Talk:Storm train

Sources and categories
Hi,

This article is not bad, you must cite better sources and add it to categories.

Categories should be fairly easy. You are supposed to find something that fits under Category:Meteorology.

As for sources, it must cite sources which are more professional than USA Today. For example, a professional or scientific journal of meteorology.

Good luck. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * After I find the category (which I did), do I edit the category page, and put a link to my article in? -- IRP (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, isn't this article a stub? -- IRP (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Category: Write something like at the bottom of the article. See Categorization for a full explanation about categories.
 * Stub: Yes, you can tag it as a stub. climate-stub is probably appropriate. Just put at the bottom of the article, but before the categories. See Stub for full explanation about stubs and their tagging and categorization.
 * But the most important thing you can do to improve this article is to add reliable sources. USA Today is a very weak source about scientific meteorology. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason why I put USA Today in as a reference, is becuase I could not find much information online about storm trains. The information on USA Today in fact was what made me want to start this article. -- IRP (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a problem. If this is only used in one article in USA Today, then maybe it's a neologism and there shouldn't be an article on it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I know there is such a thing as a storm train, but that's the only source I found that explains all about storm trains and how they develop. If you find something useful, please let me know. -- IRP (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition, this is only the first stage in the article's development. After tagging it as a stub, I expect other Wikipedians to expand it with better information and more reliable sources. -- IRP (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting article
WxGopher had blanked this article, redirected it to Training (meteorology), and moved the text into that article. I understand he/she may have a GFDL-compatible license, but this article already has most of the information. I reverted all of WxGopher's edits. I copied some of the information from Training (meteorology), reworded it, and put it into the appropriate sections. Should I blank and redirect Training (meteorology) to this article? I do believe that it is usually referred to as "storm train" anyway. I've also contacted WxGopher on his/her talk page, and got absolutely no response at all. -- IRP (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe this should be merged/redirected to training (meteorology). "Storm train" implies thunderstorms, but "training" in general can apply to showers and snowstorms as well.- Running On  Brains  17:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason why I wouldn't want that (you can explain a detailed reason why you would) is because, first of all, when it comes to storms, it seems to be a little bit different, because storms lining up in a series create flooding, however, general training does not. Also, I believe this article is to long to be a section. You could create a summary of this article in the Training (meteorology) article, and place at the top: Main article: Storm train. Second of all, if you look at the article traffic statistics, the storm train article has several times more traffic than training (meteorology), so it is mostly referred to as storm train. Article traffic statistics: Storm train | Training (meteorology) -- IRP ☎ 00:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * WxGopher is absolutely correct, as there's no source for this name being correct. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Training (meteorology)
The NOAA's NWS Glossary defines "Training", but not "Storm train". One of the two references is broken. The other one refers to a definition of "training", not of "storm train." Bongomatic (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Storm train is a subtype of training, and may not be defined. -- IRP ☎ 03:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely. It is not defined, cannot be referenced, and hence does not belong in an encyclopedia. Bongomatic (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional reasons given there. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Article for deletion page: Articles for deletion/Storm train —Preceding unsigned comment added by IRP (talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)