Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Urgent notice about the tornado count from the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak

Sharkguy05 found three tornadoes that were mistakenly added to the April 26 section of the list page by Carlossuarez46 on May 9, 2011. They were actually from April 26, 2007 (I don't know why it took over three years for anyone to notice). Anyway, the new total is 355, and I would like to ask for everyone's help in finding pages that might mention the outbreak total as 358 and changing it to 355. These might include odd places, such as town articles. United States Man (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Use the search function to start with.Jason Rees (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Why didn't I think of that? United States Man (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Its not perfect, but a good place to start.Jason Rees (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I did find a few articles. There may not be as many mentions of this as I think. United States Man (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

{{Infobox tornado}}

@Netoholic: I don't see any negative effects, but since it looks like this pointless back-and-forth arguing between multiple editors won't stop until we have a discussion, please explain your changes. Thank you. Dustin (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll add a parameter called "Related", which is what a lot infoboxes use for this sort of connection. I can add that to both the outbreak and single tornado templates (P.S. though the more I look at them, the more I feel those two templates could be merged). -- Netoholic @ 20:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
You may as well merge {{Infobox tropical cyclone season}} with {{Infobox hurricane}} then. It's not reasonable or necessary the way I see it. Dustin (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
{{Infobox tornado outbreak
| name =
| image location = 
| image alt      = 
| image name     = 
| date = 
| duration    = 
| fujitascale = 
| tornadoes   = 
| wind =
| hail =
| total damages (USD) = 
| total fatalities = 
| areas affected   = 
| enhanced = 
| more =
}}

{{Infobox tornado
| name         = 
| image        = 
| alt          =
| caption      =
| fujitascale  =
| date         =
| time         =
| location     =
| casualties   =
| damages      =
| affected     =
}}

These parameters are very different. What point would there be in a merge? Dustin (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't compare parameter names (IT is updated, ITO is not), compare each row/label function. ITO only has a couple minor extra rows which easily apply to some single tornadoes too. -- Netoholic @ 22:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Netoholic: What do you mean IT is updated? No it isn't (except sometimes with the wind parameter which currently has not been implemented, and it won't be updated more than once anyway). Dustin (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The default parameters used in IT were recently updated to be MOS compliant, ITO hadn't been touched yet. If it had, the parameters would be much more visibly alike. --Netoholic @ 03:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Winds parameter for the tornado infobox

I brought up previous discussions at Template talk:Infobox tornado#Possible Estimated Winds Parameter and at User talk:Netoholic#{{Infobox tornado}}, and I just don't see what the point is in not including the winds, even if only three tornadoes were to use the parameter. Wikipedia is not limited on space, after all. Does anyone have any comments? If so, either leave them here or at the template talk page. Thanks. Dustin (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have any comments? Dustin (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Another question might be, how do you draw attention to a new discussion? It has been a week, and I am still yet to receive any replies. Dustin (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I have found it difficult in the past to get discussions going for templates and some of the less watched articles. I had considered the possibility that we could also include damage-based wind speed estimates so long as we could make note of the fact that they are estimates. Though this could lead to some confusion with the differing estimates on the Fujita and Enhanced Fujita scales. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I think that is why it has always just been included in the body of the article (or the lead) and not the infobox. United States Man (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't suggest including estimates just based on damage rating while the F scale was being used. I would only include the estimate where radar estimates are available or where the National Weather Service has made a scale-independent estimate (such as the 2011 Joplin tornado). TornadoLGS: I would suggest that you take a look at Template:Infobox tornado/testcases. Do you think the note properly covers the scale estimates issue? Dustin (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I think the note could be a little less specific. We could just note that it was taken by mobile Doppler radar, which would then be discussed more specifically in the body of the article. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@TornadoLGS: I suppose that could be done. Would you edit Template:Infobox tornado/testcases and make those changes? I am not sure of what the best way of wording it would be, even though I know what to include. Thank you. Dustin (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dustin V. S.: I had a go at it, although it still isn't perfect. United States Man (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
How do we keep this idea from just becoming forgotten again? Dustin (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Severe weather articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It might take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

References

This is going to be a two-part discussion concerning references for the project so that we can jump start some sort of consistency between both pages and editors moving forward. This will be primarily for the tornado pages. The first thing I want to talk about is the number of references. Right now, we're using 3 references for each individual tornado confirmed: a link to the SPC storm reports page, a link to the event page that local Weather Forecast Offices sometimes put out, and, when, they're available, the NCDC storm events. Per WP:CITEKILL, "While adding footnotes is helpful, adding too many can cause citation clutter, which can make articles look untidy in read mode, and unreadable in edit mode. If a page has extra citations that are either mirror pages or just parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to its reliability while acting as a detriment to its readability." While a combination of the SPC reports page and WFO event page may be useful in the short term, I don't see the point in adding them one the NCDC storm events are published.

The second thing I want to talk about is just more for consistency purposes (and my OCD) more than anything else, and that's how to cite the NCDC storm events pages. We've all been doing them a different way. Some cite the local WFO as the |author=, the NCDC as the |work=, and the NOAA as the |publisher=; I don't use the |author= field and simply put NOAA as the |publisher= and the local WFO as the |work=. If any of you know someone who's an expert at citing, maybe that would be beneficial.

Thoughts? @Cyclonebiskit, @Sharkguy05, @United States Man, @TornadoLGS, @Dustin, @TheAustinMan, and anyone else who wants to contribute. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert at citing, but I personally would cite the Storm Prediction Center, National Climatic Data Center, and Weather Forecast Offices as |work= and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as |publisher= since pretty much everything is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and is somewhere under noaa.gov. Dustin (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(The following are my suggestions and not guidelines) When National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) storm event reports have not been published, cite a) an archived version of the local weather forecast office's preliminary local storm report page (instead of the Storm Prediction Center report page, since that abridges report details; see example) and if they provide any additional information or were not originally reported, b) the local weather forecast office's press release on the event; see example. Once the National Climate Data Center does release storm event reports, use solely the NCDC Storm Data publication; see directory. When citing final reports, |work =, to my knowledge, is deprecated. Use |publisher = United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center and |author = National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office [x],[y]. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 23:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I have inspected some of the primary citation templates, and the |work= parameter does not appear to be deprecated. I just thought I should throw that out there. What exactly the parameter's purpose is may vary depending on the citation template used, with the {{cite web}} template using it as an alias for the |website= parameter which is the name of the website, but I don't perfectly understand all of this. I am not sure that {{cite web}} is even the right template to be using for this in the first place. Dustin (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Using multiple sources for the same information has never really been an issue for me, especially since some citations can tend to get old & become "dead" (link rot) at some point in the future. The NCDC Storm Data is the official, U.S. federal govt. record for what has occured over a certain area & in a certain time-frame...so that would obviously supercede whatever a preliminary WFO or SPC report would say about a particular weather event.
FWIW, the "work" that's done collecting all of the info that ends up in Storm Data is, in fact, done at the NWS WFO-level. I'm pretty sure that NCDC just checks over that work for consistency and/or general quality-control issues before it issues Storm Data. SPC really only knows what's been reported to them by all of the individual WFOs in the USA. So, SPC really just serves as a short-term collection point for certain types of severe weather data. It's been quite a while since I've read an actual hard copy of Storm Data, so I'm not sure who NCDC puts down as the official publisher of that publication. True press releases from any organization really should be using the press release citation template on Wikipedia, but the "example" given above wouldn't fall under that category though...it's just a NWS webpage that was issued for public consumption. Guy1890 (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

'lil help?

I have noticed what appears to me to be some incorrect information about weather at Chena Hot Springs, Alaska. It may not strictly fall in the scope of this project but I'm guessing you all have knowledge of where to get accurate information on weather. See the talk page for details. Thanks in advance. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing tornado outbreak

I have decided to start a draft for the ongoing outbreak. There were over 50 tornado reports on May 6, there is an enhanced risk of severe weather out today, and there are moderate risks out for Friday and Saturday. See the draft here: Draft:May 2015 tornado outbreak (I don't plan to leave the article at that title; I just wasn't sure what to name it yet because I was deciding on the specific days of the month). I will probably eventually move it to "May 5–6, 2015 tornado outbreak" or whatever title I deem suitable, but for now, I thought I should notify people watching this page. Dustin (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox storm (was Infobox tornado)

Template:Infobox tornado now redirects to Template:Infobox storm, and articles using the former have had their fields adjusted to suit the latter (see discussion here – permalink). There is an issue that editors familiar with this topic may want to address. In the old infobox wind allowed any text, and that text has been moved to highest winds in the new infobox. However, the latter is supposed to be a number (speed in km/h) with no other text. Because the old infobox did not follow that procedure, Alakzi has edited the new infobox so highest winds will convert the given number (if a number consisting entirely of digits is given); otherwise, it will show the given text. For example, 1997 Central Texas tornado outbreak shows the text as entered. If the highest winds text was changed to 194 the infobox would show "194 km/h (121 mph; 105 kn)". However, if it was 194.1, it would show "194.1". Johnuniq (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the issue with decimals, but it'd still be nice to sort that field out. Alakzi (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. I expect that since most tornadoes occur in the United States, the non-number-only version will be used since mph predominates in the U.S. so the majority of tornadoes (and even if you overlook that, non-numbers are included in many to all tornado infoboxes), but anyway, thanks for going to the trouble. Dustin (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Small grammar issue: Tornado ratings as nouns

In a number of articles discussing tornadoes or people or places affected by them I have noticed the use of tornado ratings as nouns (e.g. "The town was struck by an F5.") I have heard this used elsewhere but have always thought of it as a colloquialism. Is this something that should be corrected or is it acceptable to use ratings in this manner? TornadoLGS (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It technically should be something like: "The town was struck by an F5 tornado." As you basically say above, the rating is an adjective describing the estimated strength of a tornado. The F & EF scales can also be used to describe the estimated strength of straight line winds as well. Guy1890 (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Storm and Storms

Hi:

I don't really understand why there is two categories Category:Storms and Category:Storm. According to the Storm (singular): "This category directly contains articles on types of storms and storm terminology" and according to Storms (plural) it is "For articles on specific storms".

However, for instance, in Storm there is a subcategory for Dust storms (is it a type or specific storms?) and in Storms there is Ice storms (is a a type or specific storms?). So either there is work to do to recategized items in both or only one category is necessary.

Pierre cb (talk) 04:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Dry lightning and Dry thunderstorm

Dry lightning and Dry thunderstorm —has been proposed for merging. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you.

Pierre cb (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

South Carolina and North Carolina in Dixie Alley?

I've seen the Wikipedia article about Dixie Alley, it saids that Western North Carolina and Upstate South Carolina are part it. I don't think this ain't accurate information. Spencer H. Karter (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Severe storms in South western Ontario, June 8, 1906

I've found references to a severe storm that crossed Southern Ontario on June 8, 1906. It ran from Sarnia to Hamilton and from Detroit to Niagara Falls, a path over 300 km long and 50 km wide at least. How should this event be reported, if at all? It looks like there are no online documents by experts to describe estimated wind speeds, was this a derecho, etc, but there are a number of newspaper archives from which a detailed description of the damage could be made. Or would that count as original research? TomLuTon (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@TomLuTon: if there are no sources saying what type of storm it is, the best you can do without breaching WP:OR is by simply being generic and only referring to it as a storm. If no one calls it a derecho, tornado, etc., we can't either. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Specific classification of storms like the one described above was likely not developed until well after the early 20th Century, but you might try asking someone from Environment Canada to see if they've done any re-analysis of this specific event. Guy1890 (talk) 03:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Current weather event

Just a note that there is an ongoing discussion regarding adding a weather information disclaimer to this template at Template talk:Current weather event#Add warning?. Input would be appreciated. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 18:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Comma after city / town names in article titles

A user recently moved several articles from the format YYYY City, State tornado (outbreak) to YYYY City, State, tornado (outbreak). It appears the Manual of Style recommends including this comma at MOS:COMMA, but considering WP:SVR's already unique naming conventions regarding commas after years, I thought it would be worth bringing up here since it involves numerous articles, such as 1905 Snyder, Oklahoma tornado. Dustin (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: I suppose I'll have to start an RfC on this, too...in my opinion it's the "Snyder, Oklahoma tornado" and not the "Snyder, Oklahoma, tornado". Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Louisiana State University/Natural disturbance and society (Fall 2016)

Just an FYI, since the class's assignments involve some articles from this project. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Comma after year

After noticing that many tornado articles are titled "Month Day, Year, tornado outbreak" while many others are titled "Month Day, Year tornado outbreak", I decided to come here to see which one is correct. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado, articles of that form should be titled May 1-2, 2008 tornado outbreak, but if you click that link you'll see that that article is actually titled May 1-2, 2008, tornado outbreak, leaving me back where I started. Which form is correct? Kaldari (talk) 07:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Kaldari: There was much discussion here a while back that ended up being consensus to leave out the comma. I see that User:JamesLucas changed those yesterday, which would go against long-standing project consensus, but is probably compliant with MoS. I don't care either way, but they do need to be consistent. United States Man (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
We discussed this back in 2013. Apparently I was the closer on the broader RfC that established a naming convention for tornado outbreaks. For some reason my closure did not address the comma at the end. Ks0stm, who started the RfC did not put a comma after the year, but there was a question of whether the RfC found consensus that there was to be no comma or whether it simply was not addressed. I don't remember my rationale when I closed the RfC, but looking back it does not appear that it was adequately addressed for me to have determined any consensus. We never really resolved the issue definitively after that, and all of the discussions over at MOS ended in no consensus to change the status quo. Currently MOS:COMMA states, "Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation. In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetical." That would lead me to believe that, regardless of how any of us personally feel about the comma (or lack thereof), the MOS requires that we add the comma after the year. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I have been filling in thousands of missing commas, and I stumbled into the cluster of storm-related articles without the slightest expectation of it having been an issue discussed before. Obviously I'm very pro-comma in this context and would like to see these changes through to completion (ie. consistent titles with the commas), but I took a pause as soon as I found evidence that this was something with a backstory. I didn't want to plow on until I had time to properly read/discuss, which is hopefully this weekend. Glad to see there's interest. —jameslucas (" " / +) 22:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My rationale for leaving out the comma after the year is that when saying/reading the title they are awkward at best. One wouldn't read such titles as "April 27 *pause* 2011 *pause* tornado outbreak". The pause at the second comma is so slight compared to the first as to basically render it unnecessary to note with a punctuation mark, not to mention that the second comma leaves "tornado outbreak" awkwardly hanging out on its own at the end of the title. If we need to do a new RfC then so be it, but I feel like we had consensus on this before. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
If you do create another RfC, it would be worth mentioning the issue I brought up in the above section as well. Dustin (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Dustin's comment that was separated: A user [JamesLucas] recently moved several articles from the format YYYY City, State tornado (outbreak) to YYYY City, State, tornado (outbreak). It appears the Manual of Style recommends including this comma at MOS:COMMA, but considering WP:SVR's already unique naming conventions regarding commas after years, I thought it would be worth bringing up here since it involves numerous articles, such as 1905 Snyder, Oklahoma tornado. Dustin (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I've had a chance to read through the comments above and through the RfC from 2013. It looks like there were some positive outcomes of that conversation (I see numerous article names that had included the phrase "outbreak sequence" had "sequence" dropped), but I'm not seeing a strong consensus regarding the second comma. I'm in favor of adhering to the WP:MOS, in no small part because it's impossible for typo hunters to learn esoteric conventions for each of the hundreds of projects across Wikipedia, and it's probably only a matter of time before another pedant comes blundering into WP:SVR as I did. I certainly respect (and agree with) the sense articulated by some that the second comma leaves the subsequent word(s) "hanging" awkwardly, but I argue that this is an inextricable downside of MDY-dating, not something that can be turned on-and-off.

As for questions of consistency, I'm pretty focused on this punctuation through my work AWB as NoAmCom, and—should we decide to institute the second comma—I'd be happy to buckle-down on Severe Weather articles to make sure consistency is achieved. Cheers —jameslucas (" " / +) 21:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

To go back to Ks0stm's point about pausing after the year, lack of pause in reading does not necessarily mean no comma is appropriate. If the MOS requires a comma, and my interpretation at this point is that it does, I don't think the argument that it sounds awkward is a good rationale for departing from the MOS (although it may be a valid reason to change the MOS). Inks.LWC (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

In prose, I might see the need for a comma, but it seems like little more than extraneous / awkward punctuation as included in a title. Dustin (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of article titles should match the standards of correct prose so that links can be written into well-constructed sentences without piping or redirects. —jameslucas (" " / +) 01:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
But is there a reason other than subjective awkwardness to advocate for a different standard for titles compared to prose? I guess I don't see why a reason that a rule of grammar applied to prose shouldn't also apply to a title. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ks0stm and others that the comma following the year is awkward and feels misplaced. Nonetheless, WP:MOS does state that they are necessary, and in the grand scheme of things the addition of the comma neither helps nor hurts the quality of the articles, so I support jameslucas' proposal to make the changes throughout the WikiProject. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Several requested comma moves

See Talk:April 6–8, 2006 tornado outbreak#Requested move 27 January 2017. Dustin (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for linking, Dustin. Does not strike me as the appropriate venue for the conversation, but it's good to know it's there! —jameslucas (" " / +) 18:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wind ranges

Mathematically, when it comes to "closed" (e.g. # +/- # mph) vs. "open" (># mph) ranges, how can winds be compared? I have seen a few mentions of the winds from the May 3, 1999 tornado near Bridge Creek being "slightly higher" than the winds of the May 31, 2013 El Reno tornado, but since the numbers are not actually 295 and 301 (they are instead >295 and 301 +/- 20), I'm a bit confused on the matter. As I see it, I would think that there would be issues with a direct comparison involving that much range overlap, but I thought I would mention it here just in case. Master of Time (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Good point. The data is rough... Let me give you some backstory on those. See, the pretty large margin of error with the May 3 data is attributed to the fact that DOW-3 has a frequency (PRF) of 2000 Hz, resulting in a Nyquist interval of 32 m s-1 (velocity folds at ±16 m/s), so converting it that *exactly* is borderline impossible. The May 31st dataset, although higher resolution, is MUCH MUCH MUCH messier and is much harder to unfold, so the CSWR just said "Lets just go with that.", for all intents and purposes. That said, there isn't a huge issue in the community citing those numbers since at this point, its the best we can do! :) Bryan C. W. (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Modifications to Template:Current weather event

There is a current discussion regarding my addition of new parameters to {{Current weather event}}, which adds an external link to an official, constantly updating source of the latest weather advisory. Please feel free to make comments.

Here's the summary of this issue: This interim solution originally was the result of a discussion now archived at Talk:Hurricane Irma/Archive 2#Active hurricane disclaimer?, after someone added an "Active hurricane disclaimer" notice on that page.[1] In that discussion, it was concluded that this notice was primarily redundant, except for the addition of an external link to a primary, official source of the latest weather advisory. This disclaimer was then used in other recent active hurricane articles, in addition to {{Current weather event}}, causing more redundancy. This notice also prompted a user to attempt to copy it into the template namespace as Template:Hurricane disclaimer, but it was deleted on grounds of WP:T2 - no disclaimer templates.

Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

2017–18 European windstorm season

I'm looking for a bit of help with this article. It's a composite of 2017–18 UK and Ireland windstorm season and 2017–18 Western Europe windstorm season that was merged yesterday to 2017–18 European windstorms. I've since moved it to the present title as I didn't feel the previous one was appropriate, but I see a bit of a hash was made of the merger. The two original articles concerned two separate weather naming systems, but the merging editor hasn't bothered to update the article to reflect this, nor even the lede. Despite its name this article now seems to have a UK-centric theme, and there are also still a number of links to the sister article. Can someone take a look at it and perhaps organise it better or even restore the previous pages if necessary? I don't know enough about the topic to do it myself, but can see it needs some fairly urgent attention. Cheers, This is Paul (talk) 14:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what you even want me to work on....all three of those links just bring me to a page called 2017–18 European windstorm season and I can't find the older version? And what about the links? Did you want me to delete them or what? ~Beth 14:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PrincessBeth (talk • contribs)

Proposed merger of Mesoscale convective vortex into Mesovortices

Please go to Talk:Mesovortices if you have an opinion on the subject. Pierre cb (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I-94 Derecho

Hey guys - I've been doing some work adding references to the I-94 Derecho article. It was completely uncited, but I did manage to find an article from the National Weather Service to use as a general reference for the article (based on the content, it's probably the main place where the original author got the material). However, my search for additional information sources on this storm have been fruitless. I know it's not of supreme importance that every page have multiple sources, but I feel like this article would be a lot better if we could have more than just this one source. If anyone can be on the lookout, I think it would improve the article. Sleddog116 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Categories for tornado articles

Many of these categories are pretty useless, because the entries in the category are in no particular order. For example, Category:Tornadoes in Illinois is neither ordered by date nor location; dated articles are in random order because of unsuitable date formats (e.g. Tornado outbreak of April 14–16, 2011 is listed before Tornado outbreak of April 15–16, 1998; locations are sometimes precise (Marion, Illinois tornado outbreak), sometimes broad or unspecified (May 2009 Southern Midwest derecho, Tornado outbreak sequence of May 2004); and many articles are, unhelpfully, listed under T for Tornado. Another similar example - one of many - would be Category:F4 tornadoes. I suggest that each of these categories should be divided into two subcategories: by date (using a category sort key in a standardised format YYYY-MM-DD) and location, where present; and by location and date. Those articles not having a specified location could be grouped together at the start of the location subcategory (e.g. Tornado outbreak of April 2, 2006 would appear with location unspecified (blank), and date 2006-04-02). This would allow any reader searching for a particular event to search by date or location. Comments on this proposal? Colonies Chris (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:2018 Redding Fire Tornado

Does this merit an independent article? I'm leaning toward no. It's already covered in Carr Fire (and the tone of the draft is rather inappropriate in any event). Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

When should an individual tornado be split from its outbreak article?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado establishes general guidelines for when a tornado or outbreak is notable enough for its own article, with less notable events only getting sections in the respective yearly article. What aren't established are guidelines for when an individual tornado should get its own article if an article already exists for the outbreak that produced it. This issue was discussed for a few tornadoes that were split off from 2011 Super Outbreak but hasn't received much attention otherwise. I think it's worth discussing, since a tornado that would deserve its own article if it occurred as an isolated event or as the only notable tornado of a small outbreak (e.g. the 2017 Tulsa tornado) would be better off merged if an outbreak article already exists. Some candidates for such merging include the 2016 Pensacola Tornado, the 2011 St. Louis tornado, and perhaps even the 2015 Rochelle–Fairdale, Illinois tornado. Does anyone alse have thoughts on this? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Tornadoes of 2004

June needs to be edited, it just sounds unprofessional Redfishtwofish (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

So I have noticed how a good amount of weather related events get posted on Portal:Current events. The Wikiproject Current Events was reactivated recently and I was thinking of a new section below the "Related Projects" section. The new section could be partnered WikiProjects, or the Current Event WikiProject could be added to related projects. Just wanted to take a vote on it. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Severe_weather/Archive_5&oldid=1091649164"