Jump to content

Talk:Severe weather

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

Time to start working

[edit]

I am going to start working on this article again after a long wikibreak. Won't make any major changes for awhile except for some copyediting that I will do on my namespace. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was the order of the content/structure of the article ever fixed/resolved? Thegreatdr (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so...The RfC I filed for the structure recieved some input, but not enough to really determine what should be done. What about if in sections 4 through 8 we just make the current level 3 headers into level 2 section headers, and merged the Lightning section with the Thunderstorm Development section as a section "Thunderstorms"? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we can find some alternatives, though from our past attempts, it might be best to remove some of the irrevelant contents that we(mainly me)added. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which content is irrelevant? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 04:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If a specific phenomenon is not considered severe weather by any source, such as heat wave and cold wave, it is best reserved for the extreme weather article. If there are sources which support those phenomena as severe weather, they need inline references to support their location within this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but I was thinking of switching the focus of the article to severe weather systems, rather than its phenomena. It would make the article coverage a lot more concise. The current length of the article is already pass normal Wikipedia article size. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC) I'll start working on this once I get an approval. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has about 7500 words, which is 2500 words shy of the preferred article limit, so it's not too long yet. Whatever you all decide. I have no preference. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Edit comments

[edit]

1) I archived most of your talk page. Hope this helps. 2) I used your Weather portal to establish the content outline. A couple of sections had to be inserted based on best guess. 3) Some of the material in the individual sections has been distributed to the associated Main article talk page for incorporation with those pages. 4) There are numerous CE comments that I hope will provide stimulation. 5) I added a comment banner to each section to help editors focus.

This was a challenge and after 12 hours, I hope you like the results. Happy editing Bullock ✉ 04:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next step

[edit]

This article still needs a lot of work. References are severely lacking: not necessarily in number, but in appropriateness. I have found at least two references so far which do not support the facts they are purported to support. Several of the phenomena listed on this page are not severe weather by any definition I am aware of (clouds? really???), and several sections have no content save a link to the main article on their subject.

I believe this article is an ideal case for summary style writing. I don't like the layout as of now; there is too much overlap between the concepts of "storm" and "precipitation" to have separate sections like this. I think the best way to separate would be "summer severe weather" and "winter severe weather", since these are relatively well-defined, with an "other severe weather" section to cover various "severe" (as cited by an official source!) phenomena which do not fit into those categories.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 23:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note: when i reorganized your page I used the "storms" and "precipitation" sections of the weather guide on the top of the page. Clouds, Rain etc. do not fit your topic and should be removed they are bits of legacy information that I did not remove in the CE. I recommend that you keep the structure parallel with existing tools. Tighten up the sections, further reduce the redundant information. Unfortunately you got a CE who checks the weather on the "weather rock" out side, if it's wet it must be raining....With all the information that I moved out, the page's intent is clearer, I expect great things. I'll be back and look in later. Bullock ✉ 09:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clouds and extreme temperatures are gone from this article

[edit]

If we're going to use a summary style format with this article (which we have been anyway), there's no good reason for a cloud or extreme temperature section. The extreme temperature information was moved into the extreme weather article since the past year of edits and referencing continue not to indicate heat and cold waves as severe weather, merely extreme weather. While one could argue you can't have thunderstorms without clouds, clouds in an of themselves are not severe weather. However, I can see the thunderstorm section staying, since the shorter fused severe weather is connected with that phenomenon. The lead is going to need expansion, because right now, it cannot stand alone as a summary of this article, which violates the MoS (Manual of Style). Thegreatdr (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal

[edit]

I propose that the main headers/sections (but not the only ones) of this article be high winds, excessive rainfall, and hail. Some of us (particularly myself) were overzealous regarding all the various headers/subheaders/sections included within this article, which has only gotten worse since I left the article in August. We can merge the current information regarding the different weather systems which cause these phenomena under these three main headers. Can we agree as a group that these are the main forms of severe weather? If so, expect a significant amount of rearranging and restructuring. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer convective & non-convective or something of the sort that seperates thunderstorms under one header, whereas the ones you mentioned would each have to contain information on thunderstorms. But at the same time, excessive rainfall/flooding could fall under both convective and non-convective, so I don't really know which way to go. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 13:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See what you think. The reorganization is essentially done. I think the problem we've had since I became involved in this article's expansion was trying to include too much information, some of which was not necessary to this article. A couple of the editors were trying to tell us that last year. Time away was required to get fresh perspective. Being overly technical about the types of precipitation may not be understandable to the lay reader, but if there is significant sentiment for this idea, we could always include it. The reorganization dropped 15-20% of the article's content. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks really good, the only thing I would recommend reorganizing now is putting tropical cyclones in their own seperate section like hail. They really are kind of a severe weather machine by themselves (producing stuff from both the high winds and excess precipitation category) to the point where I question whether it can definitively be placed in either high winds or excessive precipitation. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see two options for article format. We can either frame the article format around the forms of severe weather (talking about the storm systems which cause them underneath) or the storm systems which cause them (with the various forms of severe weather underneath). We had tried the system-specific format last summer, and ultimately couldn't decide how much or how little needed to be included. The article is currently framed around the forms, so it is probably best not to have any storm systems listed as independent sections. After all, most severe weather is caused by extratropical cyclones, so wouldn't they have the priority over tropical cyclones? One could then make the argument that extratropical cyclones need their own section. And mesoscale convective systems. And thunderstorms. And so on. The problem is that all these different types of systems can cause any or all of the forms of severe weather mentioned. As long as we have a line underneath the forms for the various systems, we'll probably be fine. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, yeah, that makes sense. Sorry, I feel like my brain's been in super-slow gear all day. Still though, do tropical cyclones belong under wind, or rain? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're under both, actually. =) I chose to place the main subheader for tropical cyclone under rain, but the main wind section does reference them as well. It could have been done either way. Don't worry about the slow gear thing. When this article became a subject for collaboration last August/September, I had problems figuring out what should go where because I'd been heavily involved in its editing/reorganizing it over the previous month and was getting burnt out. So I understand. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) These categories seem to ignore the inclusion of severe winter weather, which is a term used quite often, at least in Canada (example. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, snow storms/blizzards/ice storms are placed under the excessive precipitation category, so winter weather is not ignored. If it matters, the French article on the topic restricts severe weather to that relating to thunderstorms, so the English article remains more expansive than its French GA counterpart. While I understand blizzards could just as well have been grouped under wind as snow, it made more sense to group all the wintry related information into the excessive precipitation section since snow is precipitation. If you want to create a severe winter weather article, go for it. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reorganization is good but I have a few points to mentionn :
  • The Cause and Category sections are exclusively about convective and tropical systems. They should be extended to talk about synoptic extratropical systems which are a big chunk of the severe events.
  • The European windstorm section should be changed to Synotic scale windstorm, as this type of storms are not limited to Europe, in which the text introduce to all types of extratropical cyclones including European windstorms.
As for the French link, as I mentionned to Thegreatdr, its translated title is Severe Thunderstorms Forecasting. It was originally link to Severe weather when that article was only about summer severe weather which was the closest interwiki article. Since Severe Weather has evolved into a totally different path, it is no wonder that the French article does not talk about snow storms or hurricanes! I would like to find a closer match but there seems to be none at this time. Pierre cb (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Severe vs extreme weather

[edit]

Thegreatdr seems to know the difference. I don't. What is it?

If one lives in south eastern Australia, a heat wave is what leads to the bushfires that kill hundreds of people. I consider that severe. HiLo48 (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have wildfires in this article as an example of severe weather, so your point is taken. We (as a group) have not been able to find any references calling consecutive days of extreme temperatures severe weather. The phenomenon was extreme, but not severe apparently. Wikipedia requires there be sourcing which defines certain phenomena as one thing or another, so when no sources were found to call head/cold waves severe, the decision was simple. The information was removed from this article and placed within the extreme weather article. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lingering issues before GAN

[edit]

Most of the sections are well-referenced, except for the dust storm section. Additional references may also be needed ranking the damage from various forms of severe weather against eath other in the cause section. Once these items are done, and the current format is considered reasonable, a GAN run would be in order. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with the inclusion of "nor-easter" and the omission of Blizzard. Blizzards are clearly severe weather; they should get a section. The Nor-easter thing is not such a big deal, just we need to note that they are not necessarily severe, but they can still produce major precipitation, wind, and storm surge. For that matter, what about storm surge; not just for hurricanes you know ;). I believe this should have a section, since it can be produced by tropical and non-tropical systems alike. I'm not sure this article is as close to ready for GA as you think it is. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 01:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In order for storm surge to be included, we need to find a source that says it is a type of severe weather. We know it is damaging and has killed thousands over the centuries, but without a source stating it is a type of severe weather, it can't be included. If someone is able to do that, we can include information relating to extratropical storms/nor'easters/European wind storms/tropical cyclones and storm surge. Blizzards are in this article, but they don't have their own subsection right now. If this is a significant problem to other editors of this article or within this project, it could be resplit off as a subsection. Thegreatdr (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pierre Cb mentioned that the excessive rainfall section still needs work. Right now, we're focusing exclusively on flooding from a thunderstorm standpoint, when more general stratiform rains are not mentioned at all. That's the second time someone has mentioned something about the convective vs. non-convective nature of systems, so stratiform heavy rain events need to be addressed. There could be more issues. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might add myself that European windstorms and Nor'easters are local terms for Severe extratropical storms and should not be separate sections as if they were a class on their own. They should be mentionned as exemples in a Severe extratropical storms sub-section on the high winds and on excessive precipipitations sections. Pierre cb (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This merger has occurred. Since we have now had a couple opinions stating a similar thing here, maybe all of the threat sections should have a subsection for all of the weather-related systems which could cause them. This would create a bit of repetition among subsection names. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Severe weather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Severe weather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Severe weather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Severe weather. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New edits

[edit]

howdy everyone! I've noticed that this article could use some improvement. I've also noticed that this article has a lot of good information and possibly some redundancy. I look forward to working with you all to make this a better article overall. Lahnano (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some changes that I propose to make:

  • helping the article achieve a higher rating by locating the criterion that have yet to be met and working towards meeting them.
  • copyedit of the current informationLahnano (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weather phenomenon not in scope

[edit]

I removed the following from two sections, as - mostly - the material did not seem to me to fit into topic of "extreme weather". If they should go back in, I would suggest improving the expression, which I would be happy to help with, if needed.

  • From "High Winds" section:
Gust front

A period of strong winds before a thunderstorm or strong winds associating with a weather front

Heat burst

A bundle of wind With warm temperatures coming through from a thunderstorms

Weather front

Weather fronts are low-pressure systems that can bring all sorts of kinds of weather including high winds heavy rains

Squall

Strong winds that last a short period of time

From final section:

  • == High humidity and low humidity ==
High and low humidity is an index when the temperature comes up and down high humidity is when the temperatures are high and low humidity when temperatures allow people can lose a lot of moisture from high humidity and people can have a lot of health problems due to low humidity

Also the second para of "Causes" section, had been truncated here. I put back the deleted material. AukusRuckus (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC) Correction. AukusRuckus (talk) 05:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Severe_weather&oldid=1207501599"