.g. see Template:To USD/data/2021 § References, which uses the World Bank and the IRS), it's hard to generate a catch-all parameter to automatically build that reference.
@Chlod: I am working on doing the color part of this. I have the Drought and Space Weather colors added to the sandbox for the module. NoahTalk01:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Phase 2: RfCs
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
For the general RFC: considered broadly, there is a consensus to replace the infoboxes with the new template. There is only one major objection stated, which relates to the location of the colour bar, which will be more towards the middle of the infobox. Most of these arguments boil down to some form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with the one exception being that it increases scroll time to get to the relevant information. I did not find this argument very convincing, given that on most platforms, either the majority of the box will be visible (PC and tablet), or users will be forced to scroll past it anyway(mobile). Either way, there is a clear support for the majority of new features implemented. This obviously does not prohibit a future discussion about the placement of the disputed element.
It has been brought to our attention that our infoboxes do not follow the standard practices of Wikipedia and thus a replacement has been devised that addresses the concerns raised. The current infoboxes lack padding and have multiple colored bars at the top, which is inconsistent with how other infoboxes are displayed. Another issue is that our infoboxes involve a complex coding array that makes it difficult to edit and add new features. Some features within these infoboxes are outdated and should be replaced by newer ones. Additionally, we had to remove links to scales within the colored bars on the tropical cyclone infobox because they violated WP:ACCESS due to lack of contrast with the background; the lack of a link to the scales is a disservice to our readers. The proposed infobox, Template:Infobox weather event, includes the addition of padding, has the colored bars (Category of a storm/event) with their respective data (consistency with other infoboxes), contains new features and some existing ones have been updated, and is much easier to edit since it's modular (each scale has its own subtemplate) rather than several different scales and events lumped into one template with if statements. Please see that template for its usage and display. Please see Template:Infobox storm, Template:Infobox tropical cyclone, and Template:Infobox flood for their displays and usages. NoahTalk20:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox to replace Infobox tropical cyclone, Infobox storm, and Infobox flood
Oppose - I support the changes to padding, to code, all the new features, etc., but strongly oppose moving the color bar to the middle of the infobox. I understand the argument that it's better located with the intensity information and more consistent with other infoboxes across Wikipedia, but it is a jarring change, particularly since it's a brightly colored bar surrounded by two otherwise gray bars. Even though inconsistency is reduced, I don't think anything is functionally gained from that change, and so I oppose on aesthetic grounds. Like I said, I would support all other changes. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 00:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There wouldn't be any way to distinguish data in the infoboxes if that's the case. You'd have two different scales next to each other without indication. It's also redundant in templating, since there's no way to "store variables" to make the bar pop up at the top of the page using a template that appeared later on in the page. WPWX (and WPTC, by proxy), owing to its age, is currently the only project to put intensities of an event at the top of the page, contrary to literally every other event infobox in existence. Earthquakes don't have a wide bar, and instead have colored text (see 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, 1923 Great Kantō earthquake). Volcano eruptions are similar, but they don't even color text at all (see 2021–22 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai eruption and tsunami, 2009 Tonga undersea volcanic eruption). WPWX/WPTC has been hilariously behind in modernizing its style to comply with the rest of the wiki; holding it back on "aesthetic grounds" is contrary to the aesthetic style of every other event infobox which has intensities on Wikipedia. Chlod (say hi!) 00:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I misread your comment, I'm a little confused by you linking to the volcano articles, both of which have the colored bars at the top (which I below is the correct move). Hurricanes are singularly categorized by their intensity, and I think having that information at the top/the first thing that catches the reader's eye is important. I'm no coder, but I think a better design would be to have the color bar at the top and to also make the agencies into gray bars. Maybe change the names to something like "RSMC Assessment" and "Non-RSMC Assessment" or something similar. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wxtrackercody: Yes, the title is colored, but it does not represent the Volcanic Explosivity Index of that event. They are always brown (specifically #F6DA9F, see for yourself). Pacific and Atlantic hurricanes are the only cases where one color is used. For NIO, WPAC, SWIO, AUS, SPAC (i.e. every other basin), multiple intensities are used—and these locations are where the majority of cyclones form yearly. Again, the color bar at the top means redundancy. A parameter needs to be passed into the header and at the body of the infobox, because of how templates work. "RSMC Assessment" and "Non-RSMC Assessment" are highly technical terms that would not benefit readers; the agency is better suited for this (and that's exactly what the new box does). Chlod (say hi!) 02:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not married to the terms, we can come up with alternatives. Listing the specific agencies in those headers is fine with me too. I will continue to oppose any solution that does not have the chief categorization for a hurricane at the top, though. Just to drive my previous point home, I do not care that other templates display the information differently, because it's my opinion that they should conform to how we display hurricane information, not the other way around. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who works on templates of other projects, it'd be a shame if {{Infobox person}} (WP:WPBIO; 456,381 uses) placed the profession/occupation of the person at the top of the infobox, or if {{Infobox officeholder}} (WP:PLT; 208,216 uses) mentioned the highest position a certain person was elected at the top of the infobox, or if {{Infobox animanga}} (WP:A&M; 6,636 uses) were to indicate whether a manga had reached its anime adaptation. To be absolutely clear: you are essentially asking to go against implicit consensus amongst template editors on how infoboxes should be constructed. WPWX is not the biggest WikiProject on Wikipedia; all the aforementioned projects have thousands of more articles under their scope than WPWX. And if you've spent some time working on the templates of this project, we're not exactly the cutting edge of template design here, not by a longshot. Chlod (say hi!) 02:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wxtrackercody: Maybe its about time we had a think/discussion about how best to display hurricane information, after all at the moment its all based around the Atlantic/Eastern Pacific, rather than what most of the basins need. It is also worth noting that sometimes when a system impacts land the modern day RSMC categorization isnt the most official or the best categorization. As an example, I present Cyclone Ofa and Val which impacted American Samoa and thus considered to be Hurricanes and are rated on the SSHWS. I also look at Cyclone Veena and Cyclone Nisha-Orama where Meteo France/RSMC La Reunion have reanalysed the systems to be VITC/ITC's. As a result, I feel that the infobox being proposed while not perfect is better than what we currently have in play and thus I support its immediate deployment.Jason Rees (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wxtrackercody: I personally believe that having the coloured bars in the middle of the infobox allows us to be clearer on whose intensity estimates we are presenting while keeping in line with the rules of Wikipedia. As an example, I tested it out on Severe Tropical Cyclone Veena of 82-83 and got the following result. The other option is to get rid of the coloured bar alltogether.Jason Rees (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this is another instance of the project being taken in the wrong direction and would appreciate if you didn't interject with comments directed toward me. United States Man (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition per anything is deference to that anything. This is not a vote therefore two counts of the same thing is not a stronger argument and the only argument made was that everything would be great if not for the not liking it. I am not interjecting any more than you and was not speaking directly to or about you; I am responding to the discussion as I see it. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid or reasoned argument, you offered nothing else and this is not a vote. If you don't want to be involved in discussions, don't join them. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs03:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like I struck a nerve lol. Never seen someone get so excited over nothing. If I share the same viewpoint as another editor, why would I retype the same exact argument? United States Man (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, opposing on the grounds of how information is displayed to the reader is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which doesn't even apply here since this is not a deletion discussion. Hurricanes are categorized based on their strength. This information has been displayed at the top of the infobox since its inception. That makes sense, and I think it should continue. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We do not gain by moving the color bar down, or generally by obscuring information, making it harder for readers. Unlike with the track colors, there is no compelling accessibility reason to do this.--Jasper Deng(talk)20:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Assuming all important parameters are included, I have no objections.
This new Infobox is visually attractive and presents a better understanding of the information than the older infoboxes. While the replacement process can be time-consuming, I believe it would be worth it. This Infobox will be easier for editors to maintain and update as needed (rather than using many different Infoboxes). I would also like to suggest that, it would be helpful to provide some examples of what the new infobox might look like and to include template data, which would be useful for making visual edits. Tojoroy20 (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As an uninvolved editor, it seems the new infobox has a ton of advantages over the old infoboxes, and the only reason for opposition is a relatively minor aesthetic/ux choice. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢15:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Colors for new events
Should the colors proposed above be implemented for the events that currently do not have their own infoboxes? These colors will only be used in infoboxes and related templates, but not elsewhere. Please note that the infoboxes for these new events have yet to be designed and will be subject to a new RfC before being implemented. Additionally, several of these scales are proposed to be pegged to the values at Module:Storm categories rather than having new colors proposed.
Support As I said above, I appreciate the use of color coding to distinguish different types of information, which makes it easier to read and understand.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like to point out that issues with the infobox or any subbox should be made at Template talk:Infobox weather event. I watch this page and it helps clear out clutter from an otherwise unrelated discussion area. I'll be moving comments there shortly to clean up. Chlod (say hi!) 03:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical cyclone structure
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Disallow_insertion_of_old-colored_WP:WPTC_track_maps, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Template:WPTC A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page.
-- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing—Global warming controversy—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Done, see Template:Infobox weather event/doc § Australian scale for the full list. 
Chlod (say hi!) 02:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
HW 
CW 
5
_logo.svg){kind=logo}
Moved to Template talk:Infobox weather event