Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/General meteorology task force/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Wind shear and Wind gradient and PBL

We have one author who reverted the merge between wind shear and wind gradient a few days ago, despite the fact that the two articles are about exactly the same effect and virtually everyone else who commented on the merge agreed with the idea over the past six months. I need some feedback here as to whether the single opposing author has a point or not. Thegreatdr 04:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wind shear is a much broader term in aviation than only to microbursts, the usage is similar to meteorology, the term is heavily used for changing winds in clear air as well as around convection. Wind gradient is almost never used in meteorology, while they may be interchangeable in some aviation circles, wind shear is still used there too (and predominately in my experience). A discussion of the aviation and societal/technological aspects along with the meteorological in the wind shear article makes sense. There is some good material in the wind gradient article, but it all pertains to the phenomenon of wind shear. Glancing at the references for the wind gradient article I even see wind shear in the titles, but not wind gradient! There is no entry in the Glossary of Meteorology (or probably any other professional glossary) for wind gradient; a Google Scholar search returns 22,500 returns for "wind shear" vs. 888 for "wind gradient".
Wind gradient should be merged into wind shear, with pertinent information retained; and the wind shear article from a meteorological standpoint does scream for expansion. If the editor has a point, (s)he hasn't made the distinction between the two clear to me, (s)he simply has different material on the same thing (i.e. material that should be under the auspices of wind shear, the term that is, as far as I know, by far more heavily used and certainly is in at least some fields). Evolauxia 06:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that the author has clarified what wind gradient was meant to cover, it appears to be a special, restrictive subarticle to wind shear. However, it should likely be renamed Planetary Boundary Layer of Earth. It could even be merged with the Planetary boundary layer article, which is really only talking about Earth's PBL. Thegreatdr 22:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Climate of Florida up for GA

This is my first climate-related article, and I tried to include anything I could think of, and reference everything appropriately. Let me know what needs to be improved prior to it becoming a GA. It was created this past weekend. Thegreatdr 21:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oceanography Project Proposal

I propose a new project, related to meteorology, WikiProject Oceanography; is there any interest in working on this project? It's much needed but would also be an undertaking and require at least a handful of committed editors to make it last and work. Evolauxia 21:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The project is proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Oceanography. Evolauxia 22:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Climate vs. Climatology

Should these be two separate articles? If so, how should the information be divided between them? I'm thinking the information on climate indices could be moved to climatology...but am not sure the two articles need to be separate. Any comments will be appreciated. Thegreatdr 15:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I refrained from comment when I first saw this as it isn't easy to answer. Obviously, climate refers to actual climates and climatology to the study of climate (its methods), similar to weather whose science is meteorology, and it's mostly setup like that already (probably due to your work, thanks). I support two articles; there does seem to be enough information and there certainly is the possibility of that. The indices are probably better at climatology, but that does seem to be a judgment call. Evolauxia 14:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Which Tosontsengel?

Does any of the experts here have access to better data to clear up this confusion? The location of the highest barimetric pressure measured is given ambiguously in official sources (there's more than one place named Tosontsengel in that region of Mongolia). --Latebird 13:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Propose new subproject

I propose a new subproject for the burgeoning atmospheric scientists and weather presenters articles. It would collaborate with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, obviously, but members of this project would offer increased expertise as well attention and interest for the persons under meteorological auspices. Thoughts? Evolauxia 12:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, perhaps respective persons would best fit under the auspices of the current sub and descendant projects, but that would be problematic in encapsulating those with considerable contributions to a variety of areas. Evolauxia 13:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Not my primary area of interest, but I am sure I would help out some if needed. -RunningOnBrains 03:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Nor is it really mine, although I find myself editing them. It seems that the tropical cyclone wikiproject simply puts it under the auspices of its project as we're doing with the severe weather (sub)project, and that's probably the better route. My main impetus was to keep the directories from being overpopulated with persons rather than phenomena, ideas, and tools. The pertinent place if a project for atmospheric scientists was organized would probably be a sub-group of the science and academia working group of the biography project, with a listing as a sibling/related project on pertinent project pages. Evolauxia 14:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's that time again...

Posted at WT:METEO, WT:SEVERE

Nominations are now being accepted for Release Version 0.7. I was thinking that we should put forth all our Top-importance articles, along with some high-importance which are very good supplemental material. -RunningOnBrains 19:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Weather Peer Review

Also posted this at WT:SEVERE. It seems I am the only major contributor to Portal:Weather right now. I really want to push collaboration on this, it seems kind of wrong for me to do everything myself (besides possibly introducing unintended bias, I really know nothing about Portals in general). Anyone who wants to help, post on my talk page, and leave comments for improvement at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Weather/archive1. Cheers all, and happy editing! -RunningOnBrains 07:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if we have ever used Weatherstock images in any of the meteorology articles, but due to changes in their copyright, we either cannot use Weatherstock images, or cannot use ones uploaded after February 7, 2007. The changes are:

Update 02-07-07:


Our allowing of free access (copying) our larger-sized images for educational and safety-related purposes ended on February 07, 2007. The administrative costs of maintaining the free sites along with bandwidth costs were costing over $30,000 a year. Funding graciously donated over the past 12 years by Warren Faidley and the Storm Angel™ Foundation ended on February 7 2007. Those images copied before 2-07-07 may continued to be used as long as the original terms of use are maintained.


We are currently seeking a main commercial or individual sponsor or grant to assist us with the costs of providing students and educators with access to our images at no cost. If your company or organization is interested, please e-mail us. Thank you.

and

B: Personal web pages, charitable, religious and non-profit interests: Copying of images is no longer allowed due to numerous copyright abuses. For discounted images for in-home, personal, church or non-profit use, please visit this site. We also offer a CD with over 100 images, discounted for educators. Information about this CD is located here. Additional products, poster and prints can be ordered here.

The full copyright can be found at: http://www.stormchaser.com/imagecopying.html

Units for equivalent potential temperature?

Is theta-e unitless, like temperature, or is it a measurement that has some units associated with it? This is not mentioned in the [equivalent potential temperature page]. Bhawthorne 17:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Temperature is not unitless (it can be given in a number of unit systems, usually °C, °F, or K), and theta-e is a essentially a temperature (a thermodynamic temperature), its unit is Kelvin (K) and only Kelvin. Evolauxia 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ckimpson (talk · contribs)

A new incarnation of user:Cgkimpson, who created tornado-related hoaxes. Please watchlist Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cgkimpson. Circeus 20:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Will somebody look at Kit Carson County Tornado Outbreak? Considering the user's track record... Circeus 21:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
there were 7 tornadoes reported on that day but I have a feeling the details about them are made up.
"Farther east, a severe thunderstorm blew up over Kit Carson County and produced numerous small tornadoes near Seibert. Stormchaser Roger Hill was tracking that storm and witnessed nine separate tornado touchdowns around 4:30 PM. The storm produced small tornadoes often known as "landspouts.""
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/4260630/detail.html

Gopher backer 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He is back again, removing citation requests, adding false information and now citing references that don't actually confirm what is claimed. Evolauxia 03:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked him, and quickly received an unblock request. Considering the tone of it and the circumstance (it appears to come from a parent-supervised email account), I'm inclined to think our culprit might simply be slightly immature. Circeus 19:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
He is now unblocked. Keep an eye out for him and ring me if he starts doing stuff like this again. Circeus 01:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
He's not so seemingly malicious this time, but he is making plenteous unsourced edits; some of which are easy to miss. Please carefully watch pages you've worked on. Evolauxia 15:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Back

The user is back again as CamKimpson (talk · contribs) and has received his last warning from me. Please let me know of any new issues with him. Circeus 20:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I had filled a sock report (last week) since it is obviously the same person again. Still no conclusions just yet--JForget 02:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This user is back again and up to his old tricks. Evolauxia (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
He is blocked indefinitely before I had the chance to read the message sent to my talk page, but I haven't fully check all edits, but one of his source led to a forum page which only mentions in some entries that there was a tornado that devastated the town but no indications of a rating. This source confirms that Limon was hit by an F3 tornado based on the winds estimations at that time on the old Fujita scale. I guess he thought that with the new Enhanced Fujita Scale, the ratings would have been revised or he is unaware that the scales are based on damage which determines the estimated winds. --JForget 17:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Weather update

To All,
User:Doron has completely updated {{Infobox Weather}}. It now has variable color shading and automatic unit conversion. It looks and works really good now. Give it a look for yourself. —MJCdetroit 03:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Icosahedral–hexagonal grids in weather prediction nominated for deletion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icosahedral–hexagonal grids in weather prediction. This article could use some input from specialists in climate modeling. --Itub 15:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been a bit bold -- the article geodesic grid could use some attention. Cheers, Lunch 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with the subject to help, anyone else? -RunningOnBrains 05:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Slight US bias?

Umm... 2007 United Kingdom floods was comparable to a major hurricane hitting US in terms of damage and was on main page. So why does it not have a meteology wikiproject tag? Me thinks there is some US bias here...--Nilfanion (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Me thinks you need something new to complain about! For God's sake, if you think that the article needs a tag, then be bold and add one! So, instead of typing four curly brackets and one word—{{flood}}, you typed 39 words to piss and moan about a US bias, that frankly isn't present. Unbelievable.  MJCdetroit 01:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
No that isn't the point. I know I could make the trivial edit to that article (and should have). The bias is there - the fact that it takes over 2 months for a main page linked article to get appropriate wikiproject tagging is worrying. That is why I did this, not to moan about the specific article, but to say MAYBE there is an issue here regarding bias? Its certainly worth double-checking before saying its nonsense.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Funny thing is that neither one us are active members of this project. Maybe you should become a member of this project to ensure that her majesty's royal subjects are properly represented. :)  MJCdetroit 01:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the apathy within this WikiProject. I am currently busy working on a major outside project. -RunningOnBrains 02:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ask the Wikipedians from the UK about that. I would say that is High-importance. CrazyC83 17:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

2001 Eastern North America heat wave

A user had proposed the article for deletion right Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001 Eastern North America heat wave citing first it is a non-notable event which is untrue it was one of the biggest heatwaves ever in eastern North America. The other reasons was because it looks like a story and the other which is a more plausible reason, is that is unsourced.--JForget 23:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I myself am not familar with this event, but the best move is probably to provide several links to demonstrate its signifigance. Just because something is a stub does not necessarily mean it's not worthy of an article. Gopher backer 00:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

weather observer - weather spotter - storm spotter

There is currently a request to merge Weather spotter & Storm spotter. In addition, I noticed that Weather observer is redirected to the Association of American Weather Observers article, which didn't have a project tag until I just put one on now. So I guess my main question, is a weather observer and weather spotter the same thing? Should weather observer instead redirect to weather spotter? And how does storm spotter and Association of American Weather Observers play into this? Gopher backer 16:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

1979 Unites States cold wave

Two problems here. There are two very poorly written articles, 1979 Unites States cold wave and 1979 Northwest United States cold wave. Obviously a merge and cleanup is in order here, but was the 1979 cold wave notable enough to warrant an article? If not, I'll put some delete tags on both. Gopher backer 17:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

List of meteorology topics

I hadn't seen this before today, just thought I'd make everyone aware of it. Gopher backer 06:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

  • 26 September 2007 - expires 1 October
Vortcane (via WP:PROD)
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

2006 Fort Erie-Buffalo snowstorm

Hi. I have come here from a suggestion that User:Chacor (now retired) made nearly a year ago. Can someone help with my user subpage about it? I know, the quality is terrible, but I made that page a looooong time ago. Can someone help turn it into a real article, or has one already been made? Even wikinews has made an article on it. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 00:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Stratospheric dust?

The article The Miracle of the Sun (aka miracle of Fatima, 1917) gives one skeptic's hypothesis as "Steuart Campbell, writing for the 1989 edition of Journal of Meteorology, postulated that a cloud of stratospheric dust changed the appearance of the sun on 13 October, making it easy to look at, and causing it to appear yellow, blue, and violet and to spin. In support of his hypothesis, Mr. Campbell reports that a blue and reddened sun was reported in China as documented in 1983. [1]." -- Stratosphere has no information on stratospheric dust. Is there another article on this subject on Wikipedia? Should such information be added to Stratosphere? -- 201.19.77.39 12:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


Stratosphere/Talk:Stratosphere not tagged as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology

Stratosphere/Talk:Stratosphere not tagged as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology. Apparently some of the other pages on atmospheric layers aren't either. -- 201.19.77.39 12:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Added stratosphere into the meteorology project since the ozone layer and convective overshoot deal with effects within the stratosphere which are related to meteorology. The higher layers may not be needed within this project, unless sprite and blue jets force their inclusion. Either way, it would be quite low for higher atmospheric layers. Thegreatdr 22:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
"The higher layers may not be needed within this project." That doesn't make sense to me. "Obviously" all atmospheric layers should be included in this project. -- 201.19.77.39 12:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Tell me what effects on weather/meteorology are caused by the Mesosphere, Exosphere, and Thermosphere. You would be able to include the Ionosphere due to the aurora, but that's the only other atmospheric layer I can think of other than troposphere and mesosphere to be included in the meteorology project. Above the stratosphere, the pressure is so low and the atmosphere so thin that you are in black space. Please enlighten me. Thegreatdr 19:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Climate of <place>" or "Weather of <place>"?

For articles that discuss the climate/weather of a place (e.g., Climate of the United Kingdom), should there be two articles, one on weather (probably discussing notable storms, etc.) and the other on climate (seasons, monthly temperature averages)? Or is one article enough? If it should only be one article, what's the "standard name": "Weather of" or "Climate of"? Basing on the extant articles, the vast majority go with "Climate" with the odd "Weather" (e.g. Weather of Mumbai). --seav 10:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Climate" is definitely the standard and I believe all "Weather of" articles should be renamed to "Climate of" articles, both for consistency and accuracy. I don't think articles discussing significant storms or weather events of an area is necessary; it can be covered in the "climate of" article. Not to mention the afd nuts would be all over them. bob rulz 06:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

2007 Tabasco flood

I created 2007 Tabasco flood today. Please help expand the article. Thanks, Johntex\talk 17:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Storm surge and storm tide

These are two strongly related subjects. Currently storm tide consists of a very incomplete list of events, whilst storm surge focuses almost exclusively on tropical cyclones. I think the result of this is substandard coverage of an important topic.

Hardly anyone uses the two concepts correctly whether press or meteorologists: In this article the BBC talks about surge. In Katrina's TCR, the NHC only refers to storm tide in the table of data. The NHC is more interested in the meteorological aspects, and so the surge, but it is the storm tide that actually mattered to the public. If Katrina hit at high spring tide it would have been much worse than if it had at a low spring; though the surge would have been identical.

Given that the two terms are used almost interchangeably, I think it would make more sense to have one article on the two concepts. The list at storm tide can be broken out to a 'list of' article and a redirect to storm surge placed there. Then storm surge can be significantly rewritten to cover the two technical concepts and the distinction between them, and to make it less about tropical cyclones and more about general weather. Incidentally, for those languages with interwikis on both pages, they point at the same article on the other wiki (which translate literally as "storm flood").--Nilfanion (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. However, I certainly do not have enough knowledge on the subject to contribute anything significant. bob rulz 06:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

This Scientific Peer Review project can hardly be called successful. While there have been a steady but small flow of articles submitted for review, the actual reviews have been either non-existent or in no real way different from those done through the standard Wikipedia:Peer review process. Some editors will recall that the project was started with an enthusiastic discussion about identifying expert reviewers through an elected board. Unfortunately as time went by, it became clear there was no consensus on whether we had a board, or on how it was to be set up or on what it was supposed to do. There was also a lack of consensus on what "sciences" we were covering, and on many other aspects. In the end we sort of lapsed into a minimal review process which has staggered on for about 18 months. I think it is time we decided what to do about the project. Unless people can come up with a new way forward and enthusiastically implement it, I think we have to declare that this project be no longer active in any sense and that editors should ask for review at WP:PR. I am posting this on the talk pages of the major Science WikiProjects. Please feel free to publicize it elsewhere. Please add you comments at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review#Is this inactive?. --Bduke 01:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Severe weather

I nominated Severe weather for the Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. Was this a good choice? -- Juliancolton (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good choice. The article could use some expansion and improvement. bob rulz (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Plea for help regarding wind shear article

I would really appreciate someone from this project looking over the wind shear article and seeing if it's ready for GA. The previous reviewer has apparently left it for dead...it's been a nominee since early October and in limbo ever since. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Early December 2007 North America Winter Storm

Considering, that this is a wide and major witner storm affecting many large cities from Colorado to the Atlantic Coast and that there are already major ipmacts and more to come in the Northeast, I have launched User:JForget/Early December 2007 North America Winter Storm before the transition to the mainspace.--JForget 19:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Winter storms

Me and User:JForget are planing to start a new wikiproject for winter storms. Please post any thoughts, or if you are interested here. Juliancolton (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I like this idea. I'm interested in the project if it becomes avalible. Please notify me if the project becomes active. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This is actually getting some publicity! We have to see when we get responses from the users that JForget notified, such as Hurricanehink, Titoxd, CrazyC83. Juliancolton (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. Lets do it. ---CWY2190TC 01:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Great! If you want to help start it, User:Juliancolton/WikiProject Winter Storms Juliancolton (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict!)Heh, I found this because I checked my watchlist, and some of the usertalkpages in my watchlist were notified of this, including Cyclone1 who is retired. I then checked one of their talkpages and here I am. Anyway, how come I wasn't invited ;-) ? Wow, the non-invited people are responding faster than the invited ones. Of course it is getting some publicity, this is wiki wiki after all. So, about when will this be active to you think? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 02:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Probobly before the holiday. Juliancolton (talk) 02:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and can I/we add my/ourselves to the participants list even though the projec isn't up yet the way that my sandbox WikiProject Dinotopia already has participants and I really need to stop procrastinating and update it whenever possible? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 02:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
There are other wiki projects under the subsets of the meteo project so I don't see why its a problem to start it. If you get enough people which is the main obsticle you have, other than that I say your in the clear.-WxHalo(T/C)
(edit conflict again!)BTW, which holiday? Christmas eve? Christmas? New Year's Eve? New Year? Epiphany? Eastern Christmas? Wikipedia day? Chinese New Year? Valentine's Day? St. Patrick's Day? Good Friday? Easter Sunday? Easter Monday? April Fool's Day? Pacific hurricane season beginning day? Atlantic hurricane season beginning day? End of school day? The day of special holiday season booyah? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 02:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes. :) Christmas. When is wikipedia day? Juliancolton (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
And I am happy I already have participants! Juliancolton (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I support it, a project is needed to organize winter storm articles. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Bring it on!!! Even if I am not exactly that knowledgeable about them, I can certainly help. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Given that there is more than ample interest in such a project, it seems it is a good idea to me. I'm interested; although, again, will be active only intermittently. Evolauxia (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't help out much, but I think a winter storms project would be a great idea for a daughter project of WP:METEO. --Coredesat 03:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Maybe make it something about storms with non-liquid precipitation or similar, so that hailstorms can be included :) Daniel 09:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I could possibly help with some of the major storms, not all the time, though I'd gladly join. Hello32020 (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, now you can go to User:Juliancolton/WikiProject Winter Storms and add what you want, before I laucnh it. Juliancolton (talk) 15:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
This sounds like a great idea. I could probably help out on some notable winter weather.

Mbrstooge (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here it goes. I will add more later, but i just want to start it now. Juliancolton (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Winter Storms Juliancolton (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Winter Storms→Non-Tropical Storms

This is a good idea but there are several areas of Non-Tropical Storm that arnt covered by this. Maybe this project should be expanded so that it covers a broader area and well help a larger number of articles. Essentially for the Non Tropical storms subproject to become to full project and for the winter storms to become a task force under this. Seddon69 (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The winter storms should be the main one, and it could be expanded to include nontropical storms. Juliancolton (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was about to post this on the talk page of the project, but I suppose I'll do it here. I propose the name of the project be changed, per the manual of style, to Wikipedia:WikiProject Winter storms. However, given that Winter storms is limited to storms between December 21 and March 21, I'll agree a broader name change would be better. Is there going to be an article on Spring storms, or Autumn storms? Some more thought should probably have been given to the name of this. I agree; a project on Non-tropical cyclones would be clearer. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, and i know that some of you will disagree: but what if we had both? Nontropical could be a offspring of the winter storms. And Hink, are you joining? Juliancolton (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Meteorologicaly speaking, winter storms are non-tropical in nature and so it would make sense for this to be the umbrella project, it is also terminology limited to the United States. NonTropical would allow this and noreasters, and european windstorms to come under one project. So what im proposing is that winter storms be expanded and renamed as Nontropical storms because its would be silly to set up a winter storm project, a nor'easter project, a european windstorm project. Instead these would become taskforces. Seddon69 (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Juliancolton (talk) 02:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I know it looks messy now, but tommorow, it will be fixed. The templates and and stuff will be fixed. Juliancolton (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Kk mate :) hopefully this project will work well Seddon69 (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this project could work, especially about storms in Canada. The country frequently gets blasted by powerful winter storms. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 04:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I've a small, small issue with this sub project, namely, the sort of articles that belong in the sub-project. Under it's current name, a good nor'easter, or a european windstorm, or any other fashion of non-tropical storm beklongs under this umbrella - this I have no issue with. What I feel is a bit wierd though, it that the extratropical cyclone article has been categorised under this sub-project. In simple terms, and extratropical cyclone is NOT a storm. It's a meteorological phenomena that does include storm strength cyclones, but in and of itself, it is not a storm and is nothing to do with storms save for that a few intensify to storm status. To the best of my knowledge, most extratropical cyclones are relatively mild in nature (compared to those that become intensely storm like.... particularly over land), and so this article should come under the main meteorology project banner, not a storm sub-project. If this article has been reclassified, then what else is going into this project? Should we perhaps include Norwegian cyclone model, or perhaps we should add surface weather analysis due to weather charts showing where there is a potential for storm development? The project page itself says "Remeber that all winter storms do not need an article. Only storms that caused significant damage should need an article.", and by this logic, what is extratropical cyclone doing there?

That said, we already have a sub-project for severe weather. How are the mulltiple kinds of non-tropical storms a collective subject worthy of their own project rather than being placed in the pre-existing severe weather sub-project?Crimsone (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, extratropical storms can be very strong. Take for example, the storm that is affecing the west coast currently; 10 feet of snow, a foot of rain, category 5 force winds. Those are the effects from an Extratropical cyclone. Other storms this project includes is nor'easter, which could be winter storms, which is a tsk under the project, and euorpean windstorms. Juliancolton (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you can just call the project Wikipedia:WikiProject Extratropical Storms. All snow storms and nor'easters/southeasters that impact the eastern side of continents, and wind storms that affect the western side of continents are extratropical. Whatever you call it, the articles of extratropical cyclone, surface weather analysis, Norwegian cyclone model, and weather maps would be under the aegis of such a project. All those articles have something else in common...if I could only remember what it was. =) And wouldn't you know, extratropical cyclone has been a FA for about 14 months. If only we could get tropical cyclone to FA. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Living in the UK, I feel a need to restate the point that only a small percentage of extratropical cyclones can be described as storms. As many as 50 to 80 (perhaps more in extreme years) of the systems can cross the little british landmass every year, and only a small number of these could be described as stormy... only a few more really ever seem to become particularly deep while over the atlantic compared to the many that don't. As a basic meteorological phenomena that only sometimes results in something storm-like, I still don't see why it should be in a storm sub-project rather than coming under the basic meteorological banner. If there is a sub proget for storms, then surely only storms should be in it? The two cyclone articles I can think of that would belong in it would be polar cyclone and mesocyclone by their very natures - they are actually quite consistently stormy. An extratropical cyclone is not a storm. Crimsone (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Then maybe, strong (gale-force or hurricane-force) extratropical storms would be better. A general description of what constitutes a strong extratropical storm would need to be in the project page. Polar cyclones and mesocyclones are warm core, while extratropical cyclones are normally cold core, so they are driven by different dynamics than the storms they want to include into this subproject. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. An extratropical cyclone is only a storm while it maintains a storm intensity... what the exact threshold of a nor'easter or european windstorm is I don't quite know - just that they are few compared to non-stormy extratropical cyclones. As to the warm cored cylones I mentioned, these may be an argument for being more specific in the sub-project name, as non-tropical storms would still include these warm cored systems. "Extratropical storms" would be perfect, though I would still maintain that the extratropical cyclone article would not belong under the sub-project banner for the reasons above. Crimsone (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no harm in an article being in multiple subprojects. As far as I'm aware, there doesn't have to be complete overlap between a subproject and an article being included within it. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that extratropical cyclone is a core meteorology article, and so doesn't belong in a sub-project, especially a sub-project dealing with something that an extratropical cyclone is not. Crimsone (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Would you feel equally strongly about tropical cyclone not being within the tropical cyclone subproject (it is currently listed as a core article within that project)? Personally, I don't see the harm. We all interpret things differently, I guess. I saw someone on here once argue that when a subproject is available to group a related article to, that it would overrule the meteorology template. Not sure if that's a stated guideline or not though. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

(-Reset indent) No, because a tropical cyclone article belongs in a sub-project about tropical cycones. However, an extratropical cyclone article does not belong in a sub-project about storms, because an extratropical cyclone is not an extratropical storm. nor'easter=extratropical cyclone, but extratropical cyclone!=nor'easter - not by a long shot.

My fundamental argument in the terms you have given is that a tropical cyclone is a storm and so would belong in a storm project - though the project is for tropical cyclones which kinda negates that problem anyeay. However, as an extratropical cyclone is not a storm, it does not belong in a storm related sub-project. It would be like adding anticyclone to a heatwave sub-project, even though the majority of anticyclones do not produce heatwaves.

That said, under the current sub-project name, polar and meso cyclones still come under the area of the project. To get really pedantic with the terminology, your average thunderstorm would come under the lable of a non-tropical storm also (though such could also be said of the lable extra-tropical storm, so perhaps that's getting a bit too pedantic. lol.) Crimsone (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally think extratropical cyclone should be included as a core meteorology article for the sub-project, given how common they are. I do think they qualify as storms, as the storm article even says extratropical storms are included; since extratropical storms are merely extratropical cyclones with gale force winds, I think that should be a core article for the project. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Fatima's dusty veil", New Humanist, Vol 104 No 2, August 1989 and "The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima", Journal of Meteorology, UK, Vol 14, no. 142, October, 1989
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather/General_meteorology_task_force/Archive_7&oldid=1137358252"