![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
![]() Hello, |
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. - 189.122.243.241 ( talk) 01:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
How do i join? Sorry I’m still relatively new to this.. TheEasternEditer ( talk) 20:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 comment Noah Talk 04:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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.
|
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):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
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.
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.
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)
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. Noah Talk 21:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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. Noah Talk 18:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. Noah Talk 23:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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.
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 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)
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, 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)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rs chen 7754 15:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
There is a GAR for this article. 47.23.6.178 ( talk) 20:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
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? Noah Talk 22:37, 13 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. —
Iune
talk
22:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
NCEI doesn't state that the storm caused any fatalitiesrather than the
NCEI states that the storm caused no fatalities? Noah Talk 13:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
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.
Noah
Talk
14:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
While copy/editing List of United States tornadoes in 1946, Argenti Aertheri asked about introducing a new tornado chart.
Current
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] |
Proposed
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 |}
<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>
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:
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)
!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)
!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)
!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)
!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)
!scope=row bgcolor="whatever" style="text-align:left;" | text
) --
Pres
N
00:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
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)WeatherWriter ( talk) 02:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
<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)
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)
!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)
{{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)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).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
![]() Hello, |
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. - 189.122.243.241 ( talk) 01:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
How do i join? Sorry I’m still relatively new to this.. TheEasternEditer ( talk) 20:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 comment Noah Talk 04:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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.
|
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):
and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:
... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Noting some minor differences in tallies:
|
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.
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.
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)
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. Noah Talk 21:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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. Noah Talk 18:51, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. Noah Talk 23:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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.
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 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)
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, 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)
Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rs chen 7754 15:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
There is a GAR for this article. 47.23.6.178 ( talk) 20:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
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? Noah Talk 22:37, 13 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. —
Iune
talk
22:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
NCEI doesn't state that the storm caused any fatalitiesrather than the
NCEI states that the storm caused no fatalities? Noah Talk 13:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
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)
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.
Noah
Talk
14:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
While copy/editing List of United States tornadoes in 1946, Argenti Aertheri asked about introducing a new tornado chart.
Current
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] |
Proposed
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 |}
<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>
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:
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)
!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)
!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)
!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)
!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)
!scope=row bgcolor="whatever" style="text-align:left;" | text
) --
Pres
N
00:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
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)WeatherWriter ( talk) 02:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
<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)
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)
!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)
{{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)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).