Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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

Hello,
Please note that Tropics, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

New list article moved to draftspace

A list class article was created by a new editor. I moved it to Draft:List of tornadoes in the Caribbean. To be honest, what little is there is kind of a mess. The same user created an article that I brought to AfD. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Marine layer could use some attention.

Marine layer could use some attention. - 189.122.243.241 (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Page moves

Hello, WikiProject Weather,

Tonight I came across a new editor, Special:Contributions/Compasu, who is doing a lot of page moves regarding storms. They seem to know a lot about Wikipedia and what is really strange is that their first edits were to SPI cases. I came here because I'm not sure if these page moves were in line with the naming practices for storms and are okay or if they should be moved back to their original page titles. Can some active editors check these contributions out? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 07:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

For a few years now, we have been moving disambiguation pages away from Typhoon, Tropical Storm x, Hurricane X or Cyclone X to List of storms named X since various naming schemes have been adopted for non-tropical weather. I have no comment to make on Compasu's other edits.Jason Rees (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Okay, that's what I needed to know. When I see a relatively new editor moving around a lot of pages, I get suspicious. However I know that the folks at this WikiProject have come up with their own guidelines on content regarding weather, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. so I wanted to check in with you all. I appreciate your response. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, it turns out that they were a sockpuppet of Sidowpknbkhihj as was Mafing. Just a head's up, when you see a new editor moving around a lot pages about weather and storms, you might report them at SPI. I'm unsure whether or not all of the page moves on these articles should be reverted. That would be a nice project if anyone here might want to take it on. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Joining

How do i join? Sorry I’m still relatively new to this.. TheEasternEditer (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@TheEasternEditer: There's nothing formal about it. All you have to do is add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Members. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Typhoon Yuri (1991)#Requested move 31 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Typhoon Yuri (1991)#Requested move 31 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 22:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:PVITAL stuff

Hey, in the WP:VITAL weather section, 3/7 articles are not good articles yet. How should we and you guys make them a GA? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: These are delisted FAs... Not to sound rude, but there's quite frankly shitloads of work to do on just tropical cyclone and I'm sure the others are in the same boat. I don't have the time to do much right now due to college. I have laid out an action plan for fixing it and nobody has bothered to help out in quite some time for a number of reasons. I have done a lot, but a lot still remains... Not sure what can be done to get people to help here. NoahTalk 18:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Terminology question

I came across an IP who was changing multiple articles of California cities from "mild winter" to "cool winter". I changed them back, but it got me wondering: what is the objective difference between "mild" and "cool"? I couldn't find anything on or off wp that addresses the question, so I was hoping some of this project's experts could enlighten me. Schazjmd (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Featured article review for Hurricane Nora (1997)

I have nominated Hurricane Nora (1997) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Notability Guide for Tropical Storms ?

There are a number of draft articles on tropical storms in AFC review. I know that there are unwritten rules about when tropical storms are notable. Because I have not received a useful answer in English to what the unwritten rules are, I will be routinely declining nearly all tropical storm drafts unless there has been discussion on the season talk page. I would like to encourage the writing or rewriting of a notability guide that can be used by a reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: We do have Wikipedia:Notability (weather), however has since been left as an essay following a failed attempt to promote it to a guideline. Though it's not the best (nor is it a guideline, as of now), the "Tropical cyclones" section more or less details the current status quo (and unwritten rules) when it comes to tropical cyclones. I can't give my opinion for the other weather events, however, as I only specialize in tropical cyclones. Solidifying it as a guideline could help the AfC process, but that'll probably take some more time and more discussion. Chlod (say hi!) 14:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The general rule for notability of tropical cyclones is that every tropical cyclone is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Each storm exists as part of an annual tropical cyclone season in one of several tropical cyclone basins, each of which has its own climatology and areas that are more typically hit. Therefore, a minimal tropical storm with minimal impacts, such as Tropical Storm Colin, should still be included in the 2022 Atlantic hurricane season, but if there isn't enough independent, reliable information to discuss the storm, then Colin shouldn't have its own sub-article. Typically, landfalling tropical cyclones have two paragraphs of information in a season article. One describes its formation, path, and dissipation, and the other describes the impacts. Usually, minimal tropical cyclones don't cause significant impacts, and if a storm like Colin causes similar impacts to a typical cold front, then there wouldn't be enough to write about it. You don't need to indicate every instance of flooding on every road and house, when the sentence - "The storm's rains flooded low-lying areas, inundating roads and houses." conveys the same information. There of course isn't a limit to how many articles on Wikipedia we have, and sure, you could have an article for List of roads flooded by Tropical Storm Colin (2022), but then we're getting into such trivial territory that it almost reads as fancruft. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback on "weather box" captions

Hi, at Furnace Creek, California and, I suppose, other places too, the weather box has per-month figures for both "Average high" and "Mean maximum", and also for both "Average low" and "Mean minimum". It is pretty baffling to readers what the difference between those would be. I would hazard a guess that one might be averaged daily extremes for that month, and the other overall monthly extremes averaged over the years, but this is very far from obvious. If that is the case, inserting the words "daily" and "monthly" respectively into the labels would certainly help. 2A00:23C8:7B09:FA01:F0D5:A38B:42D5:3922 (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The average is for daily extremes, and the mean for monthly extremes. In Miami in December, the average daily high is 78.2 °F (25.7 °C) and the average low is 64.3 °F (17.9 °C). As for the means, the mean maximum for December is 84.9 °F (29.4 °C) with a mean minimum of 49.7 °F (9.8 °C). (Miami, which had a low of 45 °F (7 °C), was colder then it’s mean minimum on this Christmas morning).--12.207.51.104 (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

2022 and our lack of GAs

It’s a little disappointing how few GAs we had over 2022. Especially considering some articles like 2021-22 North American winter and Weather of 2021 are close to GA. We should work on getting more GAs for 2023. 12.68.17.162 (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Just a note that Weather of 2021 cannot become GA since it is a list. However, I do agree that we should focus on getting better articles about weather over more articles about weather. 🇺🇦 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
My feeling is that 2022 was a year that laid the foundations for things to come.Jason Rees (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Tornado outbreak of November 29-30, 2022

An article that you have been involved in editing—Tornado outbreak of November 29-30, 2022—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. 68.197.135.166 (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

GAR notice

1899 New Richmond tornado has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Project Backlogs

Would anyone be opposed to me listing myself as the WikiProject Weather Backlog Reviewer and to contact me with any inquiries related to articles needing attention, unsorted articles, etc..? There's a lot that needs to be worked (literally thousands of articles at this point + it needs to be watched in the future) and I would be willing to take up the role since it works well with my sporadic availability. I will go ahead and list myself, but if anyone has an issue with that, feel free to commentNoahTalk 04:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Tropical Depression Two-E (2006)

Tropical Depression Two-E (2006) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Scrapping the Possible F5/EF5/T10+ Lists

DISPUTED
Closing per [1] as disputed due to Canvassing. The discussion is unsalvageable at this point due to the canvassing of users via a mass ping. NoahTalk 13:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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 recent discussions (and Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes), with the intent to improve the Possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes officially rated F4/EF4/T9 or lower & Possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes with no official rating sections, has potentially shown a bunch of errors that are potentially unfixable with the lists. Multiple editors have expressed concerns with the list over the years (and especially with the recent discussions). It it time for the WikiProject to have a discussion about fully scrapping the list. This would allow for a potential new discussion to arise in the future for the list to comeback at a time when 100% clear guidelines can be put in place. Important to note that this list has been discussed on the talk page since 2007 (evident in Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Archive 1), meaning debates and discussions will never go away and have been ongoing for over a decade. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussions

  • Scrap — As the person who started the discussions which had the goal to improve the list, I watched multiple long-debates come about and multiple editors did not fully agree. This is a problem since a list like this would always have disagreements, but it should not be this much, especially from multiple experienced and respected editors like United States Man, TornadoInformation12, and ChessEric among others. At this point in time, I feel like the lists (Possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes officially rated F4/EF4/T9 or lower & Possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes with no official rating) should be completely scrapped and possibly revisited in the future. I thought the discussions could lead to some clear guidelines, but that is obviously not the case as the discussions (some even debates) have clearly shown.
The article is titled List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes, not “List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes and possible F5 and EF5 tornadoes”. Scrapping the lists will end a lot of headaches, debates, and disagreements among editors as well as help get Weather Wikipedia more credibility off-site, since many people (as evident in the discussions) have disagreements about the list, with some referring to it as a “sham”. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
That’s the reason I posted it on the WP Weather talk page. I don’t know every single person who would want to participate, but I pinged the active participants in that discussions (which were mentioned on the WikiProject talk page) & recently active editors on the Tornadoes of 2022/2023 articles. I plan to alert more people through talk page notifications, but that is why I didn’t instantly ping 50+ people, since statistically speaking, those who would potentially want to participate got the ping. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Scrap -- I honestly think that lists like these only cause issues, because personal opinions will continue to play a role in peoples decisions whether the guidelines are there or not. I've seen people argue against a person bringing up evidence that fits the guidelines because of 1 thing or another.
Lists like these will always be controversial and people will always argue about a tornadoes respective rating despite who says what. Especially in today's day and age where all people care about is the rating, especially the younger generation(s). If you want to avoid arguments between editors 24/7, this may be the way to go.
Personally I wouldn't mind if it stays up or taken down either way as I only get involved every so often, I'm only getting involved because I was called upon. MariosWX (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is value in noting which tornadoes were plausibly stronger than officially rated or controversially rated, Tuscaloosa probably being the most prominent example. However, the threshold for inclusion should be greater than a meteorologist tweeting that it would have been rated stronger if it hit something sturdier. That is true for almost every tornado that occurs in this country. I support inclusion based on references by Grazulis, Marshall, official government publications/websites, or radar (assuming it's explicitly mentioned by the people/orgs I just mentioned). wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 19:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
That’s the problem though. Why is Grazulis (BA meteorology degree) accepted when PhD meteorologists wouldn’t be? That’s partly the issue here. Yes, Grazulis is considered a tornado expert by most people, but the list you just described is what was causing the debate. A good example of this was with the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado’s debate, which was added based on Tim Marshall & 2 NWS employees paper. That said, editors still opposed it. Why would Marshall be accepted over say a NWS Chief Warning Coordinator? As it stands now, the criteria involved a statement by a NOAA employee, Grazulis/Marshall, or published DOW data. The exact criteria that you just mentioned are already in place and it doesn’t work. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Grazulis is a trusted name in the meteorology department due to his extensive research and understanding of tornado intensities and damage caused by them, especially prior to the stricter and better building codes we use today. NWS offices use his information for tornadoes prior to 1950 for that reason. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
For reference, here is the criteria (which is listed at the top of the section in the article):
This list includes tornadoes rated F5/EF5/IF5/T10 by government meteorologists, non-government employeed tornado experts (i.e. Thomas P. Grazulis or Ted Fujita) or meteorological research institutions (i.e. European Severe Storms Laboratory) that rated a tornado differently than the official government organization in charge of the rating. Published academic papers or presentations at academically held meteorological conferences that rate tornadoes as F5/EF5/IF5/T10 or present some evidence to support damage or winds in that category are also ways a tornado can be added to this list. This list can also include tornadoes previously officially rated as an F5 or EF5, but have since been downgraded officially to a lower rating. The discussions worked to follow that criteria, but as evident, that isn’t working. That is why it needs to be scrapped. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with that discussion. It looks like the original reasoning for inclusion was based off unreliable sources and speculation, which people opposed. Then, much more reliable sourcing came to light and supported its entry. That's what should happen. I don't doubt that NWS mets are reliable, but NWS mets on their personal accounts are allowed to speculate on social media. It's more the medium that I'm keying in on. There's more credibility attached when the claim is on a government website or publication. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 20:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This is more of the problem: Debates have occurred since 2007 about the list. 6+ months of hard work and research went into fixing it (the recent discussions), and editors (including experienced editors) strongly oppose the fixes. Is it fixable…Yes…Is it fixable without probably a year-long discussion, No. Scrapping it now will allow for that true discussion to come which can establish hard-rules for the list. Right now, the “hard rules” don’t actually mean anything. By your definition/ruling, the 2016 Chapman tornado (been on the list for a long time) wouldn’t count. NWS Employee interviewed on a weather-research YouTube channel. Also, technically speaking, your exact description of the “criteria” would actually eliminate the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado since the Tim Marshall/NWS Employee paper on it was uploaded to academia.edu, not a peer-reviewed journal…meaning it is equal to like a social media post. That’s the problem right now. The current criteria is not “hard-coded” enough. Scrap it and restart is the best way to deal with this since obviously “just working to fix it” hasn’t worked over the last 6 months. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Either it warrants inclusion on WP or it doesn't. If it's a notable topic that deserves coverage, it would be better to just leave it as is and have said "year-long discussion" and then fix the list. We don't usually remove something because it needs to be fixed and then restore it later. NoahTalk 20:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I’m down for fully deleting it. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Keep Since it clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability given the coverage of the tornadoes by expert and government sources. NoahTalk 02:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Then the question for you is: If it “clearly passed WP:Notability, why are we having full on debates about tornadoes for the list, including removing tornadoes from the list, which had government sources? Wouldn’t that disprove lasting notability? Elijahandskip (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
The topic as a whole is notable while an individual entity may not be. NoahTalk 13:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
That makes no sense. Notability has nothing to do with this question. Some tornadoes on that list barely have mention elsewhere on Wikipedia, yet editors agree it should remain on that list. Others were notable enough for their own article (individual tornado article), yet editors may think they aren’t notable for the list. A good example is the discussion sections for the 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado compared to the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado. Both tornadoes were notable enough for an individual article. Both had NWS personnel state possible EF5 (damage for Tuscaloosa and intensity for Kentucky). Tuscaloosa has 0 debate (unanimous) while editors did not want to add the Kentucky tornado to the list. If an individual entity isn’t notable for the list, how could it be notable for an article? In short, notability has absolutely nothing to do with this proposal. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep Really, the proposal to scrap the list because of the difficulty in deciding exactly which tornadoes to include is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There is real value in keeping the list for several reasons. 1) There is a degree of subjectivity in the F and EF scale that means ratings are not so absolute.; 2) Some ratings are legitimately questioned or disputed by well-renowned experts, a matter which should not be ignored even if we quibble on individual tornadoes. 3) Many F5 ratings that are technically "unofficial" (e.g. the Tri-State tornado) are widely accepted, even by the NWS. 4) Tornadoes that attained, or likely attained F5/EF5 intensity but failed to cause F5/EF5 damage due to a lack of damage indicators (El Reno 2013, Red Rock 1991) are widely discussed as such.
I figure no set of inclusions/exclusions will be fully satisfactory (and, to cover all bases, complete exclusion would be very much not satisfactory). Perhaps approaching it as a dynamic list would be appropriate. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Then the question for you would be: Are the currently criteria for the list ok or should they be changed? Elijahandskip (talk) 04:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
It sounds like you need to get dispute resolution for specific cases where it was extensively discussed rather trying to firebomb the whole list. NoahTalk 15:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Something else I thought of this morning. This proposal isn’t to remove the possible F5/EF5 damage/intensity from other articles. For example, this would not remove the information/section about the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado sustaining possible EF5 intensity. Is the topic ok for Wikipedia and articles? Yes. But a list that is only going to cause debates and disagreements might not be the best thing. Two experienced editors, United States Man & TornadoInformation12 both have problems with the list, basically saying it is laughable. Sure, it is already marked as a “dynamic list”, but that still doesn’t change the fact it is overall hurting the WikiProject. The debate over adding the 2021 WK tornado to the list shows just how “dividing” the debates can be. Do we seriously want to do that longer than we already have? Looking back into the talk page archives, discussions about that list started in 2007 and are still continuing today. Dynamic or not, lists shouldn’t be causing 15+ years of debate between people. I would argue a list stops being “dynamic” once debates go on for more than a year or two. Another dynamic list is List of Canadian tornadoes and tornado outbreaks (since 2001). That has a clear-cut guidelines for the list…aka tornadoes in Canada since 2001. The possible F5/EF5 tornado list doesn’t truly have clear-cut guidelines. Who are we to say one meteorologist saying something gets a tornado on the list while another meteorologist saying something doesn’t get a tornado on the list? Right now, the list (and the way the discussions went) seems to be almost cherrypicked. That is why it is best to just scrap the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
It sounds like people need to listen to what the sources actually say and keep their opinions out of it. We are lead by the sources, not the other way around. It really looks like this just needs to go to dispute resolution once this RfC is over if nothing comes of it. Hurting the WikiProject is an exaggeration and not something that factors into what we cover on WP. I think you need to have an exploratory discussion to see what kind of guidelines people want and then have an RfC where people have the option to implement or decline each individual guideline point. As you can see, this page is riddled with discussions. Sometimes the longest and hardest discussions are the ones that are the most fruitful. NoahTalk 15:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Really, debates like that are par for the course for this Wikiproject and the question of "was this tornado an F5/EF5" seems to draw a lot of debate outside Wikipedia as well. But we didn't stop putting images in hurricane infoboxes because there were edit wars over which image to use. We can further discuss criteria. One idea that comes to mind of which meteorologists we take, is that there are many subfields within meteorology. One scientist's or engineer's particular area of expertise (e.g. Grazulis) may lend itself to assessing tornado intensity while another's might not. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
After reading through this conversation, I think you are overthinking things here @Elijahandskip:. I personally believe that having an other systems section that covers other potential EF5 tornadoes, is something that is needed in order for the list in question to become featured as some of our best work, as it shows that we have consulted secondary sources and are not just taking the official word for a system being an EF5. As for which tornadoes/meteorologists we include, I am personally of the belief that we should include all systems that have a reliable source stating that the system was an EF5, regardless of if the author has a PHD, BA Met Degree, are a amateur meteorologist, civil engineer or a government employee. Yes I said civil engineer since the two main scales in use by the weather project and its subprojects were developed by civil engineers.
With all of that said, I agree with @Wxtrackercody: when he says that the inclusion criteria should be greater than someone tweeting that it would have been rated stronger if it hit something sturdier. If we are too go down the rabbit hole of what makes a reliable source, I would state that I do not believe that Twitter is a reliable source for intensity classifications, since it is too easy to write that a system was an EF5 tornado and provide any clarification or analysis. We then have random authors, websites companies and conferences such as ESSL and the Tornado Project which are reliable enough to be included but should be superseeded by books and peer reviewed journal articles where ever possible as they will have been peer reviewed. I will conclude by saying that I maybe biased towards the inclusion of an other systems section as I was the one who wrote List_of_Category_5_South_Pacific_severe_tropical_cyclones, which has to include Cat 5's in the Aus Region (Between 135 & 160E) and factual notes on the intensity of Pam 74, Nisha-Orama, Oscar & Veena 1983 as well as Anne 1987. I hope that it can serve as an example of what can be done with an other systems section.Jason Rees (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
So you are saying a discussion, somewhat along the lines of an RfC (maybe at like WP:RS) should help determine what sources are reliable for the F5/EF5 list? That could work potentially, though, that would potentially be some long discussions. That said, Hurricane Noah did say long-discussions may be for the best. Once this RfC ends, if the consensus is to keep it & the consensus is to sort of vet the sources, I will begin working on that longer RfC variant that would be to “vet” the sources and determine notability. The ongoing discussions somewhat do that, but as I pointed out earlier, a mix of sources were used (which included YouTube videos, tweets, papers, books, and .gov sources) & a mix of sources (some being .gov sources) were determined to not be good enough. So the new RfC style reliable source discussion would somewhat be determining what sources are and are not reliable. To help solve debates in the future (like 2-3 years from now), it should all be documented somewhere on Wikipedia. Hence, why I started the talk page off-shoot for the discussions. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I am only one editor and we can have that chat if you so wish but based on experence, I suspect Wikipedia Guidelines would make it pretty obvious that the order of the sources used would be:
Twitter/Youtube Videos (Unreliable IMO)
Newspapers/Random Websites/Companies (ESSL/Tornado Project)
Published Books/Peer Reviewed Journals/Weather Service Speculation.
I also think that the discussion ongoing at the moment though, would be the platform where the sourcing could/should be discussed. I will see what comments I can add to that page later.Jason Rees (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Twitter is deemed unreliable since the Musk takeover since anyone can buy a blue mark. NoahTalk 22:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Joke comment: When a Wikipedia editor accidentally says “Twitter is deemed unreliable”, meaning part of NOAA publications are also “unreliable” since NOAA uses Twitter. RIP Elijahandskip (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
The problem then deals with how to handle NWS official accounts (YT/Twitter), NWS personnel (Tweets) & sometimes NWS official interviews, which are on various YT videos. One example: Would the 2016 Chapman tornado then remain on the list? It has been there for ages and no one (even during the discussions) questioned it being on the list. Yet, what added it to the list was a self-made documentary, which involved an official interview with an NWS personnel, who then stated the possible EF5 intensity. That is where the simple “this is reliable & that isn’t reliable” turns into a complicated thing for majority of the tornadoes. That is somewhat why a larger RfC would be needed since just saying YT videos aren’t reliable has a much larger impact since that would group (NWS official YT videos, NWS official interviews not on the official channels, and other documentary-style videos as the same). Sadly, that is sort of the reality of why the larger discussion would be needed. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I strongly feel that if a tornado is truly speculated to have caused EF5 damage then there will be proper sources out there that would classify it as such and thus we would not have to rely solely on random youtube videos and twitter conversations that are best left on Twitter/Youtube.Jason Rees (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
So you are saying NWS-made YouTube videos are not reliable then because it is on YouTube? Elijahandskip (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
For the purposes of speculating that a system might have caused EF5 damage, I do not believe that videos made by the NWS or starring the NWS are good enough. I would strongly suspect that if a system is truly thought to have caused EF5 damage, then there will be better sources like journals or websites available.Jason Rees (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I took a brief look at the 2016 Chapman tornado and noticed the EF5 speculation was sourced to NCDC/NCEI, who said that winds approaching 200 mph likely occurred. Is this really enough to say that it was likley an EF5 tornado, i dont personally think so but its up to the project to decide.Jason Rees (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you missed a source. If you look on the chart, Tornado Talk Podcast is linked. Between (2:00-3:12), you hear the NWS Meteorologist Chad Omitt talking about it. That's one of the things. Would an NWS meteorologist, from the office where the tornado occurred, on a podcast be reliable or not? Unfortunatly, most sources come from a reliable source, but maybe not in a peer-reviewed academic paper (WP:OR comment: since the peer-review boards do not take well to people "challenging" the official ratings.) Some experts (Tim Marshall and NWS meteorologists) actually publish non-peer reviewed papers do places like academia.edu. Would those be reliable? If Tim Marshall would be considered a reliable source, then non-peer reviewed things would also be accepted. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The biggest thing I am reading in this discussion is that You, @United States Man, Wxtrackercody, and Hurricane Noah: and myself want the list to use proper sources and I am not sure that a podcast would be good enough. As an example, I listened to the podcast about the 2016 Chapman tornado that you linked to above as an example and would reject it as a source. This is because Chad didnt say that it was an EF5 tornado but that it could have been one if it had moved into a city with more structures which is true with any type of tornado. Personally, I would want to see a text based source peer reviewed or not, that directly states that there was EF5 damage and isnt if x and Y happened then it could have been an EF5 tornado.Jason Rees (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Based on that exact description, that would remove the 2013 El Reno tornado (300+ mph winds physically measured by a DOW and is one of the main reasons the EF scale is being changed), and most likely reduce the list down to around 3-4 tornadoes. In all reality, there is almost no tornadoes that have been point blank said “this location should have received a rating of EF5”. For example, 2011 Chickasha—Blanchard EF4 is on the list due to NWS saying “plausible EF5”. In full context, they were referring to plausible EF5 intensity, not damage. 2012 Henryville has NWS saying another possible EF5 damage spot, however, they did not say “It should have been EF5”. Since 2000, if you are looking for a true text based source that says there was EF5 damage, the list would have the 2011 Tuscaloosa tornado & the 2004 Marion tornado. That’s it. Could that work? Yes, but there would probably be a whole lot more debates. If I am being honest, based on how the discussions went, you would most likely be overruled on the removal of the 2013 El Reno tornado. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I wouldnt be nominating the 2013 El Reno Tornado for removal since the NWS intially rated it as an EF5 tornado, especially because I include Pam 1974 in the Cat 5 list. I will admit though that my criteria might be a bit too strict since I am not a tornado editor, but ultimately we need to follow what the sources say.Jason Rees (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak keep – I do think there is some value to this list and didn't expect a comment I made to turn into a big discussion a day later, but I agree with wxtrackercody that some tornadoes do have a place on the list. I just think there needs to be more strict inclusion criteria that needs to be decided on by the project (although I definitely realize that's easier said that done). United States Man (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Keep But make clear what the inclusion criteria is on the article itself. 68.195.239.242 (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
That is already the case if you look at the paragraph at the start of the section. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Remove from article — It's a fine amount of work, and it shouldn't be junked, assuming people can agree on criteria. But I think it makes sense to make it its own dynamic list, separate from the EF5 list, which should remain tornadoes officially rated as EF5, without hypotheticals, and reflecting official records only. Smushing the two lists into one article with a title that doesn't mention the second list isn't great. Penitentes (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral I honestly don't know. I personally like the list and want it to stay, but the more recent discussions on certain tornadoes has really turned me off. I'm fine with whatever decision is made. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral Both sides make good points. Staying neutral for now, and like ChessEric, I simply don't know which side to choose, though I plan to update if more points in "scrap" and "keep" votes are made. Tails Wx 22:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
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.
Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Commentary not entered on the article talk page may be swept up in archives and lost. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. 1933 Atlantic hurricane season
  2. 1995 Pacific hurricane season
  3. 1998 Pacific hurricane season
  4. 1999 Sydney hailstorm
  5. 2000 Sri Lanka cyclone
  6. Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Delaware
  7. Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C.
  8. Eye (cyclone)
  9. Hurricane Claudette (2003)
  10. Hurricane Danny (1997)
  11. Hurricane Dog (1950)
  12. Hurricane Edith (1971)
  13. Hurricane Erika (1997)
  14. Hurricane Erika (2003)
  15. Hurricane Fabian
  16. Hurricane Gustav (2002)
  17. Hurricane Iniki
  18. Hurricane Ioke
  19. Hurricane Isabel
  20. Hurricane Ismael
  21. Hurricane John (1994)
  22. Hurricane Kenna
  23. Hurricane Nora (1997)
  24. Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan
  25. Meteorological history of Hurricane Wilma
  26. Tropical Storm Bill (2003)
  27. Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004)
  28. Tropical Storm Edouard (2002)
  29. Tropical Storm Henri (2003)
  30. Typhoon Pongsona

Final selection: Colors

The final selection RfC for the map, template, infobox, and timeline colors has started. This affects maps, templates, infoboxes, and timeline colors for the Weather, Tropical Cyclone, and Severe Weather wikiprojects. Please see the discussion here to participate. NoahTalk 21:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review Hurricane Gustav (2002)

User:SandyGeorgia has nominated Hurricane Gustav (2002) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Great Storm of 1975

Great Storm of 1975 has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC about if the 2023 Kingston tornado qualifies as a possible EF4

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RFC) to determine if the Old Kingston EF3 tornado qualifies for the list of list of possible F4/EF4 tornadoes with no official rating or lower rating. You can participate in the discussion here! Elijahandskip (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent work on Hadley cell

I recently rewrote and expanded the Hadley cell article, since it is an important component of the global atmospheric circulation and was lacking in detail. The hope is that this vital article can be brought to at least Good article status. The Hadley cell is a far-reaching topic, so I'm posting this here in the hope of getting more eyes on the article to help satisfy the "Broad in its coverage" criterion and cover all major aspects of Hadley cells. The article is potentially quite far from being comprehensive, but maybe as a start we can at least get to all the major points. Below I've highlighted some key areas where I figure the article might need additional context / content / work on:

  • Is the framing of the Hadley cell presented in the article as a tropical, thermally direct overturning circulation the right way to talk about the Hadley cell? Should we be more broad or more concise?
  • Is a more rigorous discussion on the dynamics of the Hadley cell needed, including mathematical descriptions of energy transport / conservation and circulation dimensions or behavior?
  • The role of the ocean and continents – their physical properties and their distribution – in shaping the Hadley cell
  • Teleconnections (e.g. ENSO) and their affect on the Hadley circulation, and vice versa
  • Regional variations of the Hadley cell, or "regional Hadley cells"
  • The later history of the development of the Hadley cell, such as the development of later models like the Held–Hou model
  • Further discussion the effect of climate change on the Hadley cell, both historically and in model projections
  • How do human influences physically/dynamically result in Hadley cell expansion?

Additionally, more free images would be nice — perhaps someone could find/produce a useful streamfunction plot for the equinoctial and solsticial Hadley cells? — TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 21:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed Colors Modification

A slight modification has been proposed to the consensus that was achieved in the final selection given its outcome. Said modification only involves the category 5 color. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Weather/Color_RfC#Modification for the discussion. NoahTalk 18:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Climate of the United States articles questionable data in the extremes section

In the Climate of the United States article in the extremes section, the June and August records seem dubious since both of the sources listed do not support/provide evidence for those records so I think they should be fixed, but I'm looking for a second opinion. Akamaikai (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Split Proposal for the 1974 Xenia Tornado

There is an ongoing proposal & discussion to split the 1974 Xenia, Ohio F5 tornado to a stand-alone article. You can participate in the discussion here. Elijahandskip (talk) 08:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Article titles and MOS:GEOCOMMA

I'm here to point out, following a discussion with Elijahandskip, that weather article titles containing "city, state" place names need a comma following the state. Example: 2015 Rochelle–Fairdale, Illinois, tornado. Elijahandskip pointed out to me that there are many titles that are not adhering to this guideline, for example 1953 Vicksburg, Mississippi tornado and 2007 Elie, Manitoba tornado. These are insignificant changes I know. I'll get started on them myself. It's worth pointing out that some titles already adhere to this, for example Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado. Thrakkx (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Thrakkx. United States Man (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes RfC

Just a heads up that we are discussing a replacement infobox at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/New Weather Infobox. Please see that page for further details. NoahTalk 23:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

International Fujita scale and TORRO scale colors need help

With the conclusion of the basic category scale color changes, the IF scale and TORRO scale (each with 12 colors) needs some updating/improvement. Just wanted to toss that out there since those are the only two scales with a 12-rating system. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review Hurricane Danny (1997)

User:SandyGeorgia has nominated Hurricane Danny (1997) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Track maps

@Chlod: and @LightandDark2000: now that the color debate has been settled at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Weather/Color_RfC#Modification, we will need a bot to supplement the new colors into old track maps. Y'all mentioned in previous discussions that a bot could be made to perform this task. Are either of you capable of getting this ball rolling, either directly or through someone y'all know who is capable? wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 01:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 is currently topic-banned from pages about weather. He will not be able to respond.
I am capable, however I am unable nor am I interested. I am currently focusing on other projects (be it academic or on-wiki), and I am unable to dedicate the time for this. In addition, changing the old track maps would be in violation of c:COM:OVERWRITE unless there's prior cross-wiki support from all wikis which use those maps and from Wikimedia Commons to get the bot task approved. I definitely don't want to get involved in that as I don't want to step on the toes of many other wikis due to our local (English Wikipedia-only) consensus, nor do I want to upload over 5,574 new images—1,846 of which require secondary verification (to verify accuracy or to resolve missing data), and 592 of which needing reconstruction (due to missing or unavailable data). On these grounds, I cannot, in good conscience, develop the required tools. Chlod (say hi!) 01:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
We could always submit a request for a bot at Wikipedia:Bot requests if needed. They run a trial to make sure it is done correctly before doing the whole run. We could at least get slightly over half done and then people could focus on the ones that need additional input. NoahTalk 02:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah: do we know how to go about getting AWB to change the timeline colors? I calculated the RGB values:
  • Potential Tropical Cyclone/Disturbance/Depression: (0,0.52,0.84)
  • Tropical depression/tropical low/deep depression: (0.43,0.76,0.92)
  • Tropical Storm/MTS/CS/A1/EF0: (0.3,1,1)
  • Severe Tropical Storm/SCS/A2: (0.75,1,0.75)
  • Category 1/RSI1/EF1: (1,1,0.85)
  • Category 2/TY/VSCS/A3/TC/RSI2/EF2: (1,0.85,0.55)
  • Category 3/RSI3/EF3: (1,0.62,0.35)
  • Category 4/VSTY/ESCS/ITC/A4/RSI4/EF4: (1,0.45,0.54)
  • Category 5/VITY/SuCS/VITC/A5/RSI5/EF5: (0.55,0.46,0.9)
Do you have any experience with this or know how to get the ball rolling? wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@Wxtrackercody: I can get a request put in for that tomorrow. I will ask someone I know who has helped us out before to see if they are interested. NoahTalk 02:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@Wxtrackercody: Put in a bot request for both issues. NoahTalk 22:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Press release for color change to the track maps

The previous color scheme for Hurricane Patricia, the strongest recorded storm in the Western Hemisphere, with the Category 5 color in red
The new color scheme for Patricia, with the Category 5 color in purple

Wikipedia maps for tropical cyclones have their first major update in 17 years.

Used freely around the internet, these maps show the path and intensity of each tropical cyclone, known around the world as hurricanes and typhoons. Almost every recorded tropical cyclone is listed on Wikipedia, organized primarily by the annual season in each of the seven major bodies of water, known as tropical cyclone basins. In October 2005, user:Jdorje developed the track map generator, which allows users to input location coordinates and plot them on a map of the Earth. The tracks are overlaid specifically on File:Blue Marble 2002.png. This creates a map of the tropical cyclone path, and because it is uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, it can be used freely all over the internet.

Because storms can last as long as 31 days (a record set by Hurricane John in 1994), it is useful to display the trajectory of the center of the cyclone. Maps can carry more information by indicating the strength of the tropical cyclone.

The storm’s winds, a significant damage factor, typically occur near the center of circulation. The winds are estimated using surface and air observations, satellite imagery, and other means, which is the basis for various tropical cyclone scales. Most storms worldwide are named when they produce sustained winds of 39 mph (63 km/h). The next major threshold occurs at 74 mph (119 km/h), when storms become a hurricane, a typhoon, a very intense cyclonic storm, or a different designation depending on where it is in the world.

The tropical cyclone maps use different colors to represent the intensity. After years of using the track maps, it became apparent by November 2021 that the original colors were not discernible for some users who are colorblind, a violation of a core Wikipedia principle toward accessibility. Users discussed which background map to use, agreeing to use the by-then traditional Blue Earth. After an extensive period of comment on the need for change, spearheaded by User:Hurricane Noah, there was an attempt in September 2022 to implement a new color scheme. A request for comment (RfC) closed on February 16, 2023, in which a new color scale would be implemented.

The most significant change is the color purple, which is now the color for the most intense tropical cyclones on the maps, the Category 5 on the Saffir-Simpson scale. The purple replaced the dark red, which is now the new color for a Category 4.

It took several hundred kilobytes of discussion, and input from many users, but the colors on Wikipedia’s track maps will now be accessible to all people.

Discussion

I’d also like to thank everyone who participated in the various discussions, especially User:Hurricane Noah for all of their efforts to get this done. That’s why I wanna get this right, so please scrutinize and fix up my proposed press release. I think we need a press release, for the Signpost at bare minimum, but also to Storm2k, Facebook, Twitter, further maybe, who knows. Either way, I’ve been around Wikipedia for a long time, and I know how big a deal it is to have accessible storm colors, to continue the mission of being a reliable encyclopedia for everyone. That’s why I think we should have a press release, something like the above, which covers the who/what/when/why/how of the story. Because as nerdy and esoteric of a story it is, it does matter. Millions of people read Wikipedia each year. Hell, I’ve personally seen dozens of fake track maps of fake storms, using the track map generator. Thoughts? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

OK, so if I like the old colors better, is there any way to enable them in my Preferences or something? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Nope, as things stand the old colours are gone.Jason Rees (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I've thought about continuing to upload separate legacy versions of the track maps for those who still favor the old scale. Of course they'll only be available on commons. Supportstorm (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
To be honest, I think we need a comparison of the colors showing the changes we made. NoahTalk 23:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Should we use Irma? Patricia? Either way, I think the press release should be on Signpost ASAP. I already posted the PR to Storm2k. I imagine we'll need an explanation for a lot of people why we needed to change, and to explain the change. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

OK I changed the track map to Patricia. Eventually the existing image of Patricia will be replaced by the new color scheme. Can anyone upload a version of the map with the old colors for comparison sake? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: We can't overwrite the existing images without cross-wiki support from every wiki and consensus on commons to do so. There is a policy on commons against doing so without such a consensus. I am working to get a bot on commons to create derivative files using the new colors and then another bot will have to change the images on our wiki to the correct file names. It will then be up to each individual wiki on whether or not they want to switch. As pointed out by Chlod, a large number have to be done by hand for a couple of reasons. NoahTalk 22:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I can say full congratulations to people who did this RfC to get WP:ACCESS applied in every single tropical cyclone article and made sure these articles becomes colorblind-friendly. MarioJump83 (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

List of United States flash flood emergencies has been nominated for deletion

List of United States flash flood emergencies, which falls under your WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. You can participate in the deletion discussion here. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rschen7754 15:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for List of costliest tornadoes in 2022

List of costliest tornadoes in 2022 has been nominated for deletion. The deletion discussion is available here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of costliest tornadoes in 2022. United States Man (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

What climate/weather photos do you need? (Climate Visuals)

Hi everyone, Climate Visuals is working to increase the photographs available to Wikimedia Commons in their library and is seeking insights from the Wikipedia community about the climate change photos you need and would use.

(The Climate Visuals library is designed to increase the impact and engagement of climate change photography and information via their creative commons photo gallery and evidence base).

What are the specific climate- and weather-related topics that you need photos for? What articles or topic areas are you working on, or planning to work on, that could use more compelling photos?

Please do let me know below and I’ll pass the message on. Climate Visuals will use this info to collect and curate existing photos that would fill these gaps. Thanks! TatjanaBaleta (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@TatjanaBaleta: I personally think that the best photos we could have are damage pictures from significant weather events outside the United States. These are generally hard to come by and would be great to help break up articles on historical systems.Jason Rees (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment! TatjanaBaleta (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 Rolling Fork–Midnight–Silver City tornado has been nominated for deletion

The following article, 2023 Rolling Fork–Midnight–Silver City tornado, has been nominated for deletion and it pertains to this WikiProject. You can participate in the AfD discussion here. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

File:EF2 tornado near Wrights, IL.jpg has been nominated for deletion

The following file File:EF2 tornado near Wrights, IL.jpg has been nominated for deletion and the picture pertains to this WikiProject. You can participate in the deletion request here. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2011 Super Outbreak

2011 Super Outbreak has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023 has an RFC

Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023 has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

US-centric tables on Weather of 2022 and 2023

Sections removed by RandomInfinity17 as of March 29, 2023. Chlod (say hi!) 13:47, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

@Elijahandskip and Cyclonebiskit: (pinging editors involved in this topic)

On the pages Weather of 2022 and Weather of 2023, there is a section called "Deadliest events" with two sub-headings of "Deadliest meteorological events" and "Deadliest U.S. meteorological events". The first one is perfectly fine in concept and works good. The second section is where problems begin. Singling out ONLY US weather events likely violates WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV. The United States is no different from any other country and there are only two solutions to this:

A: Making a "Deadliest meteorological events" table for every country or

B: Removing this section. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 22:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove as it violates WP:NPOV. NoahTalk 20:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Remove – I originally boldly removed the US-centric table as a blatant violation of WP:BIAS and WP:NPOV. I stand by that decision. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Arguably, our articles are inherently US-centric since most of the active writers are US-centric, but that doesn't mean we should give special treatment to US events on what's supposed to be a globally-encompassing list. I'm afraid given how the tables display deaths, we're also making that subtle implication that US citizen lives are distinct from the rest of the world's humans. Best option here is to remove. Chlod (say hi!) 16:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The VAST majority of tornadoes occur in the United States, so it really isn’t biased or undue to have the article heavily weighted toward the United States. All you people are just continually looking for a problem around here. United States Man (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@United States Man: this is regarding the global weather articles, not the tornado articles. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Just thought I should point out this WikiProject was barely spared to not be a contentious topic. Let’s not engage in pointless drama. As far as the tornado outbreaks, I’d personally say it’s ok to not label them as US outbreaks as long as the lead mentions that they are by default in the US. 98.116.45.220 (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Remove Wikipedia should be focused on more global views, not narrow, US-centric view. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
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.

Tornadoes of 2022 has an RFC

Tornadoes of 2022 has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021 has an RFC

Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021 has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

2007 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak

There is a GAR for this article. 47.23.6.178 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Storm surge

Storm surge has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC: TC pressures and winds

WINDS AND PRESSURES FROM ALL AGENCIES ARE ALLOWED TO BE USED AS APPLICABLE.
Consensus was reached to allow use of winds and pressures from any given agency. However, consensus was also reached to adopt limiting principles to avoid WP:NOTDATA issues. In particular, consensus was reached to include data so long as their inclusion is reasonable (e.g., PAGASA data should be included where a storm enters its Area of Responsibility) or their measurements are notable (e.g., large variances between two measurements). There was general consnesus that JTWC data should be included in most cases, as JTWC is routinely cited, has historically been included in Wikipedia articles, and serves as a stable comparator. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

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.

It has recently been objected to that tropical cyclone pressures from the JTWC are being used in the new infobox that was approved recently. Each agency has its own section within the infobox so it is clear who is giving the estimate for which winds and pressures. Please see Template:Infobox_weather_event#Tropical_cyclones and its example at the bottom of the page for usage. Which option is best? NoahTalk 22:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Option 1: Retain the prior status quo of no JTWC pressures and no winds and pressures from agencies other than the RSMC and the JTWC.
  • Option 2: RSMC and JTWC winds and pressures allowed, but no winds and pressures from additional agencies are allowed.
  • Option 3: Winds and pressures from all agencies are allowed to be used as applicable.

Discussion

  • Option 3 I see no harm in displaying the JTWC pressure estimate and the estimates of winds and pressures alongside the RSMC estimate. It simply shows the different perspective various agencies take on the peak intensity of a storm. Given that it is clear who is giving what estimate, I don't see a compelling reason to oppose this feature. NoahTalk 22:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 Wikipedia should strive to be a comprehensive encyclopedia and that means including pressures from all involved weather agencies. Not including JTWC pressures, or any other agency in that matter, would make the encyclopedia less comprehensive. Somari, for example, is an unofficial video game that had an article here on Wikipedia, and it is well-known here on the Internet. JTWC is the same thing, it is considered as unofficial since it is no longer the main RSMC for Pacific and NIO, but the information related to them has been included for very much beginning of Wikipedia, and it would be fair that JTWC/outsider agency pressures should be included. I don't see not including JTWC pressures or PAGASA pressures would do some harm, rather it would make Wikipedia stand out from the rest. As far as it goes, however, inclusion of the non-official RSMC data should not go as far as to trip the WP:NOTDATA. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
    I agree with keeping the JTWC pressures; for PAGASA, I'd give it a "hmm... maybe...". For a storm over the Philippines, pressure data from barometers on home turf (PAGASA) definitely seems much more reliable, but this is if it only hits the Philippines. In other cases, we should probably just have RSMC and JTWC only and discuss data (if of note) in the prose of the MH section. Chlod (say hi!) 03:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3, but I'm hoping that we only add in the non-RSMC/non-JTWC winds and pressures in the event that it's either significantly different from the RSMC or if it's particularly notable (either through consensus or a common sense agreement). Including all the data for a long-lived tropical storm that passes through Guam, the Philippines, Vietnam, and China (possibly even HK or Taiwan) seems like an information overload (since you'd have data from the JMA, JTWC, PAGASA, NWS Tiyan, NCHMF, and CMA, also possibly including the HKO and CWB). I had already hinted at this usage at Template:Infobox weather event#Non-RSMC scales a while ago, when I learned that this could possibly trip WP:NOTDATA. Chlod (say hi!) 03:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, people need to use appropriate judgement before adding and/or discuss with others. In the case of Goni and Haiyan, it would be appropriate to have PAGASA added. Similar case can be said for CMA in cases where a storm hit China at peak. NoahTalk 04:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1. Confusing readers with unofficial pressures opens up a whole can of worms, especially as the JTWC is only one agency out of many. This would especially be a problem in the western Pacific where there are many agencies with conflicting intensity estimates.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 + PAGASA I believe it is important to show the JTWC pressure if the winds are shown. It looks empty if it just includes the winds (as shown here). However, allowing as many agencies to be in the infobox is has two issues. First of all, it makes the infobox long which is unideal (I know that this many won't be used, it's just a demonstration). The second issue is that other agencies do not official track systems outside their basin, so there is no winds or pressure to use. Even if the winds and pressure from the basin are used, it seems redundant to list many agencies when most of them don't add any value. However, if a storm enters PAGASA's Area of Responsibility, I think it's ok to add {{Infobox weather event/PAGASA}}. I say this only for PAGASA as other meteological agencies (CMA, HKO, etc.) don't have any tracking/naming responsibilities for tropical cyclones. Infinity (talk - contributions) 22:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

*Option 2 I think using just RSMC/JTWC data (with pressure) would be the best. The existing situation excluded JTWC pressure due to limitations in the existing inbox, but we now have the flexibility of also showing the JTWC pressure. — Iunetalk 22:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 Based on others points below, I am alright with including pressure data for other agencies other than the RSMC/JTWC when applicable (such as in Cyclonebiskit's example with Rammasun). — Iunetalk 14:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment I feel that we need to break this RFC/discussion down a bit and take a few steps back, as there are several strands to consider. The first strand surrounds the usage of JTWC pressure data, which is problematic when we consider that the JTWC does not provide pressure estimates within the advisories or their ATCR, but does within both their running and final best track files. Is this good enough bearing in mind that the JTWC does not supply pressure data for some systems I'm not so sure. As for the multiple intensities thing, I prefer option 3 as we have to remember that there are several systems where there are several intensities provided and make more sense to present in the infobox than the RSMC/JTWC data, however, since there are numerous warning centers in the WPAC, I feel that the NIO and SHEM need to be treated separately as there are not as many disagreements between warning agencies. For the WPAC, I would suggest that using PAGASA intensities for Haiyan isnt the best option, since they didn't BT the system and probably took the data straight from the JTWC. I also feel that the only agencies that we should use in the WPAC are the JMA, JTWC, HKO and CMA, since they provide BT for the majority of systems all over the WPAC. In the NIO/SHEM, there are a number of generic situations where I believe that multiple intensities would be useful, including where there is a significant disagrement between the local/international centres, a system has moved from Aus to SWIO or visa versa at peak, a system is rated on the local scale (Eg SSHWS/SWIO). Just my thoughts.Jason Rees (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3: I think that showing all data that comes from reliable agencies is the best way to go, as long as these agencies work in a similar fashion of the RSMC and JTWC, having their own scale system, having a proper warning system and do periodic advisories. ABC paulista (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3. The JTWC, while not official, is widely used and allows for an apples-to-apples comparison across basins. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Limited use of Option 3 – My only concern with Option 3 is rooted in the WPac as we'd have to include PAGASA, CMA, CWB, HKO, KMA, and NCHMF which would make the infobox unwieldy and WP:NOTDATA comes into play. It could be discussed more in particular situations, such as Typhoon Rammasun where the CMA has a substantially lower pressure owing to a record-low surface ob in Hainan. Main reason I would keep JTWC in the infobox is for global homogeneity with 1-min winds being accessible and how widely it is used in media. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 when necessary, mostly per Chlod, CrazyC83, and Cyclonebiskit. The new infobox gives us the capability to show both sides of inter-agency conflict while still showing relative priority, which we should be making full use of per WP:BALANCE. My initial vision for the infobox during its development phase was to include all the other non-RSMC estimates from IBTrACS so as to be as comprehensive as possible – but I do see the concerns over NOTDATA and clutter raised above and so won't push for that. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
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.

Who is more accurate for deaths: NCEI or TWC

In January 31 – February 2, 2023, ice storm, The Weather Channel (TWC) posted an article during the ice storm saying 10 deaths occurred. ([2]) The National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) posted that no deaths were documented from this ice storm. ([3]) Multiple editors have disagreed on whether TWC's death toll or NCEI's death toll (or both) should be used in the infobox. So, which should be used in the infobox?

Personally, I opt for an inclusion of both as in this previous version. One argument used by an editor for TWC over NCEI was, "NCEI won’t mark car crash death tolls". Well, I know that is factually incorrect as NCEI actually marked one of the TWC car crash deaths as an indirect death (February 1 in Oklahoma). It is obvious NCEI does look at car crash deaths, they are just considered indirect deaths in this case. Showing both NCEI (the official death toll of 0) and TWC (RS Media direct death toll of 10) in the infobox is the best way to minimize error. Thoughts? Elijahandskip (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that you look through the sources carefully and go with the most accurate death toll that the majority of sources use. One thing I will say though is that TWC would report on a death toll while the event is very fresh, while the NCEI tends to report well after the event.Jason Rees (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Most sources support the death toll of ten, one of which includes AP News (and a NYT article that should be on the talk page.) Common sense should be used. 98.113.8.17 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Are we seriously about to say The Weather Channel is more reliable than NCEI? Like we have had this discussion SO many times I feel like in terms of X media vs NCEI. We always use NCEI since that is the (per the National Weather Service) location for official information. NWS actually confirmed d that principle earlier this year ([4][5][6]NWS Directives PDF) We already had a discussion about when NCEI damage totals are different that other source damage totals (i.e. Aon in this discussion). Every time NCEI vs X source comes up, socks get involved, hence why the Aon one vs NCEI actually got voided. Aon’s side had socks trying to stack the vote. That said, prior to the void due to sock puppetry on the side of Aon, a good compromise was made after a very experienced editor, who also worked in the insurance sector, participated in the discussion.
  1. Aon damage totals are a reliable source for damage total information (RS Noticeboard discussion conclusion) and can be added to an article's content.
  2. Aon damage totals are acceptable for an articles/storms infobox if NOAA has not published a damage total.
  3. Aon damage totals are acceptable for an articles/storm infobox if a NOAA NCDC damage total is also present. This would have both damage totals in the infobox (format done to this article, Tornado outbreak of March 21–23, 2022.
  4. Aon damage totals are ok for an article's content (aka text portion of the article), but should not be added in the infobox if a NOAA Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Diasters damage total is present, due to RS use of it over the Aon damage total.
While this discussions isn’t about Aon damage totals vs NCEI damage totals, there is a principle to it. The overall conclusion was still NOAA/NCEI used the infobox and disagreements got published in the text portion of the article OR even in the infobox as a second entry. When there was a debate about TWC vs NCEI, I attempted to use this discussions general outcome of putting both in the infobox. That motive seemed to not work. I really don’t want to go to an RfC over this because this overall principle of NOAA being official is used on multiple articles, especially tropical cyclone articles. For example, Tropical Storm Hermine (2022) uses the finalized Tropical Cyclone Report’s death toll of 0, despite multiple media reports of 30+. If a discussion reverses the principle of NOAA finalized death tolls in the infobox, then finalized tropical cyclone report death tolls wouldn’t matter at all. Agreements in the past said to do a split thing between finalized NOAA info and disagreement media material, so let’s go back to the split proposal I had originally when starting this discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
And this relates to the topic at hand…how?47.20.183.20 (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Because of the following reasons. (1) There has been previous consensus that if a disagreement between the official information and other sources exist, both are suitable, together, in the infobox and (2) that NCEI does in fact track the deaths mentioned by TWC, but officially marked them as indirect deaths, while TWC marked them as direct. The original split NCEI/TWC death toll mentioned and proposed above solves all the problems of NCEI vs TWC. I'm not sure why so many anonymous editors are determined to remove NCEI from Wikipedia, but overall consensus (when the rule-breaking accounts are excluded) seems to indicate that NCEI can co-exist with other sources in an infobox. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Both can be included if properly conveyed. For the infobox it would be "Fatalities: 0 (per NCEI), 10 (per [relevant source(s)])", with the appropriate sources attached as suggested in that edit diff. We're not bound to using a single source, especially if concrete reasonings for the exclusion of reported deaths is not given. It's known that NCEI is prone to human error given the sheer volume of information that is being compiled into the database so things can slip through the cracks even in the present day (namely local offices not submitting their reports on time and that info not making it in). In regards to Hermine, I contacted the NHC and they explicitly stated the deaths were attributed to squalls ahead of Hermine and not directly associated with the storm thus we can go with no fatalities. However, given extensive media reporting the incidents are kept in the article and marked as not caused by Hermine for the full picture. Multiple avenues can be explored as there's no one-size-fits-all solution to many of these situations. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Exactly! The proposal for having both NCEI and X media sources listed in the infobox actually is best as it shows both sides; official and reliable secondary sources. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Caution should be exercised when classifying fatalities from news sources. There's nothing on the Weather Channel page that specifically says the deaths are direct or indirect. It is worth noting that nine of the fatalities noted on the Weather Channel are listed in the NCEI database (3TX + 1TX + 1TX + 1TX + 1TX + 1OK + 1OK) so to say that NCEI asserts that the storm caused no fatalities seems erroneous; the infobox makes no differentiation between direct or indirect fatalities (nor does the template documentation). In general, where reliable sources disagree, both can be noted as Cyclonebiskit mentioned, with clarification either directly in the infobox or through an explanatory footnote (see {{efn}} and {{notelist}}). –TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 13:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@TheAustinMan: Isn't it the NCEI doesn't state that the storm caused any fatalities rather than the NCEI states that the storm caused no fatalities? NoahTalk 13:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
@Hurricane Noah: Your suggestion would be more accurate, as NCEI doesn't explicitly say that the storm caused no fatalities; regardless, for the storm in question, NCEI does include fatalities that match with news reporting, with the exception of the fatality in Arkansas. I was referring to Elijahandskip's initial statement that The National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) posted that no deaths were documented from this ice storm, which isn't accurate per the links I previously provided. –TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 14:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Storm Set Indexes

Last year, editors outside the project discussed our storm "disambiguation" categories and decided to move them to "set index" because these pages are set index articles not disambiguations since they provide more than just navigation. They use the set index template "storm index". I would like to move pages within Category:Set index articles on storms to List of storms named X to reflect that these are indeed lists and not disambiguations. This is the most concise title that's possible and takes into account that not every named storm will be a TC. Around 100 pages currently exist at such a title while around 600 or so do not. I also would like to change the class on all the talkpages to SIA from DISAMBIG to reflect this as well. If everyone is okay with this, I will handle all the required work for it. NoahTalk 14:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I’d personally rather have all of these SIA be merged into “List of named storms” by letter, but that’s an unpopular opinion. If you don’t mind doing the work, sure, go ahead, this has been an issue for a while now, so good to finally get it done. Thanks in advance for you being proactive. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Article page moves

For the past few days, I've been seeing User:TheQuestionMark move quite a few articles regarding typhoons, hurricanes and tropical storms (see Special:Contributions/TheQuestionMark). Since none of these moves were reverted, I assume that these page moves were accepted by editors working in this subject area. But in case they flew under the radar, I thought I'd mention them since you have such an active community. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, yes, I have been moving a LOT of index articles in a boldly manner. I started doing this more commonly since this requested move by me. Since then, I have been continuously moving articles to a more appropriate name. I only have been here for a little more than a year, so I'm still getting use to the community. If what I'm doing is disruptive or rule-breaking, I am happy to cease the article moving. ▶❓◀ 💬✍ 00:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Liz: The articles @TheQuestionMark: has been moving have needed to be moved away from being TC based for ages since TCs are not the only storms to be routinely named. I just wish we could move them all at once and encourge users to use them to describe names assigned by TWC, UKMO, MetEirrean, Meteo France etc. Jason Rees (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

"Posthumously rated F5"

I've noticed that people are using words like "posthumously" incorrectly. People can posthumously win awards, for example, but tornadoes cannot be posthumously rated. They can be retrospectively rated, even retroactively rated, but not posthumously rated. I've tried correcting some of these, and I stumbled upon a couple that were changed back.

I realize I'm a newbie in this Wikipedia world, but this isn't about my status as an editor and contributor. And I'm not saying I'm perfect. If any of my edits are perceived as truly clunky, mea maxima culpa, and I'll atone for my sins; however, this "posthumous rating" thing isn't subjective in nature. Dym75 (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Introducing myself, currently doing research for articles...

Hi, folks. I wanted to introduce myself: I'm David, I have a degree in journalism (so I can write rather well), and I also have a significant interest in weather, particularly tornadoes. I hope to get more involved with the process of researching, writing, and editing tornado articles (and others, as time permits). Since I'm rather new to the concept of creating articles, I asked at the Teahouse and was advised this might be a good place to share this information.

In recent weeks, I've done a tremendous amount of research (and there's more to do) so I can write some tornado-related articles - specifically, list pages that organize notable/significant tornadoes by path length, width, damages, and death tolls).

I'm also currently working on a list page for tornadoes in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. My home state tends to be stuck at the kids' table when it comes to severe weather, so I'd like to share our tornadic history with those who are interested. If I can find the time, I'd also like to create similar articles on the Northern New England states (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont).

If anyone is interested in collaborating on these (whether you've already started or you'd like to join me), please let me know. Thank you! Dym75 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Dym75:, appologies for not responding sooner but I have personally been busy in real life, anyway, I hope you have enjoyed finding your way around the Wiki over the last month or so and that you have managed to get your teeth into a project. It would be great to see our coverage of tornadoes in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont improve and I would imagine that you have encountered our more proflic tornado editors @United States Man, ChessEric, Elijahandskip, TornadoLGS, and Wxtrackercody: who will be able to help you navigate the wiki and help develop the lists that you mention by pushing you in the right direction. I am also intrigued to see that you have a degree in journalism and may ask you to copyedit a few articles in the future if I need it.Jason Rees (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
@Dym75: Welcome the club brother! ChessEric 22:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @Jason Rees and @ChessEric :-) Dym75 (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Quick, stupid question, @Jason Rees and @ChessEric:
Are we supposed to be entering dates as mmddyyyy or ddmmyyyy? I found most of my article switched from March 18, 1925 or May 22, 2011 to 18 March 1925 or 22 May 2011 etc, etc.
The reason for my confusion is because, when I entered dates as 22 May 2011 in other articles, I was corrected and it was changed to May 22, 2011.
Which one of these is actually correct? In advance, thank you. Dym75 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@Dym75: Both are correct in theory as it comes down to what the country the article is related to uses, for example, a TC impacting the US will usually be written in MDY while a TC impacting Australia is in DMY.Jason Rees (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
What Jason said. XD ChessEric 00:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Since there's both US and other countries in this TC(?), I'll go with DMY (I'm sure the US folk can adjust). I had a feeling this might be your answer (depends on the country), but I'm glad I got confirmation. Thank you! @Jason Rees @ChessEric Dym75 (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
BTW, @Jason Rees, if you do want me to review any articles, please let me know. Happy to help where I can. Dym75 (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Howdy David! Can't wait to see how you contribute! New England tornadic events are super compelling yet underdeveloped, so I'm really glad to hear you have interest there. Happy editing :) Wikiwillz (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Deep South derecho with possible tornado outbreak.

I have created a draft for a currently ongoing derecho, with a possible tornado outbreak. There has been a MDT risk issued by the SPC. If you would like to contribute, please do so. Draft:June 2023 Deep South derecho :) -Visiblity VisiblityGale (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Tornado sections not displaying fatalities or damages

@Hurricane Noah and Chlod: The new Infobox for individual tornadoes is not displaying fatalities or damages. Any way this could be fixed? 71.125.62.17 (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Fatalities and damages must be displayed with {{Infobox weather event/Effects}} (used alongside the /Tornado sub-box) and not with any other template. Any other method is incorrect use of the templates. The relevant documentation page (linked) has the proper information on how the data can be supplied. Chlod (say hi!) 14:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Figured it out. Thanks! 71.125.62.17 (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
No problem; feel free to reach out if you have any additional questions. Chlod (say hi!) 14:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean

I have nominated Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for new tornado chart

While copy/editing List of United States tornadoes in 1946, Argenti Aertheri asked about introducing a new tornado chart.

Current

List of confirmed tornadoes – Saturday, May 18, 1946[note 1]
F#
[note 2] 		Location County / Parish State Time (Local) Path length Max width Summary
FU Beloit Lyon IA 18:30 2 to 3 mi (3.2 to 4.8 km) >0 yd (0 m) Several trees were uprooted, and small buildings and windmills were damaged.[1]
F4 SE of Stoneburg to NE of Bowie Clay, Montague, Denton TX 19:00 30 mi (48 km) 400 yd (370 m) 3 deaths – In Stoneburg, a church was obliterated, with debris splintered and scattered for a mile. That said, a linen scarf was untouched that laid on the pulpit. Elsewhere along the tornado's track, an elderly man was killed and his wife injured after their house was destroyed. A "prominent elderly couple" were killed after their homes and every barn on their new ranch was leveled. The U.S. Weather Bureau considered this tornado and the following tornado the same, while Grazulis split the tornadoes up. In total, three people were killed, 15 others were injured, and the tornado caused $112,000 (1946 USD) in damage.[1][2]
F4 Around Sanger Denton TX 20:00 8 mi (13 km) 200 yd (180 m) 1 death – A home on the north side of Sanger was leveled and three others were leveled east of the town. East of Sanger, a nine-year-old girl was killed by flying debris while she ran for the storm cellar. The U.S. Weather Bureau considered this tornado and the following tornado the same, while Grazulis split the tornadoes up. In total, one person was killed and five others were injured.[1][2]
  1. ^ All dates and times are based on the local time zone where the tornado touched down.
  2. ^ All ratings on the Fujita scale were done by Thomas P. Grazulis, a tornado expert, and are classified unofficial ratings since official ratings for tornadoes began in 1950.
  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference May MWR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Grazulis Book was invoked but never defined (see the help page).


Proposed

List of confirmed tornadoes – Saturday, May 18, 1946[note 1]
F#[note 2] Location / County (Parish) State Time (Local) Path length Max path width
Summary
FU Beloit / Lyon IA 18:30 2 to 3 mi (3.2 to 4.8 km) >0 yd (0 m)
Several trees were uprooted, and small buildings and windmills were damaged.[1]
F4 SE of Stoneburg to NE of Bowie / Clay, Montague, Denton TX 19:00 30 mi (48 km) 400 yd (370 m)
3 dead & 15 injured —
In Stoneburg, a church was obliterated, with debris splintered and scattered for a mile. That said, a linen scarf was untouched that laid on the pulpit. Elsewhere along the tornado's track, an elderly man was killed and his wife injured after their house was destroyed. A "prominent elderly couple" were killed after their homes and every barn on their new ranch was leveled. The U.S. Weather Bureau considered this tornado and the following tornado the same, while Grazulis split the tornadoes up. In total, three people were killed, 15 others were injured, and the tornado caused $112,000 (1946 USD) in damage.[1][2]
F4 Around Sanger / Denton TX 20:00 8 mi (13 km) 200 yd (180 m)
1 dead & 5 injured —
A home on the north side of Sanger was leveled and three others were leveled east of the town. East of Sanger, a nine-year-old girl was killed by flying debris while she ran for the storm cellar. The U.S. Weather Bureau considered this tornado and the following tornado the same, while Grazulis split the tornadoes up. In total, one person was killed and five others were injured.[1][2]


Outline for proposed code:

{| class="wikitable" 
 |+ Caption text 1
 |- 
 ! rowspan="2" | F# !! Location !! Time 
 |-
 ! colspan="2" | Summary
 |-
 | rowspan="2" | F4 || Texas || 18:00 
 |-
 | colspan="2" | Summary text
 |}
Or in HTML
<table class="wikitable">
  <caption>Caption text</caption>
  <tr>
    <th rowspan="2">F#</th>
    <th>Location</th>
    <th>Time</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <th colspan="2">Summary</th>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td rowspan="2">F4</td>
    <td>Texas</td>
    <td>18:00</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
     <td colspan="2">Summary text</td>
  </tr>
</table>
Either will display:
Caption text
F# Location Time
Summary
F4 Texas 18:00
Summary text
}}

I honestly really like the new proposed format. One thing to note, this original nor the proposed do not include coordinates as this is pre-1950 related tornadoes in which the proposal was made. We have a few options of how we could “test” the proposed format:

  1. Test it on an article (like List of United States tornadoes in 1946) and then do an RfC to see which format is liked better throughout the community.
  2. Decide to use the proposed format for pre-1950 tornado articles only. This would be since there are no start coordinates like in 1950–present articles.
  3. Do the second option, then hold a RfC to see if the community would prefer the proposed charts for 1950–present articles, or if it should be a pre-1950 only chart.
  4. Decide the proposed chart would not be feasible at all.

What is everyone’s thoughts about testing the proposed chart or even fully converting to it? WeatherWriter (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC) WeatherWriter (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the proposed table wouldn't work as it fails MOS criteria. Having two types of rows spanning multiple columns makes it difficult for text readers and it also breaks sorting capabilities. However, our current tables need a minor update to fully adhere to MOS: application of !scope=row on the first cell which would require the E/F# column to shift in order to keep the background coloring. I've applied them to List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007 per the ongoing FLC. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I just looked at the charts on List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007 and they look so unnatural. Why again does the current charts fail MOS:Application since it just moves charts. The first column is still colored (grey) on the May 4–6, 2007 article. Seems all it did was make the chart visually unnatural and unappealing. Something needs to be done though since you say the current charts fail MOS and your solution can’t possible be the best option. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
As a user on an IPad, the May 4–6, 2007 article is so much worse than the currently (original) or the proposed layout. The EF5 is like impossible to actually read. I even switched to desktop layout on the IPad and it is still impossible to read. I can take a screenshot and use the commons (there is a method for Wiki screenshots that are allowed on the commons for discussions like this) if needed. I’m fairly sure that layout only works for actual PC desktop layouts. That 100% needs to be fixed either back to the original or whatever layout comes from this discussion, but it cannot stay like that. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The May 4–6, 2007 layout on an IPad in desktop viewer.
The May 4–6, 2007 layout on an IPad in desktop viewer.
There is how I see that May 4–6, 2007 layout. Like it possibly cannot pass MOS criteria at all. I can actually see both the original and proposed layouts from above in full. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the specific order of the columns, I took some inspiration from how NWS Norman organizes their tornado tables. They place locations first, followed by path length/width, and then list the E/F#. The logic I went with is place all the location identifiers together (towns/cities, county, state, coordinates) then put the statistics (E/F#, path length/width). Shifting that single column farther right shouldn't change anything with the size of the columns on tablet/mobile, none of the forced column widths are adjusted. I use mobile to check in on things, not edit, and the tables have always been hard to read without putting it in desktop mode. Due to the size of the tornado tables they have always been unwieldy on tablet and mobile. While your proposed version provides greater width to make reading the summary easier on non-desktop (I do like that part), to my knowledge it doesn't satisfy MOS:ACCESS. The addition of !scope=row forces the cell to become gray but that cannot be changed to another color. class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" was used to prevent the unnecessary automatic bolding. Regarding it "look[ing] so unnatural", that's just because we're so used to the E/F# column being first as it has been that way for 15+ years. It's similar to the issue we had with changing the category colors, change seems unnatural/uncomfortable at first. Pinging @PresN: as they're more knowledgeable in the formatting and guided me to make the adjustments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Turns out you can apply !scope and keep the colors, use style="background-color:#{{#invoke:Storm categories|color|cat4}}" instead of bgcolor="{{storm colour|cat4}}" ~ Argenti Aertheri (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, to be clear: adding the rowscope does one invisible thing (flags the cell as the row reader, which screen reader software uses for ease of non-visual table navigation) and one visible thing (changes the formatting to be visually emphasized, just like column headers are). It wouldn't change column sizing.
The reason to swap the column order (which also wouldn't change column sizing) is that, just like how "column headers" are at the top of the column and distinctly define that column, a row header cell should be at the start of the row, and define that row. We don't, strictly speaking, enforce that, but 1) it's weird for the row header to not be the first cell and 2) since the row header should define the row, just like with column headers you don't want a lot of duplicates. If there's an easier column that is pretty unique per row, like location, it's better to make that the row header (and therefore the first column). --PresN 00:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I don’t know if it’s possible to keep the background coloring while using !scope=row, I’ll play with it more tonight. Sorting is fixed though, and there’s a working copy in my personal sandbox. I hope putting it there is appropriate, I didn’t want to turn the discussion into just line after line of code. ~ Argenti Aertheri (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict, though it looks like you got it just above) It definitely is! Ignoring what I said above about not having the F# as the first/header column, to do so, in the table classes (where you put e.g. "sortable"), add "plainrowheaders" - that drops the background color and bolding, so your custom colors should show up instead. You can also add whatever css style code you want to make the text change (e.g. I think it leaves it centered, so you could do !scope=row bgcolor="whatever" style="text-align:left;" | text) --PresN 00:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I pleasantly stand corrected then. If it satisfies MOS requirements I'm all for the proposed style. It gives greater flexibility with summary length and opens the door for images to be added in to break up the monotony of the tables. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I went ahead and implemented it into the List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007 so we have a good idea of what it would look like in full form. I also modified the proposal slightly, removing plainrowheaders in favor of bringing back the bold and adding style="border-bottom: 1px solid black" to every tornado to help with visually differentiating the tornadoes. Pinging frequent tornado table editors for further input: @United States Man, ChessEric, Wxtrackercody, ChrisWx, Tornadoesarecool13, CrazyC83, Mjeims, Creeperstomp, Timcigar12, and Supportstorm:~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry @TornadoInformation12:, I thought I had you in the mass ping. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh man. I'm not usually against change, but while the formatting and coding within this new chart are impressive, my opinion was asked, and I do not like it. Its a little harder to read the description of the tornado when the path length, width, and location/counties/parishes affected are directly above. It is a little tough on the eyes. It just creates a very thin "strip" for each tornado, and kind of has my eyes going many places. It is easy to understand once you relate tha "columns" and "rows" together and what the information means, but it is slightly easier the way it is. Mjeims (talk) 02:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC) I've changed my mind as well. It indeed captures long, complex tornado paragraphs into the necessary space to be completely visible in a single screen size, greatly improving the convenience to read it and avoid getting lost. It is easy enough to understand the contents and place them when formatting new tornadoes. Should work great in non-PC formats (mobile) as well. Mjeims (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
With what Cyclonebiskit did, I wanted to show how the proposed (well test implementation) layout looks compared to the original format. I can tell you it is sooo much better. Unlike before, the entire EF5 chart actually is visible without the need to scroll. This is on an IPad in desktop viewer. I also pulled it up on my PC as well as android phone. No visibile errors at all. Everything seems clear to read. Noting that original, proposed, and previous May 4–6, 2007 format all required the need to scroll right on a phone. The summary section is a lot better to read. WeatherWriter (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The proposed table is ok to me on PC display, even though I do prefer the old table for readability. If it makes it easier to read on mobile devices it's a decent compromise. In the 2007 article you linked as a demonstration, I would prefer we kept dates separate and remove the date column. I feel it's simply easier to edit that way as it segments tables, that could run 100s of entries, into (depending on event) bite sized chunks. Though to clarify, this is not the case in WeatherWriters proposal. I'm sure there are ways to further refine the table that improves readability on both platforms. Supportstorm (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think I like the previous tornado table better. The new table looks cluttered and puts a strain on the eyes, while the previous table looks a bit more clear, with the different sections of the chart more spaced out and everything given more of a designated section, rather than the stats and the description seemingly mixed into the same section. The previous chart feels easier to work with and easier to read, and with the new chart, the stats of the tornado, and the description itself kind of blend in to each other, and it doesn't really look that good as a result. You did good work with the coding for the new chart, but I think we should stick with the old chart in my opinion. ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 02:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC) Changed my opinion, see below. ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 03:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I’m dropping this here so everyone is able to see. (1) Current on small charts (2) Current on larger chart summaries {EF5} and (3) proposed chart on a larger chart summary {EF5}.
Current tornado chart layout for smaller charts.
Current tornado chart layout for smaller charts.

Original May 4–6, 2007 chart layout for a large chart box (EF5)Proposed and test implemented chart viewed for a large summary box (2007 EF5).

WeatherWriter (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

For mobile views (which account for 2/3rds of all English Wikipedia visits), the proposed layout definitely looks much better than the previous. Though in both cases some horizontal scroll is required to view the data, the text is not extremely crammed into around 1/3rds of the screen's horizontal size. The con here is that, for longer summaries, there's some back-and-forth scrolling that has to be done to read the summary, as the cell for the summary expands to the size of the rest of the table (which is greater than the screen's horizontal width due to the amount of columns). But I do feel that the benefit of having the dedicated row for summaries outweights the disadvantages, especially as we're now using much less screen space (and the back-and-forth-scrolling for summaries is minimal compared to the larger vertical scrolls for the tightly-compressed rows). Chlod (say hi!) 03:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
You can wrap especially long summaries with 
<p style="max-width: calc(100vw - 2.75em);">Summary</p>
to keep it from being wider than your screen, nothing changes when the table isn’t already scrolling horizontally. It isn’t strictly necessary, and does add some complexity to the code. So I don’t know if this is actually useful information ~ Argenti Aertheri (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The inability to read our tables on mobile devices has long been a pet peeve of mine. It should not be difficult to read no matter how you're reading it. Me and Cyclonebiskit had actually drawn up this exact table layout many years ago, but we abandoned it because we couldn't properly format it according to MOS. I strongly support this new proposal since a) it addresses the mobile issue and b) allows for a much expanded summary section, so that when we have huge paragraphs for particularly destructive tornadoes they're not awkwardly stretching the entry north to south. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 03:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
The new table definitely looks better for mobile view, and I think I probably will get used to the issues distinguishing the statistics on top and the summary of the tornado on the bottom, and reading further, it does include the possibility for doing more, such as including images, so I'm changing my mind. I think the new table should be implemented. ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 03:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I like the new chart. It fits in a lot better and takes up less vertical space. Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Eh it’s fine. Not overly crazy about it but y’all are gonna do what you want anyway. My only problem it is numerous versions of the table we currently have across all the different list pages. This is simply adding yet another version to decrease consistency even more. United States Man (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Fair, but I'd rather have them be inconsistently better than consistently worse. Penitentes (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm neutral about this. I like the idea of making the summary better to read for mobile users, but it is a little hard on the eyes due to all the lines in said chart. The EF# sorting is also a problem and could confuse readers. ChessEric 01:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Letting everyone know, I just created Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Tornado table layout with the three variations of the charts that can be used (pre-1950 & post 1950 on F and EF scale). The main difference between pre-1950 charts and post-1950 charts is no coords are given for any pre-1950 tornadoes and all pre-1950 tornadoes were given local times from the US Government and academics rather than UTC time. Is there a chance we could request like a 500/30 page protection for the layout page? It can be edit source or view source (if protected) copy/pasted by other users. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Issues with new chart

I reverted a change made to the June 2023 list here because of problems associated with renaming of column headers and unnecessary bolding. I feel this was hastily implemented without much strategy. The main problem I have with moving to a second row for the summary is when the columns are sorted manually at the top, the rating splits to cover both rows, resulting in double the amount of "EF0", "EF1", etc. Is there a way to remedy this? United States Man (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

United States Man, could you send a screenshot (commons — 3.0 like I did above) of what you mean by “the rating splits to cover both rows”? At least on my end, I did not see any splits in the rating box. There might be some visual error that needs to be reported to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) if some device (I’m not sure what device you use to edit or read Wikipeida) sees the chart split. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, probably not. Wikipedia seems to consider this a feature, not a bug (Help:Sortable tables) ~ Argenti Aertheri (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

When ever you choose to sort any column, the rating doubles. This happens on mobile and desktop. United States Man (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Probably some sort of "rowspan" issue or something. ChessEric 17:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Likely. It’s something I’ve seen on and off for years with tables in different content areas (not just weather). Still, I wonder if there is a way to rectify it. United States Man (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh that type of spit. Yeah, I’ve seen that before. List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2010–2019) has the same type of thing for the 2017 triple EF4 in China. I don’t think there is a way to fix that, but I could be completely wrong. Hopefully someone who knows about the coding side of Wikipedia can say if we can fix that or not. WeatherWriter (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I've put in a message at the village pump to see if there's a fix for this or if it's just a byproduct of the table formatting that we have to deal with. By "deal with" I mean accepting the one bug in favor of the overall greater improvements the table offers. Re: "unnecessary bolding", that's a result of using !scope="row" with "plainrowheaders" not enabled. I opted for that over the non-bold as it aids tornado differentiation with the proposed format, especially in tandem with the thicker line after each event. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
That's fine Cyclonebiskit. I actually always preferred the bolding anyway. United States Man (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Dude...I've asked you about why you bold many times. WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY ANYTHING UNTIL NOW?!?!? ChessEric 04:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
To be fair, USM has been consistently against removing bold from EF#s from the beginning (the change was implemented after a FLC in 2013 where the tables were revamped to their current style). There just hasn't been a reason to bring it up until now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Images in table works

Here is what WeatherWriter’s proposal and experiment looks like.
  • I wanted to mention this here as I did some experimentation that seems to not break on any reader version (PC, tablet, and mobile). In the new table discussion, which became implemented, ChrisWx & Cyclonebiskit added that images could potentially be added to the tables to help break up the chart—text block style of the articles. NWS releases released a cool image from an EF1 on June 2, 2023, so I did a test with added it into the chart. Here is the edit which added it into the chart (List of United States tornadoes in June 2023#June 2 event). Basically, it is the image at 100px with no caption. I checked it on mobile, tablet, and PC and there is no issues with the table. Even for a small tornado section that had 6 words, the 100px image barely expanded the tornado section, but for sure broke the monotonous read. Readers are able to click the image and fully expand it as well. Anyone have thoughts about this? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...that is clever, but I don't feel like it’s a good idea. ChessEric 13:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
      I would note, images would not be for every tornado. But for instance, any of the ones where we have a picture of the tornado itself should probably be added. And, any high-end EF2+ that doesn’t have a breakout section in an article should probably also have a small image (like the highest damage picture). That sets some guidelines for it, so it doesn’t overwhelm readers. But, it would allow for better context for the readers as well as breaking up the monotonous read. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
This is a slippery slope. I’m with ChessEric in not being a big fan of this. United States Man (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I wonder how this will fit in with the accessibility guidelines. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
As long as there’s alt text on the image screen readers shouldn’t have any issues. ~ Argenti Aertheri(Chat?) 02:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I originally proposed this a while back and have been putting around with the idea for a while. Images in tables are not uncommon across Wikipedia and in many cases it can enhance the tornado summaries. With the more flexible summaries we definitely have the space to work with. As brought up above it can be a slippery slope if we just go wild and add images whenever available as the vast majority of tornadoes have something these days thanks to DAT. I think for intense/violent tornadoes we can justify images in the tables for sure and other instances can be discussed individually (i.e. a weaker tornado that hits a major population center). Regarding MOS:ACCESS, there is no issue so long as it's implemented as a thumbnail with alt text. {{Multiple image}} can be used like in List of basal superasterid families which is a recently promoted Featured List. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

2023 Vermont floods

I just created 2023 Vermont floods. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference May MWR was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Grazulis Book was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather/Archive_2&oldid=1241565931"