This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Weather and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Weather Project‑class | ||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I would like to announce that a new task force has been created to re-examine the status of every GA in the project. Many good articles have not been reviewed in quite a while (15+ years for some) and notability requirements have changed quite a bit over the years. The goal of this task force is to save as many articles as possible. Anyone not reviewing an article may jump in to help get it up to par if it does not meet the GA requirements. The process will start officially on February 1 and will continue until every article has been checked and either kept or delisted. The task force may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/2024–25 Good Article Reassessment. Noah, AA Talk 15:22, 26 January 2024 (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.
Recently, from the two discussions (one a few sections above this one and the other on
Talk:Tornadoes of 2024), I have a proposal for the new layout, taking in feedback from those involved in those two discussions.
The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
(Moved from above for RFC tag. Ignore.) — Since there is two discussions (on two separate talk pages) regarding this topic at the same time, I wanted to make this discussion and ping all users involved: (courtesy pings: @ ChessEric:, United States Man, HamiltonthesixXmusic, TornadoInformation12, DJ Cane, Hurricanehink). The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
(Moved from above for RFC tag.) — Based on the feedback, two things were clear: The old layout (By Month) is definitely the preferred layout to most editors. However, the reasoning for the layout change to begin with involved fighting U.S.-centeredness in articles, that is where point 2 and 3 come in. In pre-2023 layouts (before any changes), U.S. monthly totals were mentioned as the opening to each month, however, no other countries were mentioned. Also, "(United States)} was never used in pre-2023 layouts as well. To me, this proposal for a layout seems to solve issues brought up in past discussions, while also being the layout the majority of the community wants. Thoughts? Supports? Opposes? The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 06:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 12:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
There were 189 tornadoes reported in the United States in the month of April, all of which were confirmed.Basically, the second part of the third point is to keep those, but expand them to include other countries. Hopefully that makes a little more sense as to what the third point is. Since you were one of the main editors on board for less-U.S. centerness, I am thinking you just misread it, since the third point is an actual “less-U.S. centric” point. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 15:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
clunkyand difficult-to-navigate nature of the current format that have been brought up over the past few months – can someone enlighten me as to what the particular issues here are? — TheAustinMan( Talk ⬩ Edits) 16:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
gaps in the structure and informationin the current format? Consider Tornadoes of 2023 compared to Tornadoes of 2010, for instance; I'm not seeing much of a substantive difference in structural or informational gaps. In fact I would think the current format is better for leaving open the possibility of discussing environmental factors, trends, patterns, and other statistical information, since those are more likely to be geographically rather than temporally organized. — TheAustinMan( Talk ⬩ Edits) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@ HamiltonthesixXmusic: Read the link that @ Hurricanehink: provided to you as you will find that the consensus is based on the quality of an argument rather than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. Jason Rees ( talk) 12:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
As I am one of the dissenters to the proposal, I want to find a solution to the valid concerns from various editors, seeing as the above discussion seems to have died down without a consensus. Some of the main points of discussion seem to be wanting United States monthly totals. I still don't see anything wrong with that personally, just that I'd rather see that a yearly level listed as a table, and maybe even a breakdown by each category. In the interest of fairness around the world, we have the same tables for each country, where we have the total. It seems that the information organization is the main concern, and I want to acknowledge that without doing a complete reversal to listing all events by month. By keeping it in the format where it is organized by continent, we still have the geographic consistency, while still making sure the article isn't clunky. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
died down without a consensus." The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 21:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
OK, I'm striking the proposal. I don't want to hold this up and push my views any further on this matter. There's more important fish to fry. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
This addition of a climate description and chart is the kind of thing that pops up fairly often. (It's interesting to me that it's often IP editors who do these.) I tend to leave them there but this stuff does unbalance an article visually when suddenly the article doubles in size due to the addition. I found a way to collapse the box, so it's not as bad, but is this giving undue weight to climate info in a short article? Note: While I was writing this I see that the state was wrong in one place and the city name in another. Not sure NOAA would have the vegetation info either. So I ended up removing the addition which is likely a copy-paste job, but my question in general still stands. Please ask me clarifying questions if you're not sure what I mean. I know I am misusing the term "undue". Thanks, Valfontis ( talk) 22:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion regarding whether File:Charlescityiatornadoaftermath2.jpg (currently in use on 1968 Hansell-Charles City tornado) is allowed on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. As this image related to this WikiProject, I am providing a notification. You can participate in the discussion here. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 04:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe I’m a bit looney, but the forecast region article which supposedly deals with both the United States and Canada; is only citing sources from the Canadian government. See my little rant on that talk page for more details. But the reason why I brought it up here is because my entry is the first one ever placed on that talk page (and it’s been up for eight years), and no one has even bothered to edit the article itself in two years, so I thought I would post it here too so that it would draw attention to that article. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 04:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
There is ongoing discussions on the Commons regarding the usage of the Public Domain NWS Template. I.e. any non-NWS-made images pre 2009 are not public domain. This affects several articles regarding this WikiProject. One Commons user said possibly 150+ images may be affected, famous images including the 1974 Xenia tornado photograph and 1997 Jarrell tornado photographs. The current discussion regarding this can be viewed on this deletion request here, however, given this potentially affects several images, it may be moved to a noticeboard. If you wish to participate or monitor the discussion, please do so. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 04:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello there! I am sending this alert to all members of the WikiProject Weather and editors who have recently edited in the realm of tornadoes.
There is a large and important discussion ongoing, with the goal to completely overhaul and improve the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. The previous improvement attempt back in 2022/2023 gained almost no participation. This alert is being sent out so these discussions hopefully gain a reasonably-sized participation, so the F5/EF5 tornado article, one of the most viewed weather-related articles on Wikipedia, can be improved for all readers!
If you wish to participate, please visit: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Any thoughts on creating snow articles for other states and regions such as Texas and Georgia, and perhaps regional areas such as Southern California, San Francisco Bay Area, and other southwestern desert areas? West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 05:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I've thought about this, as a parallel to the Snow in Florida article. For what it's worth, that article was once titled "List of snow events in Florida", which was a little clunky, but perhaps something like "List of Florida snow events" would be more natural? And I bring that up because a similar article could be made for other areas. I think it should be handled at a state level, so it could cover the most significant events, plus a general climatology. A "List of Alaska snow events" wouldn't be that useful listing every single event, but if it covered climatology and significant events (like the 1963 event that was apparently the snowiest day in US history) that would be more useful. Some places are better equipped to handle snowstorms, so those should be the lowest on the to do list. But lists for California, Texas, and Georgia would all be useful. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I am raising the same issue here as is displayed on this talk page (please make any replies there) to raise awareness of the issue. The article (mentioned in the title) has ZERO citations, there’s barely anything written, and I am seriously contemplating PROD-ing or AfD-ing the article if something isn’t done. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 02:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Twisters (film) 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. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing
WikiProject Weather and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | Weather Project‑class | ||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I would like to announce that a new task force has been created to re-examine the status of every GA in the project. Many good articles have not been reviewed in quite a while (15+ years for some) and notability requirements have changed quite a bit over the years. The goal of this task force is to save as many articles as possible. Anyone not reviewing an article may jump in to help get it up to par if it does not meet the GA requirements. The process will start officially on February 1 and will continue until every article has been checked and either kept or delisted. The task force may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/2024–25 Good Article Reassessment. Noah, AA Talk 15:22, 26 January 2024 (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.
Recently, from the two discussions (one a few sections above this one and the other on
Talk:Tornadoes of 2024), I have a proposal for the new layout, taking in feedback from those involved in those two discussions.
The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
(Moved from above for RFC tag. Ignore.) — Since there is two discussions (on two separate talk pages) regarding this topic at the same time, I wanted to make this discussion and ping all users involved: (courtesy pings: @ ChessEric:, United States Man, HamiltonthesixXmusic, TornadoInformation12, DJ Cane, Hurricanehink). The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
(Moved from above for RFC tag.) — Based on the feedback, two things were clear: The old layout (By Month) is definitely the preferred layout to most editors. However, the reasoning for the layout change to begin with involved fighting U.S.-centeredness in articles, that is where point 2 and 3 come in. In pre-2023 layouts (before any changes), U.S. monthly totals were mentioned as the opening to each month, however, no other countries were mentioned. Also, "(United States)} was never used in pre-2023 layouts as well. To me, this proposal for a layout seems to solve issues brought up in past discussions, while also being the layout the majority of the community wants. Thoughts? Supports? Opposes? The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 06:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 12:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
There were 189 tornadoes reported in the United States in the month of April, all of which were confirmed.Basically, the second part of the third point is to keep those, but expand them to include other countries. Hopefully that makes a little more sense as to what the third point is. Since you were one of the main editors on board for less-U.S. centerness, I am thinking you just misread it, since the third point is an actual “less-U.S. centric” point. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 15:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
clunkyand difficult-to-navigate nature of the current format that have been brought up over the past few months – can someone enlighten me as to what the particular issues here are? — TheAustinMan( Talk ⬩ Edits) 16:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
gaps in the structure and informationin the current format? Consider Tornadoes of 2023 compared to Tornadoes of 2010, for instance; I'm not seeing much of a substantive difference in structural or informational gaps. In fact I would think the current format is better for leaving open the possibility of discussing environmental factors, trends, patterns, and other statistical information, since those are more likely to be geographically rather than temporally organized. — TheAustinMan( Talk ⬩ Edits) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@ HamiltonthesixXmusic: Read the link that @ Hurricanehink: provided to you as you will find that the consensus is based on the quality of an argument rather than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. Jason Rees ( talk) 12:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
As I am one of the dissenters to the proposal, I want to find a solution to the valid concerns from various editors, seeing as the above discussion seems to have died down without a consensus. Some of the main points of discussion seem to be wanting United States monthly totals. I still don't see anything wrong with that personally, just that I'd rather see that a yearly level listed as a table, and maybe even a breakdown by each category. In the interest of fairness around the world, we have the same tables for each country, where we have the total. It seems that the information organization is the main concern, and I want to acknowledge that without doing a complete reversal to listing all events by month. By keeping it in the format where it is organized by continent, we still have the geographic consistency, while still making sure the article isn't clunky. ♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
20:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
died down without a consensus." The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 21:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
OK, I'm striking the proposal. I don't want to hold this up and push my views any further on this matter. There's more important fish to fry. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
This addition of a climate description and chart is the kind of thing that pops up fairly often. (It's interesting to me that it's often IP editors who do these.) I tend to leave them there but this stuff does unbalance an article visually when suddenly the article doubles in size due to the addition. I found a way to collapse the box, so it's not as bad, but is this giving undue weight to climate info in a short article? Note: While I was writing this I see that the state was wrong in one place and the city name in another. Not sure NOAA would have the vegetation info either. So I ended up removing the addition which is likely a copy-paste job, but my question in general still stands. Please ask me clarifying questions if you're not sure what I mean. I know I am misusing the term "undue". Thanks, Valfontis ( talk) 22:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion regarding whether File:Charlescityiatornadoaftermath2.jpg (currently in use on 1968 Hansell-Charles City tornado) is allowed on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. As this image related to this WikiProject, I am providing a notification. You can participate in the discussion here. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 04:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe I’m a bit looney, but the forecast region article which supposedly deals with both the United States and Canada; is only citing sources from the Canadian government. See my little rant on that talk page for more details. But the reason why I brought it up here is because my entry is the first one ever placed on that talk page (and it’s been up for eight years), and no one has even bothered to edit the article itself in two years, so I thought I would post it here too so that it would draw attention to that article. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 04:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
There is ongoing discussions on the Commons regarding the usage of the Public Domain NWS Template. I.e. any non-NWS-made images pre 2009 are not public domain. This affects several articles regarding this WikiProject. One Commons user said possibly 150+ images may be affected, famous images including the 1974 Xenia tornado photograph and 1997 Jarrell tornado photographs. The current discussion regarding this can be viewed on this deletion request here, however, given this potentially affects several images, it may be moved to a noticeboard. If you wish to participate or monitor the discussion, please do so. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 04:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello there! I am sending this alert to all members of the WikiProject Weather and editors who have recently edited in the realm of tornadoes.
There is a large and important discussion ongoing, with the goal to completely overhaul and improve the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. The previous improvement attempt back in 2022/2023 gained almost no participation. This alert is being sent out so these discussions hopefully gain a reasonably-sized participation, so the F5/EF5 tornado article, one of the most viewed weather-related articles on Wikipedia, can be improved for all readers!
If you wish to participate, please visit: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Any thoughts on creating snow articles for other states and regions such as Texas and Georgia, and perhaps regional areas such as Southern California, San Francisco Bay Area, and other southwestern desert areas? West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 05:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I've thought about this, as a parallel to the Snow in Florida article. For what it's worth, that article was once titled "List of snow events in Florida", which was a little clunky, but perhaps something like "List of Florida snow events" would be more natural? And I bring that up because a similar article could be made for other areas. I think it should be handled at a state level, so it could cover the most significant events, plus a general climatology. A "List of Alaska snow events" wouldn't be that useful listing every single event, but if it covered climatology and significant events (like the 1963 event that was apparently the snowiest day in US history) that would be more useful. Some places are better equipped to handle snowstorms, so those should be the lowest on the to do list. But lists for California, Texas, and Georgia would all be useful. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 18:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I am raising the same issue here as is displayed on this talk page (please make any replies there) to raise awareness of the issue. The article (mentioned in the title) has ZERO citations, there’s barely anything written, and I am seriously contemplating PROD-ing or AfD-ing the article if something isn’t done. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 02:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Twisters (film) 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. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)