Talk:Mammatus cloud

name
I'm guessing the name Mammatus is an allusion to "mammary"? If so, the article should say so (hopefully in a circumspect manner) :) -- Finlay McWalter 13:08, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've heard that that is where the name comes from, but I don't have a source for it. --CallmeNiel 01:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Me say, latin for udder, but I don't have a source for it. 91.153.58.207 09:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

changes to page
Vandalism at beginning of article:

"cumulonimbus clouds look like:pie,pie,pie,pie,pie,pie,pie,pie pie"

Went to edit this out of the article, but can't figure out where text is in the source as to delete it. Me confused.

- KM, 5/11/08, 3:21am EST

Hi,

Made some changes based on Schultz et al 2006:

--Leigh Jones University of Utah 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * took out colors that mammatus can take b/c that is highly dependent upon time of day, cloud type, surrounding weather, etc
 * quantified time scales rather than saying "minutes to hours"
 * took out "mammatus can only occur where cumulonumbus are present," because the most current definitions of mammatus suggest that this is not the case (Schultz et al 2006)
 * took ou the environmental conditions that were listed b/c I mention them in the "formation mechanisms" section
 * took out "an updraft then must occur, which shapes the mammatus into the pouch-like shape" b/c this is missing a lot of steps, which i explain in the formation section
 * took out the bit on storms producing the shear, b/c they often form in highly sheared environments anyway, and the main threat would be strong up/downdrafts.

Copyright violation notice
added by 71.205.124.89 , 82.73.104.72 08:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Copyvio notices are supposed to interfere with the reading of an article. In fact, you're supposed to take out the copyvio text and replace it with the notice. Moving them to the talk page only makes things more difficult for the cleanup.
 * 2) I have removed the text that was inserted in violation of copyright by reverting back the article to a clean version. Sorry about the lost edits from other people, but that's how we've got to do it. Do not re-add the text. --Alvestrand 20:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you know what parts are copy vio, just go delete them. Do not undo tons of good faith work throughout the rest of the article. Debivort 21:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason why the rules say "rollback" when you encounter a copyright violation is, I believe, because the other edits may have been influenced by the presence of the copyrighted material (such as by moving text blocks around). As administrator/copyvio patroller, I have no knowledge of the actual subject matter of the article, so can't decide whether or not this has happened. Please start from the clean copy and incorporate those changes that are needed.
 * The alternate procedure, which some admins do, is to delete all versions from the history in which the copyvio material was present. This also destroys intermediate edits, but without the possibility for other users to recover them. I chose not to do this.
 * I've re-reverted to the clean version for now. Please do an update, not a re-incorporation. The copyvio is pretty easy to spot. --Alvestrand 06:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If the copyvio material is easy to spot, why not remove just it specifically? New material "influenced" by copyrighted material is not subject to the same copyright so that shouldn't be a problem. Debivort 06:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Too many images?
As I flipped through the article, I couldn't help but feel that there was an overload of images, most of which are not significantly different from one another apart from lighting and angle. I was thinking of removing "Image:Mammatus clouds over San Francisco.JPG". Could I have some feedback here? (Don't be afraid to point out my stupidity). IceUnshattered (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be WP:BOLD and comment out a few due to the lack of input. I c eUnshattered  [ t ] 19:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure of the logic of a statement in the article.
The text in question is "Detailed observations of the cloud have been meager and usually occur only by chance, since mammatus do not pose a meteorological threat to society[citation needed]." Citations being needed aside, I fail to see how whether mammatus clouds are a threat to society or not has any baring whatsoever on whether or not the clouds are only observed by chance. I mean, it seems that observations of cloud formations of unknown mechanism are already more or less a matter of chance to start with. If the mechanism is unknown, how can it be otherwise? Perhaps someone in the know could elaborate - in the article, since Wikipedia is not a forum - on why it being a threat to society has an effect on whether or not the clouds are observed by chance? 24.252.143.218 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the meaning is that if they did pose a threat to society, there would be a more determined, systematic effort to study them (like tornado chasers, or the planes that fly through hurricanes). -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor Statement
We teach pilots to avoid thunderstorms, cumulonimbus clouds, because of extremely high winds, vertical draft creating large hail, etc.

In the statement "Due to the intensely sheared environment in which mammatus form, aviators are strongly cautioned to avoid cumulonimbus with mammatus," we are telling them more or less directly that it would be okay to fly into a cumulonimbus formation so long as it's not associated with mammatus clouds. This is not only unfounded but flat out dangerous and sending the wrong message. I understand that the author is trying to emphasize the danger associated with mammatus clouds, but that should not remove from the danger of cumulonimbus clouds in the first place. It's a little like telling a child not to put their head into a boiling pot of water because they may drown.

74.15.99.10 (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC) Mike R.

political boundaries
"In the United States, sky gazers may be most familiar with the very distinct and more common cumulonimbus mammatus."

Not a geographic region. Is this not true of sky gazers in Mexico and Canada? Is it the case for Hawaiians? DAVilla (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I dont like the term "sky gazers" to begin with. Can we say observers instead? 98.87.95.230 (talk) 19:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Gallery captions
I was about the undertake standardising the usage of places underneath each gallery image so that it's city + country, or city + political subdivision + country, rather than city + political subdivision (no country). Putting this on my to-do unless someone wants to make the change soon! Dojo99 (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)