Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Weather of YYYY Task Force

Most important weather event per year going back to 1900?
This isn't as arbitrary a question as it might seem. As I've proposed elsewhere, there should be yearly weather articles going back to 1900. That begs the question of what is the most important meteorological event each year. It isn't always tropical cyclones (although probably for 1970 - that might appear to be the case if you do a quick glance of articles, but there might not be Wikipedia articles for older heat waves or floods, so the topic will require a bit of research. Even in more recent years, the most significant event might be a heat wave, like the 2003 European heat wave. The most important event(s) should be identified easily in the lead of the article. might have some insight about how we handle the most important event each year? ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk )  15:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the late response, its been a busy week. Anyway my thoughts are that we would have a major problem with identifying exactly what the most important/significant event of a year was without committing original research or making up some arbitrary criteria. Sometimes its obvious such as in 2005 when the Atlantic hurricane season is almost certainly the most significant event for 2005, while I would presume that the 1982-82 El Nino's would be up there since it caused the 1983–1985 famine in Ethiopia and eventually Do They know its Christmas/Live Aid amongst other records/events.Jason Rees (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree to a point. This is discussing what would end up in the lead of the yearly Weather of YYYY articles. So 1983 would indeed mention the famine, and the El Nino (as part of a background section). The criteria is figuring out what is the most significant event of a year, and not just relying whatever is on Wikipedia. My fear is that there are a lot of events that might not be on Wikipedia. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (Not a reply) – For Hurricanehink’s reference on why Jason Rees pinged me into the discussion, last week I had started Draft:List of weather events considered the most significant, which had some discussion on my talk page (now archived albeit). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * (Actual reply now) – My original thought was to have a standalone article, similar to how list of photographs considered the most important works. The problem though is what Jason Rees pointed out: arbitrary criteria was set on the list. There wasn’t a big OR-risk with the list, due to the criteria having been set at 4+ secondary sources. However, the fact the criteria was set by Wikipedia editors was the problem. I might have a solution though. What about a stand-alone list (i.e. stand-alone section) in each of the Weather of YYYY articles. This was similar to what Hurricanehink mentioned above. That said, there isn’t any “arbitrary criteria” for the list. The list could be ordered in two ways: By volume of RS or chronologically.
 * My preference/idea is the by volume of RS. For example, in my draft article, I went through 2023 in decent detail. I found 7 RS sources (including a list from the UN + 6 media lists) which created a list (either a “Top 10” or a “Worst”-style list of weather events during 2023. Between those seven sources only six events were mentioned by at least 4 of them, and four were mentioned by 5+ of them. So, it is very possible to do it volume based. However, the true/100% safe route would be chronologically, since that can’t be seen as a problem. Like I said, my preference is the by volume route, since the most significant events will obviously be cited by the most RS-based lists. That wouldn’t have an OR issue, since the order is sourced by how many sources are present for the event in a list-based RS and the criteria isn’t arbitrary, since a column would just be for the references, ordered by whatever has the most. Even if it was chronological, a user could manually sort the list to be descending order from most to least. In short, no chance for an arbitrary criteria nor OR-risk with either of those options. That’s my two-cents.
 * Oh, one quick thing: Wikipedia is always being built/expanded/worked on (WP:COMPLETE), so the chance of events being rearranged or more/new RS-lists being added in the future isn’t a concern for OR. Ok, my two-cents is now finished on this proposal/idea. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think every yearly weather article could have a top ten deadliest events list. It'll probably be droughts, heat waves, floods, and tropical cyclones most often. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I wasn't referring to a "top 10 deadliest events list", those already exist. See Weather of 2023. I meant like an actual most significant events section. I'll type of a draft-version of what I mean for 2023 here in a moment. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a "stand-alone section" that I was picturing: User:WeatherWriter/sandbox 2. Note, not like that exactly. This was just a very quick/fast version I made to show what I was thinking about. That would be in chronological order, but you can picture it the exact same way, but instead of chronologically, sorted by what event has the most references attached to it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Eh that seems redundant. I think the deadliest events is useful, or maybe having a table of every deadly event? Deadly events are easier to assert as notable, but just saying "notable" is tough if you're comparing a damaging storm hitting the US versus a deadly flood that kills hundreds to thousands. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The thing is, it isn't Wikipedia making the comparison, but sources. That is the main thing. That list has every event considered in a sourced RS worst/most notable events. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But what's the benefit to having a big section, as opposed to how it's done now, where the most notable events are listed with their weather type? I don't think every weather event should end up on the main Weather of 2000 page. That's what led to Weather of 2009 being so unwieldy, back when it was called "Global storm activity of 2009". Now, I'm all for including notable events in the page. I just don't think there should be a specific list, but making sure that the various weather types all have examples each year. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 00:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)