Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 3

Accuracy issue of weather data in some countries
The weather data of Khumjung, among some other locations in Nepal, has been a topic of discussion within the Chinese community.

The data presented in Wikipedia aligns with its source (tck), but it is clearly wrong. The original author also believes that the data of Lukla, Nepal, from another source (weatherbase.com), is inaccurate (too cold), but to lesser extent.

You can find some alternative source for climate in Khumjung, namely climate-data.org and weather-atlas.com, which likely are more accurate.

Before we replace the existing data, however, is there a list of "most reliable" websites available to prevent such issues in the future?

Thanks. fireattack (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Fireattack, the climate-data.org source looks good, it states explicitly that they use ECMWF data across 1991–2021 (or 1999–2019 for sunshine duration), and they appear to update it yearly. The weather-atlas.com entry points to their "resources" which is a list of every national meteorological agency, but Nepal's doesn't appear to publicly list climate data so I can't confirm where weather-atlas.com actually got their data from and I'm less inclined to believe it passes WP:REPUTABLE. The existing source (tck) is even worse as it doesn't even state where the data is from and their site's T&Cs page is somehow empty. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Re weatherbase.com, they claim to use various public domain sources and namedrop NCDC, but there's no mention of where their data for the rest of the world comes from. They also have endorsements from various news sources, but it's all USA-based newspapers. I guess it would be okay to use for the USA but there's not much point when we can just cite NOAA/NCDC/NWS directly. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tropical Storm Soudelor
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tropical Storm Soudelor that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 13:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Widespread misuse of the em dash in articles about tornadoes
At List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions, I noticed that meso-gamma was incorrectly hyphenated using an em dash (—), while MOS:HYPHEN calls for a hyphen (-). I have corrected this particular mistake in every article. In addition, I noticed that some conjunctions of place names in names of storms, such as 2023 Rolling Fork—Silver City tornado, misuse an em dash instead of an en dash (–) as required by MOS:ENDASH. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 20:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Weather/Featured pictures was started
I noticed WP Weather doesn’t have any subpage for featured pictures, so I created WikiProject Weather/Featured pictures, so we can keep track of and nominate new pictures to become featured picture status. Just a subpage to help keep track of some of the WikiProject’s scope. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot
As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Heat wave
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heat wave that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 13:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion at Talk:Tornadoes of 2022
There is an ongoing discussion to determine what image should be used for the May 4–6 (Central and Eastern United States) section on the Tornadoes of 2022 article. Feel free to participate in the discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hurricane Dora
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hurricane Dora that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 07:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

NHC archive over Wayback Machine
I wanted to come here, since I am currently in a disagreement with over if we should solely trust the NHC archive for references, and not use the Wayback Machine for references, or if it is ok to use the Wayback Machine in references that source the NHC archives. What is the general consensus for tropical cyclone articles? I know multiple severe storm articles are riddled with dead NOAA links. A good example is the 2010 Moore–Choctaw EF4 tornado, which is sourced entirely by dead NOAA links right now.

So, for tropical cyclones, is the consensus:
 * 1) Solely trust that the NHC archive link will never change?
 * 2) Allow the Wayback Machine to archive the NHC links in references?

This is the different between the two types of references. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * There's really no difference as long as the URL used isn't the automatically refreshing one (e.g. this which always gives the most recent advisory). Per Link rot, Links added by editors to the English Wikipedia mainspace are automatically saved to Wayback Machine within about 24 hours, so there's no actual need to go out of one's way to archive NHC advisories. If the URL is live, there's really no difference whatsoever whether you link the archive or not (perhaps it would take a few milliseconds longer to load the page). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we wouldn't use both by adding a link to the internet archive in the archive url=field, however, there isn't a major need to since most advisories are still on its website with the exception of 1997. Jason Rees (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Numerous infoboxes on many tornado articles still need to be converted. August 2020 Midwest derecho and Tornado outbreak of December 12-15, 2022 are just a few examples.97.64.79.143 (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * The process is slow, but it's getting done. Chess  Eric  19:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing Discussion - Webberville tornado
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the August 24, 2023 Webberville tornado, which has some relation to this WikiProject. Feel free to participate in the discussion here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hurricane Sandy in New England
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hurricane Sandy in New England that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:July 1757 heatwave
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:July 1757 heatwave that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Lightoil (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of "total" in tropical cyclone infoboxes
Should there be the word "total" included at the end of the number of fatalities caused by the tropical cyclone. The debate started at Hurricane Hilary (2023) between me and. In fact, Cyclone Tracy has a note that tries to prevent people from putting the word "total" at the end due to redundancy. Should it be added? foo bar  baz  20:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)


 * ...I didn't know Tracy had that. Was there a change in the way we do things? The only reason I was so hard on it was because I had never seen anything about NOT adding it. If we're moving away from it, then I apologize . Chess  Eric  20:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I was in the same situation as you. Glad that we can talk it out. By the way, I do forgive you. foo  bar  baz  20:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. College just started back up for me this week, so I'm a little overwhelmed at the moment. After the incident and ban that I got back in February though, I'm trying to move away from starting conflicts, but this was the second near edit war I've gotten into the past two days (different project though). I almost went off there, so thanks for starting a discussion so I didn't make that mistake.
 * Getting back on topic, I feel like the "total" wording is necessary because it is important to differentiate direct and indirect death statistics. I can see why you think its redundant though, so maybe the infobox should have the fatalities as "x direct (+y indirect)". That's we do for tornado articles. Chess  Eric  20:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Your idea isn't bad. Maybe I can propose such idea in the infobox, having two parameters to list direct and indirect fatalities (or just reword the fatalitites section) foo  bar  baz  21:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but it seems like overkill to me. I guess I've spoken my peace though and will let other people have a chance to say something. Chess  Eric  22:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry to pour cold water on the direct/indirect idea but it would be original research to hardcode the direct/indirect thing in, as not all disasters or countries count the deaths from a weather event the same way. As a result, the word total is probably better for some weather events, while the direct/indirect thing would be better for others.Jason Rees (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I second on this. The direct/indirect distinction is minor. A car accident from slick roads? Indirect. You're struck by a fallen tree? Direct. If that tree cuts power, and you die because your oxygen tank stopped? Indirect. I think "total" is fine after whatever number we have. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk )  22:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Can all the WikiProject “Precedents” be on some page?
Depending on what topic/article time, there is a lot of unknown/hidden “precedents” that aren’t that well known to users who do not edit those topics often. For example, apparently, some WikiProject Weather/Tropical Cyclone precedent is in place which prevents tropical disturbances from seasonal article, despite high media attention, and in theory, enough to pass WP:GNG.

There is several of these types of “hidden” precedents for tropical cyclones, tornadoes, winter storms, and general types of articles. Can we create a WikiProject sub-page which explains these “precedents” out and where previous discussions related to them can be linked to? This will help solve a lot of headaches and pointless discussion the WikiProject often has, like we just had with Invest 93L. This idea would also help separate ideas which are based on “past experiences” vs actual consensus ideas. I am thinking something like WikiProject Weather/General guidelines. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think proposing wholesale changes to an issue which has an obvious consensus during which you broke WP:3RR by adding the same content 5 times after being reverted by multiple editors is a good use of editing time. United States Man (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * could we write down the general practices in these areas and affirm them as such so that way they can be referenced? I don’t think many changes are needed. We just need to have documentation of our practices. Noah, AATalk 00:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! That’s literally all I wanted. I didn’t want any changes as United States Man was thinking I did. I only wanted to ask if we could have some place where all the practices, methods, and discussions (like RfCs) conducted by the WikiProject can be listed, so myself as well as anyone can actually see what the general consensus practices are, without being told a basic “they are and trust me” reason. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Track map migration
We cannot be continuing to use any old color scheme maps in violation of the consensus at the RfC. It's that simple. This means we have to treat the tracks as not existing when they only exist in the legacy colors for new pages. Using legacy colors also discourages the making of new-color maps, also in violation of the consensus of that RfC. If we are to do different then we need another discussion to change that consensus; absent that, there is no leeway to restore any legacy colored maps. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * and others too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please heed this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I look forward to seeing the brand new trackmaps that you are gonna create - I don't have the generator installed on my computer so am forced to use whatever trackmap i can get my hands on.Jason Rees (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed new title convention for Effects of (tropical cyclone) in (region) articles
There is an ongoing requested move at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones that may be of interest to this WikiProject. Interested editors are welcome to participate there. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Fumikas Sagisavas and temperature changing
keeps changing and adding temperature data on innumerous of pages, I'm not sure whether are they correct or disruptive. Some suspected one are on 2011 North American heat wave, Special:Diff/1175064261 and Remich.

I sincerely ask for help from experts on this project, since I didn't have acquaintance of weather. Thanks. -Lemonaka‎ 12:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible Cat 5 color suggestion?
I know I might be beating a dead horse here but would it be better if we changed Cat 5 from purple to to an ACCESS-friendly pink or so? Preferably because in cases where a storm reached Cat 5 multiple times it looks a bit jarring and offsetting (Freddy earlier this year as an example). Plus, I read that some did have this opinion and would actually make it more similar to other agencies and maps used which have a magenta/pink Cat 5 color (SPC’s high risk is a magenta/pink color) Note that this is not aiming to replace the whole scale again (that was a mess in itself). If no alternative compliant color can be found then we can just leave the purple Cat 5 color. Just wanted to ask this since it’s been in my head for a while but I needed to think it through. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I support this. I never liked the idea of purple for Category 5, and I think that if there is any alternative, then we should do it. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  10:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinks have been brought up in the past, however, they tend to not work all that well on the maps. One such case in the last RfC showed very little difference between it and red. There is a much larger difference between the red and the purple which makes them easily distinguishable. Considering how many maps have been redone and the fact that we can't overwrite files, I would want to avoid making any changes that would require a third naming scheme and everything to be redone all over again. I think it's for the best if this topic is just laid to rest. Noah, AATalk 13:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not support changing the color from purple. I didn’t actually participate in the discussion to change the colors, but I enjoy the purple as it does match closer to NOAA colors (i.e. EF scale), and changing the Cat 5 color also changes the F5/EF5 color. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I tested one bright pink color (#FF00FF) through this website and it didn’t have any issues as it was easily discernible from the C4 color in all cases. Plus we don’t need to create a third name set as we can just upload a new version to the existing "path" images (same vein as the 2000s color changes to the "track" files.) I know purple might work for some people but it really looks jarring especially with long-trackers that switch between C4 and C5 (Irma and Freddy for example) and does not follow the natural progression of colors even on the new scale (something people had issues with in the RfC). Like I said this is only changing the C5 color and not the entire scale again because that was a whole mess I’d like to avoid. I really think this particular issue should be looked at rather then leaving it be. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue is how pink shows up on the maps against the red on the dark blue background. Noah, AATalk 19:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is why I had tested this by (hastily) crafting a mock-up of Lee’s track when it first became a C5. The bright pink shows up good against the red on the background. If there’s still an issue with the contrast I can try another color within the range of the bright pink. I want this looked at because as it stands right now, the purple stands out as an unnatural progression of the current scale (since it goes from blue for TD gradually moving to red until C4 before suddenly going back to the other end for C5). Worst-case if no pink is available just instead use a lighter purple (which I think was in one of the original proposals) to at least make the transition from C4 to C5 on maps more smooth, because right now the current C5 color makes it look out of place, and was probably the most contentious element of the discussion (something I read that other users had issues with). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t at all see where you are getting “accessibility-friendly pink”. That’s going to have worse, not better, accessibility than purple, since it is more proximate to the Category 4 color. Purple has always been understood to be higher than red in severity (for example, California’s COVID tiers). Quite frankly, you trying to relitigate this as soon as your topic ban was lifted almost makes me want to lobby for it to be reinstated, because your constant beating of this dead horse was a reason therefore.—Jasper Deng (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was unclear about what I would support earlier. I said that I would support anything; I have struck that out. I will only support a reasonable idea, which this does not appear to be. 🐔 Chicdat Bawk to me!  11:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to raise a legit suggestion (with a compromise) that I had and not try to inflame things. Sorry if you saw it that way. I was not trying to fall back to old habits before the topic ban, just wanted to address something that I saw people raise in the discussions. But I’ll drop it now so as to not make things worse for me. I hope that makes sense. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

What is happening with the colors on old track maps?
I've been out of the loop for a while (and my editing will be limited for the foreseeable future), but I was checking on some tropical cyclone articles (mainly because I am planning on a small bit comparing Ian and Charley) and I noticed that the track maps for pre-2022 storms are still using the old colors. Having two different color schemes across articles is potentially confusing for readers.

As I remember we discussed several options for doing this:

1. Change existing images (problematic because other language Wikipedias use these colors)

2. Create new images to go along with the old ones (my proposal).

3. Discuss on the matter on Meta.

I was wondering if anything was being done at this point to address the old maps or if we were just going to leave it at two different color schemes. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Legacy maps will be kept as many other language wikis use them. The new maps are being uploaded as separate files to satisfy the RfC. It should have been to no ones surprise that the process of creating thousands of new individual maps and cumulative maps would be slow and incremental. Supportstorm (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Was any work done toward having a bot do that? TornadoLGS (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe there was some discussion about a bot that ultimately didn't move forward. Not sure the reason since I wasn't really following the conversation. Supportstorm (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Split proposal at Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020
There is a split proposal ongoing at Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020, to split the 2020 Nashville tornado into a stand-alone article. You can participate in the split discussion here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Most and least snowy years
Hello. I wonder if a participant in this WikiProject can help me find a reliable source for the snowiest and least snowy years in the city of Minneapolis (or failing that, in the Twin Cities). I understand snow can be measured by "season" and by "year," which might explain different answers, but I don't understand the ins and outs of measurements. The Minnesota State Climatology Office makes a claim for 2004-05 least and 1991-92 most. CBS News claims 1983-1984 for most. Extreme Weather Watch.com cites NOAA and agrees 1983 for most. Looking at other featured articles didn't help exactly (forex, ) and we don't have very many. A featured article review is underway, so this is a chance to get this right. Best wishes, SusanLesch (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 * An alternative if nobody here can help is to omit this. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have only just seen this and have had a quick look to see what I think, but cannot really help as its out of my comfort zone. Personally, I would lean towards the Minnesota State Climatology Office being more reliable and accurate then CBS or Extreme Weather Watch, since they seem to be the keepers of the keys on a local level as it were. If you really want to get it right though, send an email to nws.twincities@noaa.gov, mention that your are a Wikipedia editor and explain your predicament and see what they come back with. Hopefully, they will be able to push you in the right direction better than I can.Jason Rees (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wonderful advice. Thank you, Jason Rees. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In case this is helpful, NWS Twin Cities  recommends the Midwestern Regional Climate Center (the country has six regional centers). Thanks again. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. My problem is solved, but I think this resource appears to be a Windows programmer gone mad. I've decided to use Minnesota state DNR records which have a URL. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Usage of Over-quotation in weather warning and advisory articles
A lot of pages in Category:Weather warnings and advisories have the Over-quotation template added to it, specifically because of the alert examples. While I could see an issue when the article has multiple examples, if it only has one example, is it appropriate to tag the article?  Millows!  &#124; 🪧 17:37, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

New Vital Article List
I am proposing a new vital article list system that is more in line with what Wikipedia does for its own vital article list. This new system would consist of 5 levels of vital articles with level 1 being the most important and level 5 being the least important. In this proposal, the first 3 levels have been written up and are being considered for approval. Levels 4 and 5 will be added through individual or article group nominations at a later time. Keep in mind the goal of this list is to be fair to all weather topics. If you disagree with the inclusion or exclusion of something, please state which item you disagree with and why. Please note this list does include some articles that do not exist on purpose because they are vital ie Climate of North America, Climate of South America, etc.. Noah Talk 21:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Level 4 Vital Articles
Includes 212 articles from level 3. 212/585 articles listed for level 4. The goal is for the article count to reduce to 7.5% over time as the project's article count increases. Additional articles will not be added until the amount listed is lower than 7.50%.

Discussion
This is a reproposal of the original project vital article list from back in 2022 with a few new additions. We need to have a vital list for the project as a whole. We had one for tropical cyclones specifically but not for global weather. Please list any additions/removals you feel are needed at level 3 directly below my comment here. Noah Talk 21:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Level 1 ratification
Do you support the proposed articles for level 1? Noah Talk 21:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, good collection, I'd rather see the project grow rather than attempt to remove any. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. Noah Talk 02:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Level 2 ratification
Do you support the proposed articles for level 2? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 21:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. It's thorough and right on the cusp, so I think it's a fine list. Can't wait for level 4 and 5! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:57, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 02:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Level 3 ratification
Do you support the proposed articles for level 3? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now: Atmosphere of Venus is linked twice (Climate of Venus redirects to Atmosphere of Venus). Climate of Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune redirects to the planet articles and are not individual articles. For sure, the duplicate Venus link needs to be removed before ratification could take place, but we need to discuss whether or not redirects for Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune are ok before ratification. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Issues fixed. Support. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You did see that it was specifically stated that some articles that do not exist but are needed are listed here, correct? Also, it is possible to oppose specific articles rather than the entirety since it would be rather unproductive for it to be an all or nothing sort of deal. It's simply listed as one section since it would be cumbersome to have 100+ subsections for each individual article nomination. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 16:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Making sure you saw I replied. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 19:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I could get passed the Climate of Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune and be ok to ratify those. But I would be opposed to having the “Climate of Venus” ratified as a vital level 3 article, since it just would redirect to another vital level 3 article. Basically, an excess and completely not-needed thing. Remove that and this is a support to ratify the list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I just removed all of them. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 19:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Pinging you again since it has been almost 10 days. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 14:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support as nominator. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 13:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, looking forward to figuring out Level 4/5. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Level 4 proposals
Please make level 4 proposals here based upon the list here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 02:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Weather (305/585)

 * Cyclones
 * Extratropical cyclone
 * October 2022 Southern Ocean cyclone
 * Tropical cyclone
 * Tropical cyclogenesis
 * Tropical cyclone basins
 * Tropical Storm Vamei
 * List of the deadliest tropical cyclones
 * Pacific hurricane
 * Hurricane Patricia
 * Hurricane Iniki
 * Hurricane Otis
 * Pacific hurricane season
 * 1992 Pacific hurricane season
 * Typhoon
 * Tropical Storm Linda (1997)
 * Typhoon Haiyan
 * Typhoon Tip
 * Typhoon Morakot
 * Typhoon Nina
 * Typhoon Sarah (1959)
 * Typhoon Vera
 * Pacific typhoon season
 * 1964 Pacific typhoon season
 * Atlantic hurricane
 * 1900 Galveston hurricane
 * 1909 Monterrey hurricane
 * Great Hurricane of 1780
 * Hurricane Katrina
 * Hurricane Maria
 * Hurricane Mitch
 * Atlantic hurricane season
 * 2020 Atlantic hurricane season
 * North Indian Ocean tropical cyclone
 * 1839 Coringa cyclone
 * 1970 Bhola cyclone
 * 1977 Andhra Pradesh cyclone
 * 1991 Bangladesh cyclone
 * 1999 Odisha cyclone
 * 1999 Pakistan cyclone
 * 2019 North Indian Ocean cyclone season
 * Cyclone Nargis
 * South-West Indian Ocean tropical cyclone
 * 1892 Mauritius cyclone
 * 2018–19 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season
 * Cyclone Gafilo
 * Cyclone Idai
 * Australian region tropical cyclone
 * 1983–84 Australian region cyclone season
 * 1973 Flores cyclone
 * Cyclone Freddy
 * South Pacific tropical cyclone
 * 1997–98 South Pacific cyclone season
 * Cyclone Winston
 * South Atlantic tropical cyclone
 * Cyclone Catarina
 * Mediterranean tropical-like cyclone
 * Storm Daniel
 * Effects of tropical cyclones
 * Tropical cyclone effects by region
 * Tropical cyclone structure
 * Glossary of tropical cyclone terms
 * Tropical cyclone forecasting
 * Tropical cyclone rainfall climatology
 * Cyclone Hyacinthe
 * Tropical cyclone scales
 * Saffir–Simpson scale
 * Tropical cyclone naming
 * List of historical tropical cyclone names
 * List of retired Atlantic hurricane names
 * List of retired Australian region cyclone names
 * List of retired Pacific hurricane names
 * List of retired Pacific typhoon names
 * List of retired South Pacific cyclone names
 * History of tropical cyclone naming


 * Tornado
 * Daulatpur–Saturia tornado
 * Enhanced Fujita scale
 * List of tornadoes causing 100 or more deaths
 * List of tornado events by year
 * Tornadogenesis


 * Droughts
 * 1983–1985 famine in Ethiopia
 * 2003 European heat wave
 * Grande Seca
 * Great Bengal famine of 1770


 * Floods
 * 1887 Yellow River flood
 * 1931 China floods
 * 1935 Yangtze flood
 * 1949 Eastern Guatemalan floods
 * List of deadliest floods
 * North Sea flood of 1953
 * St. Lucia's flood
 * Vargas tragedy


 * Winter storm
 * 1972 Iran blizzard
 * February 13–17, 2021, North American winter storm
 * Space weather
 * Carrington Event

Ratification
Should the proposed articles become level 4 vital articles? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 15:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the total number of articles for Level 4? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * 585, including 212 from the prior levels. If you think that's too many, we can always lower it after seeing where things stand. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 21:29, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I am currently working on a topic that will eventually describe the history of weather system names, not sure what format it will take yet, but its important that we chuck that topic in the vital articles lists since its one of the primary reasons we are all here.Jason Rees (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I only nominated articles under weather for cyclogenesis and TC for the time being. Feel free to make further nominations. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 00:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Support all but Tropical cyclone structure - I agree the article should exist, but it should be created before becoming a vital article. I also added a few more, including Nina under tropical cyclones (it killed 229,000 people, including a dam collapse that caused majority of the deaths), 1931 China floods (which included a few tropical cyclones, also very deadly), the 1887 Yellow River flood (another deadly flood), the 1972 Iran blizzard (deadliest blizzard on record), the 2003 European heat wave (70,000 deaths), the Daulatpur–Saturia tornado (deadliest tornado worldwide), and the Vargas tragedy, which killed more than 10,000 people from floods and landslides in Venezuela.
 * Also, after adding my new suggestions, it made me think about how to build out the vital list. We don't want it to be too US-centric, where we happen to have a lot of information about deadly tornadoes and other weather events. But we also wouldn't necessarily want to dominate the list with tropical cyclones affecting the Philippines, China, Bangladesh, and India, because those countries are very natural disaster-prone, and if it's the 20th deadliest event in a country, is it really that vital in terms of worldwide significance? With that in mind, I did not propose adding any additional heat waves other than the 2003 European heat wave, which is well-documented to have killed 70,000 people. Now, perhaps because heat waves aren't named and they are longer events, we don't have some significant heat waves listed on Wikipedia in general. We have the 2010 Russian wildfires, which killed 50,000 people related to drought, wildfires, and heat waves, so perhaps that should be listed? I'm not sure what the lower cutoff should be, and with how much respect we should have to various countries, regions, and weather types. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I also added the 1983–1985 famine in Ethiopia (caused partly by drought), Grande Seca (a drought that killed 400,000 in Brazil), the Great Bengal famine of 1770 (which killed 7 million people in current day India/Bangladesh), St. Lucia's flood (which killed 50,000 in Europe in the 13th century), and Typhoon Vera, the strongest and deadliest Japanese typhoon (which, as a G7 country, seems vital IMO). Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on Storm Daniel being a vital article in some capacity? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 20:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You know, I was thinking this morning about adding it. While I’m not sure if the deadliest in a basin is automatic grounds for Level 4 importance (AUS and SPAC’s deadliest only number in the hundreds), think these fatality numbers are up there with Haiyan, not to mention the damage in Greece. So I’d support adding Daniel, provided we figure out some sort or rhyme or reason for what else to add. I also added the Carrington Event, the largest geomagnetic storm recorded (thus top-importance for space weather). Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well... Libya's government stated the death toll WILL exceed 10,000 today and they also said 100,000+ are still missing. Their expectation is for sharp toll increases. This will be at least Hurricane Mitch level if not higher. It's really looking bleak. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 22:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "The death toll following the flooding in Libya has reached around 11,000, the Red Crescent in Derna says" <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 17:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We need to work on filling out the other ones as time allows. Please see the list here for articles at levels 3.. the goal is to fill level 4 out under as many level 3 articles as possible. This is basically to achieve balance rather than it being focused solely on specific ones, although most will be likely be severe disasters that took place. I would ask that any nominations be put under their level 3 article here (as I did for TC and cyclogenesis) since I have to copy everything over once articles are confirmed via discussion. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 02:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I tried thinking of specifical examples for certain topics, like Tropical Storm Vamei for tropical cyclogenesis. I moved some Level 4 topics and organized them a bit more. I added the Braer Storm, at least until someone makes an article for the October 2022 SPAC cyclone. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 07:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I do have a userspace article about it, never intended it to a mainspace article but feel free to work on it. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Amazing! Do you mind publishing it ? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It will need some work but I'm happy to publish it.RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One small detail could be a background section, for information such as estimating intensity for storms, and maybe the context of the Southern Ocean. It's interesting that the cyclone is in the body of water only officially recognized within the last few decades, so the term might be a bit foreign. You have a good start to the article. I just want to make sure it makes sense in the context of Earth, to someone who barely has an idea of what weather, or Antarctica is. A global weather project needs to treat all of its subjects equally, whether in the United States or Thurston Island. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I added a few more, with rationales for all of them hidden if you look at the end window. I added the most active season in every other basin. At this point I wanna make sure we even hit our target for the number of articles, without simply being a list of the deadliest events, thus resulting in tons of older disasters, or perhaps too many topics for a given area. I tried to limit the number of events in China, India, and the United States, so I didn't add Johnstown Flood or 2013 North India floods, but perhaps they should've.

Also, I have to say, I'm not sure about Hurricane Harvey. It tied Katrina for damage value, and it was the wettest American storm, but I don't know if it deserves a place ahead of another event that was perhaps deadlier and not American. I also note that we have both 2005 and 2020 Atlantic hurricane seasons, but I'm not sure we should have 2005 at this point, since 2020 was the more active one. So unless anyone disagrees, I'm going to remove Harvey and 2005 AHS, for reasons of recentism and being too US-centric.

And one more thing to double-check, - does Level 4 include everything of levels 3 to 1? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does. It includes every article from the prior levels. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 01:36, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed Hurricane Harvey and 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, and added List of the deadliest tropical cyclones and the deadliest floods, plus the 2022 Southern Ocean cyclone, given that it was the strongest ever extratropical cyclone. IDK how many other lists to add - retired cyclones? The strongest cyclones? The costliest cyclones? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ (shrug emoji) If we did have the list of costliest TC's, then that would warrant Harvey being included, as the (tied for) costliest American hurricane (unadjusted for inflation). Not sure if that's getting too specific for a rationale. Also, given how long this page is, perhaps we should have a task force specifically for the vital articles? Both in terms of nominating articles for the vital list for level 4 and 5, and eventually the maintainence/improvement of said articles. Maybe have editing drives for a different vital article every two weeks or so. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:00, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Minor update, the list is up to 86, which (in addition to the 212 from level 3) brings the total to 298 out of 585. That means we still need 287. I don't want the remaining 287 to just be the whole list of the deadliest cyclones (which would skew toward India and Bangladesh), or every single retired storm (which would skew toward Australia) I want to remain methodical with what we add. Do we want to add an example article for each of the other topics in level 3? I don't think subtropical cyclone needs one, not when they're usually an insignificant event in the context of weather in general. Similar for fog. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Edit filter/Requested
You are invited to join the discussion at Edit_filter/Requested, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Updating old tracks and season summary maps
Since the end of the colour RfC in February the progress in converting old maps have been very slow since the bot request apparently fell through. We need to update these maps ASAP as dozens of pages still use the old maps and therefore violating the RfC, and subject to removal ( already did this when several 2023 Atlantic maps weren't compliant a few weeks ago - which was soon fixed). As the most frequent users of the track-maker (aside from JD) and subsequently the current 2023 tracks, I strongly implore any of you guys to consider starting this soon to ensure we are compliant. I considered doing this myself since no one else has really done so, but alas I think the more frequent users of the track maker are better suited for this task, primarily because installing the track maker on a MacBook Pro (which I use) is quite a hassle (even trying Ubuntu method as I wrote this which apparently doesn't want to open now - joy!). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * has stated at commons:User talk:Supportstorm that they do not wish to make new maps and wish to continue making legacy maps for other wikis. This is part of why users have been inserting old color maps, and it's getting to the point where an edit filter may be necessary to stop it. I really hope we don't need to.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If we’re running out of options we might not have much else to turn to. Partially the disconnect between the new tracks and the infobox and timeline changes which were added immediately after the RfC finished, we’ve lagged on the track portion for a while and it’s crucial we do something to make this go quicker (personally if you ask me I would’ve waited to change the timeline colors and infobox color headers until after we had the maps ready, so that things would be nice and smooth. However I know time was of the essence during the RfC and changing to compliance was probably the foremost thing in most people’s mind then). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the existing maps. All I'll ask is if can we first upload the new track maps before removing and replacing the old maps? &mdash; Iune  talk  20:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * JD has done so I believe in the diff I linked with 2023 Atlantic. A starting point should IMO be the summary maps as that’s the first thing people see when they load the page (but for now they have to stay there even with incorrect colors, as leaving it blank just is not an option here). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We cannot actively insert old colored maps into new articles, going forward, however.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment - I feel that just randomly removing the tracks and not replacing them with the path image is vandalism and disrupting the wiki to prove a point. We all knew back in February that the track maps were not going to be replaced overnight and I note a tracking category has now been set up to make sure we know which pages use the old style maps.Jason Rees (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not random. Its limited to storms occurring after the RfC. What's disruptive is inserting additional old-colored maps after the RfC, in clear defiance of the consensus. We already are grandfathering in maps that occurred before the RfC. Please assume good faith.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Did I go back to the future when I saw remove the maps from 2020, 2021 and 2022 AHS earlier without replacing them with the paths and threaten to do more? Mo I didn't think so either and those maps would have been inserted before the RFC.Jason Rees (talk) 01:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My incentive for that was to hopefully at least spur some action into replacing these maps since its been a slow process. I used JD’s rationale with 2023 to those three seasons, and it seems to have some progress (with 2022’s summary map being updated now). I wasn’t planning to go back further but wanted to at least do the most recent ones. In my summary I did say I applied WP:BOLD with this and in one case of reversion, raised this discussion I made similar to JD did while reverting a similar reversion several weeks ago. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Jason, the action of removing track maps was a clear violation of WP:POINT. This is going to be a very slow process given the lack of help from prominent track uploaders and an inability to acquire bots. Be mindful that your topic ban for disruptive behavior in weather articles was only recently lifted. If Jasper did the same exact thing in another instance, I missed it and my same sentiment of removal (not replacement) being POINTY applies. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair. Didn’t read that one first and now I wish I didn’t remove those improperly. But as I stated before, in my opinion we should have waited until the maps were ready to change timelines, infobox headers and statistics. Because as of right now with the slow process of this, a discrepancy is going to exist which may end up confusing some readers. I don’t know how the conversion worked in 2005/06 when the colors were changed for the first time because that was so long ago but I have to imagine it was probably just as slow as this process. It would help though if dropped his vendetta (not sure if that’s the correct wording here) against the new maps since he’s one of the most frequent users of the track maker. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A very strong word of advice to you and other project members would be to tread carefully around the whole issue of the colours, since the whole subject has proven to be like opening pandoras box or a can of worms.Jason Rees (talk) 11:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What I did was reverting edits adding new old-colored maps after the RfC, not removing grandfathered-in old maps.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous; I had to revert three such edits just now. Thus I've requested an edit filter; see the below section and please comment on the proposal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * JD, please reframe from stating I am overriding the RfC as you did here in your edit filter proposal or putting blame on me that the RfC is not being followed on wiki in future discussions. I have not replaced any tracks since the RfC closed. If no one is willing to upload new tracks then step up and do the work. Supportstorm (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to point fingers but I gotta agree with JD. The process is slow and as you’re the primary user of the track maker, it would be best if you help update the other tracks since as explained, people don’t have the track maker itself for various reasons or don’t update as frequently as possible (which then leads to those edits JD just mentioned about users trying to add your maps onto new storms - see Lidia). This “stonewalling” (not sure if that’s the best term) seems to be entirely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and this notion of “If no one is willing to upload new tracks then step up and do the work” just falls under this. It would be really nice to finally get the older maps updated according to RfC. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether you intend it or not, your creation of the maps has had the effect of fillibustering; one reason new maps aren't being made is that others see it as acceptable to use your maps. You cannot disentangle yourself from that, and your comments on your Commons talk page show your intent pretty well. The comment stands.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not accept your comments nor blame for the slow process of the map conversion. I am not the only user who is uploading tracks regularly so to single me out is wrong. Regardless I allocate my time to what I want to contribute, of which still serves a purpose in improving other Wikis, see WP:VOLUNTEER. Supportstorm (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:DAW. You are the only one who has steadfastly produced legacy-colored maps only, and the empirical evidence says people will reach for the low-hanging fruit, so it's squarely on you. I wouldn't be so harsh if you explicitly marked the maps in the description as not for English Wikipedia use and not ACCESSIBLE-compliant, but you have not. The fact that an edit filter needs to be considered is bad enough.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

OK I'll bite, I wanna help with the backlog. How again do I download the track software? What's the link to everything? It'll be easier once everything is moved over, and I wanna help with that process. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Tracks has instructions. It's a bit involved; let me know if you need help.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing RfC related to a source cited by the WikiProject
There is an ongoing RfC at WP:RSN to determine whether or not Keraunos is a reliable source. Keraunos is cited by the WikiProject on several articles. You can participate in the RfC here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC) P.S. started by me as a formality, given it is cited on dozens of Wiki articles (tropical & tornado) and no formal consensus/RfC has actually deemed it notable. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC: A-Class in WikiProject Weather
Should A-class be deprecated within WikiProject Weather? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 00:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

A-class has largely been a forgotten relic, with most favoring GA and FA which themselves are attracting fewer and fewer participants. I attempted to revive the A-class process, however, there really isn't a good base of reviewers to keep the process maintained. A-class is not something that should be assessed by a single editor per WP:A-Class. Given that there haven't been any proper A-class reviews in over 2 years (even then we only had a few completed), I believe it is time we deprecate A-class and remove it from the WikiProject assessment. A-class would be folded into either B-class or GA depending on whether or not the article is a Good Article. This affects 128 articles currently. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 00:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove A class per request. This class is a relic in almost every WikiProject, I do not think weather project is the exception (summoned by feedback request bot).--ReyHahn (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear the thoughts of before I comment.Jason Rees (talk) 11:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a good usage for A-class, even if it's not used that much. I believe the process should be simplified, that A-class should be an additional review after the GAN stage. It functions as a second set of eyes, which is useful before going for FAC, hopefully minor pedantic issues will be caught. Since a good article focuses on the prose and the comprehensiveness (plus sourcing), an A-class review is going to be nitpicks, making sure there isn't too much jargon, that sourcing is all correct, images are properly licensed... basically apply the FA criteria to an article in anticipation of a future FA run. That means that a user can't unilaterally raise an article from GA to A-class, unless there is a review, and that means the reviewer shouldn't be the person who did the GA review (or the writer). Assuming all of that, I think we can keep the A-class. It's not meant to be used that much, because in theory the article should be able to pass a featured article review (unless both the GA and the ACR missed something big). It exists as a stepping stone, even if it's not used much. Therefore I oppose this proposal. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC)


 * unless the project-wide A class criteria are changed, A single reviewer can’t promote the article. It says that at least two uninvolved editors are required to get a promotion. Much of WP has done away with A class since peer review exists. IMO we don’t need multiple processes for the same thing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 22:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yea, I think it should be changed to a single reviewer, someone not the GA reviewer or the primary writer(s). Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What I’m saying is that WE can’t do that. At least not on our own. It would take consensus from WP as a whole to change the A class criteria to make it require only one uninvolved editor. Local consensus can't trump project-wide consensus. If you look at Content_assessment, you will see how few A Class articles exist project-wide, being even rarer than FAs. Over 5% exist within this project alone. While it is true that A is technically a stepping stone between GA and FA, I will tell you that outside editors have absolutely no respect for the rating and are quite skeptical whenever they see it because it is not a WP-facilitated review process. I can attest to this because I tried to get top icons implemented for A-class and it got snow opposed for that reason. Given that WP doesn't really even believe in the rating anymore outside WP:MILHIST which has an established and active review process, why should we continue using it? Additionally, A-class reviews tend to be a very back-alley sort of deal that is poorly advertised and doesn't offer much timely feedback. It would honestly be better for us to focus on sending articles towards WP:PR where they can potentially get feedback from a number of individuals, including those from outside the project which could honestly be quite helpful. FA and PR have been suffering from a lack of reviewers so I think the best option for the encyclopedia is to move to using those official processes and contributing via quid pro quo as possible. While an editor doesn't get to claim a new status for their article, it would be prepared for a FAC which is what matters most. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 23:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Damn I've been around Wikipedia too long to not know that was baked into the A-class policy about the multiple reviews. Well, I don't wanna be one to hold back progress and efficiency. Especially seeing as it's not really being used, I think it could better incentivize the current A-class articles to become future featured articles. Maybe we could have a task force of editors identify the best of the good articles (which would likely include the current A-class), and apply the A class or FA criteria. Not that doing such a task force should be tied to this proposal, I just like the idea of a bit of a FA incubator, and by getting rid of the A-class, we're kind of losing that. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Tbh I think a whole reassessment of all the GAs is in store considering the age of many of them. A task force does seem like a good idea, however, I do agree that's for another time. At least with unofficial reviews or a peer review, there isn't a set time limit like there is for other quality reviews. The amount of people going for FAs seems to have slown to a trickle due to lack of interest from newer editors and the regulars being busy. There seems to just be a lack of interest in getting articles promoted to both GA and FA when it comes to newer editors. Most people seem to be casual editors rather than ones who will write and shepard an article all the way. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 01:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support removal of A-class. It's hard enough to find reviewers for GA and FA already. It's better to simplify the process and focus resources --Ita140188 (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Support I’ve found very little helpful about A-class. I have been attempting to prepare an article I created to nominate for FA status for a while and have found comments from other users and peer reviews have provided much more assistance than a two-year long request I put in for an A-class review that was never answered. It really is a defunct system, at least within this project, and most of our GAs can make the progression to FAs without the A-class step. Jay  Tee ⛈️ 02:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support deprecation of A-class as a presently unnecessary stepping stone between GA and FA. Editors seeking to jump the gap should go to peer review, which is more active and has a more diverse group of reviewers (i.e. non-WPWX) akin to what one would experience at FAC. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I honestly don't even know what the A-class is for. I've even tried to get articles I've made to the A-class, but could not find information about how to do so. If you aren't even using it for anything, it can go. Chess  Eric  21:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Future FAC's, former A-class articles, and other quality content
Now that A-class has been eliminated, that leaves 1,298 good articles in the weather project, of which 258 (or 19.87%) are featured articles. On a related note, the recent FA stats were published, and there has actually been a net loss of featured meteorology articles in the last two years. I'd like to discuss maybe starting a collaboration toward identifying high-quality A-class articles, doing the spot checks for the FA criteria, and identify prospective featured articles. It is important that we don't canvass for votes - this discussion is merely about collaborating toward new FA's. Anyone interested? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Current-class
Hello project members! Note that per WP:PIQA, all the class ratings are being harmonised across different WikiProjects so we are looking to remove any non-standard classes like Current-class and SIA-class from your project banner. Would you like to keep track of current events in a different way, perhaps by using a parameter yes or a new parameter current which would then populate a category. Alternatively it could just be removed and then the articles in Category:Current-Class Weather articles would inherit the quality rating from other projects on the talk page. For the SIA-class, we could perhaps automatically reclassify them as List-class if that would be acceptable to you? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason the project uses current and future class is not to keep a track of current articles, but because the season is ongoing or the weather system hasnt dissipated. Maybe its time we had a look at the classes we do use.Jason Rees (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I BOLDly disabled needed class since we aren't using it and never have since before this project was created. I had had the idea of using needed for redirects where an article should be created so these items would be categorized but it never happened and whenever I did put needed class, other WPWX editors would simply revert it back to redirect class anyways. The other classes (besides future and current) all have a decent amount of pages within them. If you disagree, it can always be re-enabled but we would have a decent amount of work to do in identifying articles that need to be created and then tagging them as such. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 11:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * What are your thoughts on this? I wouldn't be opposed to either option for needed-class. Either we keep it disabled or I can re-enable and this would take the place of lists of articles needing to be created. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 11:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

SIA-class has now been removed. These will now classify as List-class. Just waiting on your decision re Current- and Future-class. Thanks &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that SIA class should be reclassified as List. As for current, IDK, it's hard to assess a season article while it's ongoing. A while back, there became an informal rule that a season article would be only be start-class if there is written prose for every tropical cyclone. Without current class, then there might be attempts to go for GA status while the season is active, which would make it too unstable. Perhaps then, if we got rid of current class (since it is only a few articles), there could be a rule that it isn't eligible for GA class or higher (much like you wouldn't expect a featured article for a future Olympic event). That way, the current season article could be rated C-class while it was active (assuming every storm had a section, was well-written and comprehensive, and was sourced). That could be an easy way of identifying the faults in current season articles, like when a section is empty, or has too few sources. I'm going to bring up a possible solution to my concerns about getting rid of current-class (similar to the discussion about removing A-class) - we could have a task force for the current articles: the current seasons, plus any currently active cyclones with an article. If such a task force was set up, then I would be ok with getting rid of SIA, current, and future class. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 19:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I had the smart of idea of making a template for SIA talkpages and I believe most were tagged with the template so if they are converted to lists, nothing should be lost as long as all of them are tagged and remain that way. There are at least 40ish pages not tagged currently so those would need to be tagged. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 20:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent foresight Noah! For what it's worth, I still don't think we need almost any of the individual SIA's, and that they should all be merged into the individual storm names by letter, like Storm Daniel being merged into all of the D storm names. That way those would all be in individual lists, which could then be eligible for featured list if all of the sourcing is there, and it truly has every storm (including European windstorms, heat waves, unofficial subtropical cyclones, and other names for storms, even floods and storms named after saint days). I know, I'm thinking ahead, as usual, but it's something I want to consider if we go down this process of streamlining things. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Outside editors opposed big lists like that when we tried to get that implemented last time. Tbf video games have lists of that nature so I'm not sure what their issue was. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 21:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We have List of islands by name (A), List of authors by name: A, List of painters by name beginning with "A". I think that's a much more useful list than, "wait, is it Katrina, or Catarina, or Katia? Or Katie? Or Kay? Or Kylie? Wait there's never been a Tropical Storm Kylie? Omg bae you gotta write to the weather people!" And then more people get the knowledge bug, and they become better informed. The current system of having some 600 different articles...... sorry to derail this convo, just had to vent about that. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just chiming in since I had one of my List of storms named X creations sent to draftspace and I don't think this has been brought up before – since set index articles are considered a subset of list articles (and not disambiguation pages), the same standards for sourcing content in lists apply to SIAs, meaning the descriptions of individual storms, retirements, name meanings, etc. would all need to be cited. I suppose a barebones list with only the names and designations would not need references as long as all the entries are wikilinked but I'm not particularly sure. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I think it could be a good thing enforcing the citations. Right now I'm working on Draft:Weather of 2005, where I'm making sure there is a citation for every single death. I'm starting with tropical cyclones, and I realized that some of the citations and info for the 2005 PTS has barely been touched since it was active. That same problem happens in these giant lists, as well as older seasons that don't get the attention required to get them cited well and comprehensive. That doesn't mean get rid of the articles, mind you. It's just something to consider as a next step to the problem that is eliminating the SIA category, which of course doesn't need to be halted just because I'm going on a tangent. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Any further comments on this? FWIW I just added a future parameter to the WikiProject Eurovision template so they can keep track of future events. Would be easy to add yes or yes to the few articles that use this. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have any problem with that. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 20:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WPTC A
Template:WPTC A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.244.127 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
It has been proposed that List of retired South Pacific cyclone names and List of retired Australian region cyclone names be merged into one list entitled List of tropical cyclone names retired in the Southern Hemisphere.Jason Rees (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

B-checklist in project template
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. &#x0020;This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Subtropical cyclone color change proposal (Discussion on hold pending WMO TC RAI meeting)
Do you support the proposed changes below? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 00:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Current timeline


 * Proposed change

This timeline (one example) as it is is presenting FALSE data by showing Issa as a 25-30 knot depression (the blue color) because the best track lists a 50 knot subtropical depression. I propose changing the color to match the wind intensity for every SWIO and ATL subtropical cyclone (the two before NHC changed their policy) while retaining the RSMC status of subtropical depression and subtropical cyclone within the infobox and timeline. Please see Module:Storm_categories/sandbox with the new sd2, sd3, sd4, and subtropicalcyclone2 statuses. sd2 has the MTS color, sd3 has the STS color, sd4 has the TC color, and subtropicalcyclone2 has the Cat 1 color. This should cover all currently observed wind ranges. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 00:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Support as proposer. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 00:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Question is the problem with the subtropical depression label or that Issa was labeled as a subtropical depression despite max winds that might have qualified it as a tropical storm? If this change is made, would it end up coloring subtropical depressions with windspeeds lower than 55 mph/89 km/hr incorrectly? Looking at, it seems like the naming/labeling of Issa is more the issue. What other storms would be impacted by this change? I think I see where I got confused... This proposal would shift the color based upon windspeed despite the name of the story remaining "Subtropical Depression X", correct? If so, Support. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Searching for "Subtropical Depression" in the article title, gives these results (which wouldn't capture subtropical depressions that don't have a redirect):
 * below 89 km/h
 * Subtropical Depression Twenty-Two (2005) 55 km/h (35 mph)
 * Subtropical Depression 10 (2010) 65 km/h (40 mph)
 * Subtropical Depression 13 (2014) 75 km/h (45 mph)
 * Subtropical Depression Dando (2011) 85 km/h (50 mph)
 * 89–118 km/h
 * Subtropical Depression 13 (2000) 95 km/h (60 mph)
 * Subtropical Depression 09 (2011) 95 km/h (60 mph)
 * Subtropical Depression 11 (2001) 95 km/h (60 mph)
 * Subtropical Depression 15 (2006) 95 km/h (60 mph)
 * Subtropical Depression Issa (2022) 95 km/h (60 mph)
 * Subtropical Depression Bransby (2016) 100 km/h (65 mph)
 * greater than 118 km/h
 * Subtropical Depression Luma (2003) 130 km/h (80 mph)
 * —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1968_Atlantic_subtropical_storm_1_track.png label of "subtropical depression" despite the wind speed isn't the issue. The coloring of the label is the problem, especially on timelines since in cases like this it displays inaccurate wind information. The short answer to your second question is no. We would manually change the legend of timelines to display the subtropical depression at the appropriate wind speed. In the case of the infobox bar, the status would remain "Subtropical Depression (MFR)". The color sd is the current subtropical depression color. That one would be used for subtropical depressions that are 25-30 knots. sd2 is the MTS color and would be used for subtropical depressions that are 35-45 knots. sd3 is the STS color and would be used for 50-60 knot subtropical depressions. The sd4 is the TC color and would be used for anything 65 or over (unless something in the future comes up that would warrant another change). Similarly, the subtropicalcyclone2 color is the Cat 1 hurricane color and would be used for the two subtropical cyclones in the Atlantic that were at/above 65 knots before the NHC changed its policy on subtropical cyclones to automatically assume they become tropical at such an intensity. Any other subtropical systems outside those two in the Atlantic as well as the SWIO basin are outside the scope of this proposal since no changes are needed elsewhere. The other storms you mention would also be affected by this proposal (other than the SD 22 '05 which isn't included). Not sure if there are more subtropical depressions prior to 1998-99 (would have to check). The goal here is to keep the label itself the same, but simply change the coloring to match the intensity of storms that were entirely tropical. Our track maps already do this for the SSHWS since the subtropical cyclone is just indicated by a square. If one were produced with the MFR's scale, it would use the appropriate wind intensity color with a subtropical square. Does this answer your questions? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 14:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It does, thank you. (I got distracted looking at the example more than parsing the wording of the proposal.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, east switch. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As this issue only affects one basin, it would have been better if this issue had been discussed first rather than going straight to an RFC, as the WMO RA I TCC challenged MFR over the subtropical depression designation at last years extraordinary meeting who were told to bring it up in this years full RA I TCC. As a result, I oppose making any changes at the moment to the colours.Jason Rees (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:RFCBEFORE was not followed here. Per Jason let's wait for the RSMC to resolve this conflict. This is not false data. It's simply MFR contradicting themselves.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is false data... We are presenting the storm in the timeline as being a 25-30 knot storm based on our legend which is not the same as what the MFR is saying. They stated that Issa was 50 knots. That clearly is US presenting false information there. This has nothing to do with the subtropical depression designation but rather what color is being used to depict it within timelines. Also, are you opposed to the two Atlantic ones getting the Cat 1 color in the timelines for their winds and in the infobox status bar? The status wouldn't change in the infobox oc, just the color used. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 20:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The official classification by the agency overrules what the number would suggest. For example, a 35-knot remnant low is still a 35-knot remnant low. Most commonly, a 55-knot tropical low is still a tropical low for BoM basins.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It would be a TS-colored triangle on the track map. Why can't the infobox reflect what the wind speed actually was? A hurricane-force subtropical cyclone = Cat 1 square on track map but TS color in the infobox/timeline. How does that make sense? As long as we are stipulating a specific windspeed for the subtropical depression that doesn't match what it actually produced, we are running afoul here. We would literally need a disclaimer stating what you exactly said above but then again WP doesn't allow disclaimers. Something has to give here. Another potential option that would be easier to implement would be to just make subtropical depression show up as white or some other pre-programmed color in both timelines and infoboxes with no wind speed indicated in the former. That would solve the false data issue and be a temporary fix until the rest is sorted out by the WMO. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 20:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If something has to give, it is the WP:CALC placement of storms in categories based on their intensity when the RSMC has explicit overriding information on that front.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then the only other option is to do as I said and give them their own timeline color without any winds specified. It wouldn't be difficult to do at all. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 13:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Lets take a big step back here and remember that the WMO RA I TCC is happening this week.Jason Rees (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I hid the RfC tag for now. If they don't retroactively adjust all the statuses, we will need to do something. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 14:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can reveal that MFR has proposed to add the subtropical storm category, however, it is awaiting ratification from the committee.Jason Rees (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * With retroactive effect? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah, AATalk 23:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * One would presume so.Jason Rees (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. We should handle this on a case-by-case basis, depending on the strength of the SD. 🐔 Chicdat <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman">Bawk to me!  10:27, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Global warming controversy
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Global warming controversy&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Important Alerts For The WikiProject (NOAA Copyright Decision on Commons)
On the Commons (Where 99.99% of the images used on Wikipedia come from), there was two important and recent deletion discussions which everyone in the WikiProject should be aware of:


 * In this deletion discussion for the The Andover, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg 2022 Andover EF3 tornado photograph, it was community consensus confirmed to be public domain. Why is this important? The Commons consensus determined that watermarks (even full-page watermarks) do not indicate the image is not a free-to-use public domain image IF it is on a NWS Webpage. The current consensus (from this discussion as of July 2023) is that all images on an NWS webpage are public domain unless they have a "©" watermark or the webpage caption mentions "©".


 * In this deletion discussion for an aerial damage photograph from the 2023 Rolling Fork EF4 tornado, it was determined (as of November 2023) that not all images on NOAA webpages are automatically public domain, even if the "©" watermark is not present.

In short, at the present moment, it still seems to be undecided whether NOAA-webpage images are automatically public domain, and the commons seems to be in a disagreement on that within the last few months. Just wanted to make sure the WikiProject was aware of these 2 discussions and what they mean for NOAA-public domain images. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Peer review on 2013 Midwestern U.S. floods
Hello. Any comments or feedback on the peer review on 2013 Midwestern U.S. floods, a weather-related article, is welcome, as no feedback has been given since its request nearly two months ago. This article will be nominated for FA very soon, as such, the peer review link is Peer review/2013 Midwestern U.S. floods/archive1. Again, any comments or feedback are welcome. Tails  Wx  02:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2018 North American winter storm and January 3-4, 2022 nor'easter
These two articles need massive cleanup including met histories and proper info boxes. Can someone fix them up?108.58.9.194 (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 Pacific Northwest floods
Project members are invited to help expand 2023 Pacific Northwest floods.

Thanks! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

GA categories
Hello, it was recently raised at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations that there was a chunky subsection at Good articles/Natural sciences. These subsections should strike a balance between being overly small (useless) and overly long (unreadable), say ballpark between 25 and 100-200 articles. In splitting this up, I noticed a few oddities, such as Outflow (meteorology) and Outflow boundary being in different subsections, and the small (6) "Meteorological observatories" subsection containing items that were not meteorological observatories. There is a "Weather" subsection which does not seem to have a clear identity, and the current "Climate" entries seem ill-defined as well.Putting aside the extensive lists of weather events (pretty clearly defined and easy to understand), some input would be appreciated for useful ways to break up the remainder (currently Climate, Climate change, Meteorological observatories, Storm sciences, Weather, as well as the currently empty overall Meteorology" subsection which can hold items that don't fit into a child subsection well) into reasonably sized subsections whose titles would be understandable to a casual reader. Best, CMD (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Given the small sizes, I'd probably merge climate and climate change. I'll wait for users more experienced with meteorology to comment on the others. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  20:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Sea surface temperature mean temperatures
I may be dumb, but I scoured dozens of pages of the internet for any official data on SST for Le Touquet, a seaside resort in N France, but I could find nothing at all. I know Méteo France tracks SST but I see nothing like the average air temperature data from there.

There is this page which claims to give sea temperatures and they even provide measurement data, but no idea where they take it from, what period does it refer to (1991-2020? 1981-2010?), so rather unreliable.

Could you please find the relevant website/dataset? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The best I can recommend is NOAA 5km SST climatology with files available at | this website. I don't know how it would compare to Meteo France data. The link to the relevant software to use these files is also provided on the same page. DJ Cane (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for February 2007 North American blizzard
February 2007 North American blizzard 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) 20:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Need for a standard that will make "Tornadoes in year" pages less U.S.-centric
Hi all,

A process should be started to resolve the U.S. centricism in articles listing tornadoes by year (ex: Tornadoes of 2023). As it stands, these artices have significant U.S. bias written in ways that can't be justified by tornado climatology. It is true, of course, that the United States has a large number of the world's tornadoes as well as a significant amount of English-language content about tornadoes including public domain maps and data from NOAA. I do not think, however, that this is a justification for U.S. centricism in lists that are global in nature which I think is manifest in the following ways:


 * Images in infoboxes being public domain maps and charts from NOAA/NWS relating only to the United States.
 * Infobox datapoints specifically listing U.S. values rather than global values.
 * Each month of the year specifically noting how many tornadoes were observed in the United States, often without mentioning tornadoes in other regions, before the sub-sections giving details for specific events.

Community consensus is obviously important in determining how articles and lists are written. I don't claim to have the holy grail in fixing this, but here are some thoughts I have that can help us overcome this problem:


 * Using Commons images of tornadoes from the relevant year instead of NOAA/NWS charts in infoboxes.
 * Possibly a single image, but could be a collage similar to what is present on the articles for some cities (ex: Seattle).
 * Using public domain maps where appropriate in the global lists, but largely employing them in U.S. specific articles (ex: List of United States tornadoes from January to February 2023)
 * Not specifically calling out the number of tornadoes observed in the U.S. each month, this is more appropriate for the U.S. specific articles.
 * Acknowledging that, at a global scale, these lists may never be complete due to lack of data and using Template:Dynamic list.
 * Expanding the navbox for that year to include not just links to outbreaks but also links to relevant lists, including the global list, U.S. lists, and whatever others for that year are created.
 * This is also an opportunity to have links to the previous and following year in the navbox.

I hope we can get a good dialogue going to resolve this issue systemically and I am interested to hear thoughts, ideas, and opinions from everyone else. Obviously with the United States having the majority of sources, tornadoes in the United States will constitute the majority of content. That does not mean that we can't make these pages more global in scope. If we can come to a consensus, that should be written in a specific Manual of Style page to be readily referenced (and changed when appropriate). DJ Cane (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not commenting on the whole list you put out, but I can comment on the point of using images in the list articles. There was a previous discussion, which I actually started earlier this year about this. (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 2). That idea was basically stale as there was a no-consensus (some for and some against) for it. So without a true formal discussion (like unique RfC), that issue is mute. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Would it be inappropriate to turn this into an RfC? I agree that’s probably the best way to go to get the best discussion. I’ve been an editor for a long time but this is the first time I’ve initiated such a discussion so originating this process is new to me. DJ Cane (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RFCBEFORE, it should only be tried if the discussion we're already having does not get a clear consensus.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Maintaining a global focus is important. What about instead of going by each month, it listed it by continent first? This way, Africa, Australia/Oceania, Asia, and Europe would go ahead of North America. And then by continent we could split it by month if needed. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. I could support this. Penitentes (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with the listing by country idea is that the United States would still dominate the article AND would get its own article REGARDLESS. The idea of making the main tornado pages less-U.S. centric is correct in theory until you realize that most tornadic events, especially significant ones, occur in the United States. Plus, the weather agencies, news organizations, and storm spotters within this country have made it a point to locate and document every tornado that takes place throughout the year along with damage cost, death toll, etc. Other than European countries to an extent, no other country does that, and the only reason why some tornadoes are even documented in some countries is through the use of video and/or when a severe storm leaves a damage path that is obviously tornadic. Additionally, that idea may work for modern years, but it doesn't work for earlier ones; tornado event documentation in other countries (excluding the United States and Europe of course) is essentially NONEXISTENT throughout the 20th Century unless the event caused major (and I mean MAJOR) impacts. As a result, those articles would, again, literally just be about the United States and Europe anyway. This is why most of the tornado info from outside Europe and the United States goes in the country list pages we already have (i.e. List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks in Asia and List of Southern Hemisphere tornadoes and tornado outbreaks, although I will admit that those articles need some serious clean-up as info normally just gets chucked in there without sourcing IF we remember its even there). To put it simply, I just don't think that there is enough information (and reasoning) to justify such a change; that's something that could be done in the much larger "Weather of XXXX year" articles.
 * The presentation of the article is also a problem. Again, most tornadoes, especially significant ones, happen in the United States anyway, but most of the regularly observed tornado count for each month ALSO come from the United States. In fact, I kind of see what the whole stink with the March 2008 tornado list page from earlier in the year was about now; listing every tornado event from every region of the world is literally IMPOSSIBLE. The Template:Dynamic list would be a good idea in that sense, but that information is already noted in the lead, ESPECIALLY when it comes to the main tornado pages prior to 2000s. However, I will admit that maybe we should add how many other tornadoes (that we know of that is) occurred in other countries. I will also note that prior to me coming on, the number of United States tornado reports was also included with each month, which I eventually removed since I found that confusing and unnecessary. The United States listed tornado number, however, is mostly for record-keeping purposes; most global tornado records come from the United States since the number of tornadoes that touch down and are documented in this country in any given year is more than all of the countries in the world COMBINED. A compromise would be to say how many tornadoes occurred across the globe for a certain month and which country had the most...okay maybe not that second one. The reason why we try to limit the amount of sub-sections for other countries is due to the fact that most of the tornado events from other countries tornado are isolated and weak (a lot of them are just waterspouts moving ashore to be totally honest). We are currently trying plug in more and more information about tornadoes in the main and list pages, so isolated events like that just don't fit in. Also, I'm going to say this right now; I'm not in favor of photo collages in the infobox for two reasons: (1) most public domain photos are from the United States so that's not solving the U.S.-centric problem and (2) the amount of arguing I've seen about which photos should be included for INDIVIDUAL tornadoes is bad enough; we don't need debates over collages too because NO ONE will be satisfied.
 * At the end of the day, what I'm saying is that there are ways to make these pages less U.S.-centric, but that's not easy to do given the documentation habits of other countries besides the United States and European countries. There is one thing that I do want to clarify though; what do you mean by adding relevant lists in the navbox? As I mentioned earlier, we do have such lists in the "See also" section. Chess  Eric  20:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that. That's why I suggest listing the events by continent as the first subdivision. That way, if we only know of one African tornado in a given year, OK, put it with the African tornadoes. Ditto Asian and Europe. When you go back far enough, yea, there might not be any recorded tornadoes outside of the US. In that case, the "Tornadoes of 1910" would probably skip having the continent subdivision. Imagine if the article was formatted like tropical cyclones, and instead of basins, it goes by continent. Sure, in some years, there might be a lot more in one particular area. Having an intentional continental split would acknowledge the heavy bias toward the United States, rather than letting it get hidden when we list all of the tornadoes by month. Any given April or May is going to have many more events in the US. As an example, take Tornadoes of 2021's section on "May", which opens with "There were 259 tornadoes confirmed in the United States in May. This was the first time in recorded history that no F3/EF3+ tornadoes touched down in May, despite near average activity." Automatically, I expect it is going to be biased towards the US, even though there were events in Japan, Poland, China, India, and Canada. If the article was structured by continent instead, then the Japan, China, and India events would be listed under Asia, and the Poland would be listed under Europe. Canada would be included in North America alongside the US, which makes sense given that some outbreaks cross the border (illegally :P ) . ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The tropical cyclone idea is actually what I was basing my argument off of, albeit I was going by the basin ones and not the big overall one. My main issue is how content forks would work; tropical cyclones are easy to split by basin, but splitting tornadoes by continents would mean a TON of more links and navigations and more pages to maintain. One thing you have to remember here is that WikiProject Severe weather covers all severe weather, not just tornadoes. Navigation and information filtering through pages is extremely important and we should watch that if we do this. Chess  Eric  21:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We already have continental weather articles, such as 2023–24 North American winter and 2023–24 European windstorm season. If there are enough tornadoes in Europe in a given year, there might end up being a List of Europe tornadoes in 2023, particularly if reporting becomes more standardized. The end product, in my opinion, should be to have every single tornadoes, available in three different ways - one for the given year, one for the location, and one for the intensity. The Teton–Yellowstone tornado appears in the Tornadoes of 1987 (under the sub-section for North America under July). It would also appear in List of Wyoming tornadoes, which is not yet created, but there's more than enough tornadoes to fill a list - there are hundreds. The tornado also appears in List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes. Elsewhere in the world, the Daulatpur–Saturia tornado appears in Tornadoes of 1987, List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks in Asia (arguably there should be a List of Bangladesh tornadoes), and List of F3 and EF3 tornadoes, if that were ever created. Starting by changing all of the yearly tornado articles isn't doing enough, in my opinion. There needs to be more wiki infrastructure for all of the events that happen all around the world. And not just in the 21st century either. I always enjoy reading about the earliest recorded tornado in Mexico in 1521. That one should appear in Tornadoes of the 16th century, if that were ever created, and perhaps part of List of Mexico tornadoes, of which I'm sure there are more than enough to support an article. Perhaps creating more of these articles would encourage future editors to add to these lists whenever they hear about it, which will make it easier in the future to compile the worldwide articles. I think just about any populated place in the world that experiences tornadoes could support a list. Some will be so lengthy that it might be a yearly article, like List of Oklahoma tornadoes (2023) or List of Florida tornadoes (2023), but just becauses they are common doesn't mean they aren't worth the effort. I say that having written a lot of List of Florida hurricanes and List of North Carolina hurricanes, some of the most commonly affected parts of the United States by tropical cyclones. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 22:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to get some thoughts about whether the Tornadoes of 2018 article would be a good example of at least a less U.S.-centric lead would probably be. The event section of the Tornadoes of 1950 article, which I wrote up myself, could also work. In the meantime I've also changed the lead in Tornadoes of 2023 article as a preliminary measure. User:CapeVerdeWave also made a small article (unfinished; its still in his sandbox) about Tornadoes of 1972 in Florida, so that could also be a model.
 * One thing I would say is that the project has gotten away from the synopsis and events section at the top of the article. That was an area where we could've summarized major global events. I've been meaning to bring that up with the project for awhile now, but just haven't gotten around to it. I think this would be a good time to bring this back up. Chess  Eric  23:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I really like the idea of splitting it by continent as @Hurricanehink suggested and think that List of Southern Hemisphere tornadoes and tornado outbreaks provides a good template for how this can be organized. I also think the improvements made by @ChessEric in Tornadoes of 2023 was a good rework based on Tornadoes of 2018.
 * While separating it by continent and then by nation removes this being a U.S. centrism issue, I don't think each month section saying how many tornadoes were observed in the U.S. (or even globally) is necessary in a global summary article/list. WP:NOTSTATS doesn't perfectly apply here but it combined with the context that | research shows even in the United States tornadoes are significantly undercounted making that figure not so notable to be placed in this setting. List of volcanoes in the United States may be a good example here as each state/territory isn’t prefaced with “There are x volcanoes in y state,” it just gives the list. Like tornadoes, the count of volcanoes isn’t a comprehensively determined number.
 * While not part of my original meaning for this discussion, I think it wouldn’t be a bad thing to decrease the amount of prose dedicated to tornadoes that fit into another non-global list or an article regarding it/the outbreak it occurred in. DJ Cane (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The amount of WP:SHOUTING you're doing there is unwarranted. Please remove the excessive emphasis. This doesn't help you make your point; I broadly agree with what you've said but it is also WP:TLDR.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh shoot. Sorry; I didn't mean anything by it and didn't even realize I was doing it as much as I was. Chess  Eric  21:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I will respond to other points further down the thread but I made a mockup of the sort of navbox update I'm thinking of in my sandbox. I realize now the infobox has links to adjacent years, so I don't think that needs to also be added to the navbox. Something like this could eliminate the Main Article: List of United States tornadoes... after every month, decreasing U.S. centrism. DJ Cane (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I like what's being articulated here. An overwhelming majority of tornadoes do occur in the U.S., but the articles are written and structured in a way that introduces the subject in an all-encompassing, global manner but then presents U.S.-centric statistics and plots. I support 's idea of dividing the pages by continent/region. It would allow summary-level information to be contextually regionalized instead of confusingly overlapping with other areas. The navbox mockup from looks good. — TheAustinMan (Talk ⬩ Edits) 16:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it goes without saying that we will need some sort of draft/model article or something like that to go off of. Ironically, however, we could use the future Tornadoes of 2024 article for that. Chess  Eric  21:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If nobody else can get to it beforehand, I can make a draft in my sandbox this weekend to look at the continent separation using Tornadoes of 2023. This will likely be a multi-phase project while we come to agreements on how best to handle things (and on what not to change). DJ Cane (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello all, I have recreated Tornadoes of 2023 in User:DJ Cane/sandbox2 by sorting the events by continent, then nation, then date (pulling continent organization from Lists of volcanoes). Aside from removing the monthly "there were x tornadoes in the United States for y month" I only made minor changes for grammar due to splitting up a handful of multi-national events. Please let me know what you think.
 * There were fewer multi-national events than I expected, especially in North America. I thought that would be a major issue but it appears not.
 * Tagging editors who have participated in the conversation so they get notified: @ChessEric @Hurricanehink @Penitentes @TheAustinMan @WeatherWriter. DJ Cane (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Seeing the proof-of-concept makes it pretty clear to me that this format is far better than what's currently used. Sectioning the tornadoes of XXXX articles by region could also allow for further details regarding broader weather conditions and summary statistics/information that are often organized by region (e.g. details relating to ENSO). — TheAustinMan (Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed! It’ll make the rare African/Asian/European tornado stand out all the more, and give a lot more attention to areas other than the US. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Some comments here:
 * (1) As I expected, the U.S. and Canada sections are WAY too big to have all the events in it. They need a small general summary and a separate article for everything. Additionally, the charts and maps are best served in the individual articles and should be taken out.
 * (2) Puerto Rico is part of the United States, so it shouldn't have its own section.
 * (3) Splitting by countries does not work very well, especially for European countries, because (no offense) tornado outbreaks do not have to respect country borders. For example, the tornado outbreak that affected the U.S. in late-August also, impacted Canada. The tornado table next to that event reflected the total number of tornadoes in the United States AND Canada. Splits like this make the article harder to follow and creates many instances of redundant sections. Land mass splits work better in this case.
 * (4) Certain events need to be categorized more specifically. For example, the U.S. October 11-12 was only for tornadoes that happened in Florida that day. This may sound vain and hypocritical to what I said above, but I believe its important to note stuff like this for not just readers, but also editors.
 * (5) The article badly needs

, so that events and pictures aren't stacked up on top of each other the way they are.
 * (6) We will likely need a new infobox for the top of the article so that we can make the article more focused on being on a global scale. This will likely have to be done after getting opinions from the members of this project as well as coding design work.
 * I know that was a lot, but this was a great start. Like I said, we should start use the Tornadoes of 2024 article to put this into action, although I will say that fixing up all the other years along with the other stuff we have to change up will be a real pain. Chess  Eric  07:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t have other thoughts than to say that I separated Puerto Rico because it is typically considered a dependent country in this context, much like the United Kingdom’s relationship with Bermuda and the Falkland Islands, Denmark’s relationship with Greenland, and Aruba’s relationship with the Netherlands. (See: List of countries and dependencies by area) DJ Cane (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to add one more thought to this discussion. Another way of making sure the list isn’t too US-centric is to make more lists, such as List of New Zealand tornadoes or List of Germany tornadoes. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I’m dropping this here so no one starts a duplicate draft version. Myself along with several other editors have been working on a list of deadly tornadoes, so that list will eventually be made after a whole lot more work. (User:WeatherWriter/List of deadly tornadoes). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to create MOS:Weather with RfCs and discussions during 2024
I am wanting to get the WikiProject's feel on a topic which has been brought up by several editors lately, including and, and several editors over the past 2 years. There is no written-out guidelines for weather-related articles. What do I mean by that? There is no place, for instance, which says when to make a tornado outbreak article, when to make a stand-alone tornado article, or when to make both an outbreak and tornado article. There is no place that says when to make a tropical-cyclone article vs just a section in the yearly articles. There is no written guidelines for a Floods of XXXX (like Floods of 2023) article.

So, with all that said, what is the WikiProject's feel on working through different discussions to create a draft version of MOS:Weather throughout 2024 and then have it become standardized guidelines for all the weather-articles? Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think a good first step may be to review WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado and submit it as MOS:TORNADO, fold whatever we determine for the tornado by year articles into it (possibly with a MOS:TORYEAR shortcut) and possibly use it as a template for a general MOS:WEATHER and maybe a few other weather-related MOS if needed. DJ Cane (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That needs to be re-written entirely via new community consensus discussions, since (1) it's clear basically no one knows about that since it has never been linked to me in 3+ years and (2) past and technically ongoing discussions dispute it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "When" sounds like the job of an WP:SNG, not the MOS. MOS handles the "how", not the "when". WP:NWEATHER already exists; improving that and getting consensus to turn it into a guideline sounds like what you're looking for (besides Floods of XXXX, which is the only thing that should be on MOS). Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 01:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you recall though, the last attempt to make NWEATHER a guideline failed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I do recall; that's why I said "improving that" prior to saying "getting consensus", and why I don't agree with beating around it by placing these de facto notability guidelines in MOS instead of an SNG. You even said it had "potential to become an official guideline in the future". Putting it bluntly, only the Tropical cyclones section is fleshed out and precise (though even that has its issues). Every other section is a mere collection of bullet points and vague "probably notable"s instead of clear "what is" and "what is not"s. Perhaps a good starting point for improvement is reading through the comments on that RfC to find out exactly why it failed. Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 02:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Working on WP:NWEATHER periodically seems reasonable to me. I do think an MOS would be useful for things like if we decide in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather to switch the tornado by year pages to organized by region instead of by date. In either case, I think there is room for formalizing specifics regardless of whether thats through SNG, MOS, or some other method. DJ Cane (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To clear things up a bit: the question of "when should [specific weather event] get its own article" is a matter of notability and answers should be consolidated at WP:NWEATHER, perhaps formatted similarly to other SNGs. Would note that individual weather events are already themselves subjected to WP:NEVENT, and so NWEATHER should be similarly strict, for example with regards to WP:LASTING.
 * The structure of said articles, as well as overarching articles (e.g. Floods in [year], Tornadoes in [region] in [year], Tropical cyclones in [year], etc), is a style issue (dealing with the presentation, and not the meat); use of certain templates, section headings, etc can be codified (if so needed) somewhere that would fit under Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (science). Whatever recommendations given there should generally be in line with existing Wikipedia MOS e.g. MOS:TABLES, MOS:ACCESS. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:45, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like we have a decently standardized list of weather events that we have each year, but oddly, floods isn't one of them. We have Floods of 2021, but not in any other years, so that's something to consider making as a draft for 2023 and 2024, both as a proof of concept for the year that just happened, and then to get it prepared for the future. Once we have good or featured articles for each weather type, which would then be a good basis for establishing an ideal article structure. There isn't a MOS for yearly flood articles because we barely have any, but since we have FA's like 2018 Pacific hurricane season and 2001–02 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season, then we have a decent MOS that's already in place. We don't have any FL's for, say, Tornadoes of 2003, which could be useful for codifying a MOS for tornado list articles. Ditto for other weather types. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)