Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/General meteorology task force/Archive 4

message: I just stumbled across a weather event FA which wasnt even tagged:  Great Lakes Storm of 1913 is a very good article, however, the meteorological explanations are a bit simplistic.  Could use a good looking at. -Runningonbrains 19:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still a really good article...I think it would survive any FA review. CrazyC83 03:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I completely agree.  I was just saying that we could beef up the meteorology part of the article. But maybe I'm wrong...simplistic is better I suppose. -Runningonbrains 11:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA needs some tweaking 

message: Just a general reminder, if you create a new article that isn't something completely mundane, consider nominating it for the Did You Know section on the Main Page.  Right now tornadogenesis is on there.  Just another way to educate people about meteorology. -Runningonbrains 19:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that earlier on your talk page. Well done. If ever I write something that people will be interested in, I'll be sure to nominate it ;) Crimsone 20:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, we couldn't do it for extratropical cyclone since it wasn't a new article.  It could have been done for cyclogenesis or tropical cyclogenesis though.  Doesn't it require that the article is within 5 days old? Thegreatdr 22:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if a new article is created for a specific event (either current or historical), we should put something into DYK if it is interesting. CrazyC83 04:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for [[WP:DYK|DYK]] 

message: I created a new standard infobox Template:Infobox Weather for your use.  —MJCdetroit 03:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is for city and location pages? I really like it! CrazyC83 03:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. However, I do have a couple of suggestions. Is it possible to put fahrenheit and celsius in the same squares? If so, that would be great, but if not, then that's no big deal. That would be great so that it wouldn't get too cluttered after we add a line for extreme highs and lows. Also, a line for snowfall would be nice. If some of these criteria don't fit (some stations don't have official snowfall totals, for example), then they could simply be redone for that page. bob rulz 05:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They probably could be placed in the same square but then I would have to put a °F and °C after each number or one in parenthesis (which is equally as cluttered).  I thought this looked the simpliest. Other fields can also be added but I think that they will have to be as optional for the end user (i.e. #if). Any more suggestions—the suggestion box will be at Template talk:Infobox Weather.  —MJCdetroit 17:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it as well.  One suggestion though...  Would it be possible to create another infobox for Northern climate cities, same as this one, but with a snowfall section below precipitation? Gopher backer 15:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It maybe possible to add a field to this one.  Any more suggestions should be given over at Template talk:Infobox Weather as this isn't really the best a place for them. —MJCdetroit 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New infobox 

message: Just thought I'd leave the message to tell everybody the good news. Crimsone 19:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kudos to everyone that labored on extratropical cyclone. Given the extraordinary importance to meteorology as a science, it should also be a Top Importance article of the WikiProject. Evolauxia 11:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Extratropical cyclone]] is now an FA!

message: Poking my nose in here... while working on reviewing Tropical Storm Bill (2003) (currently on FAC), I thought it would be a good idea to create a template similar to  for the Fujita scale. So, I created , with the same  color scheme used in the Fujita scale article. Just thought I'd let you know... Titoxd(?!?) 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice, but I have to object to the inclusion of wind speeds.  The Fujita scale windspeeds are unproven estimates and likely inaccurate (as Fujita himself admitted).  Maybe instead of windspeeds, have something like "F0:Weak damage".  I'm going to peek through the code and see what I can do. -Runningonbrains 17:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so which would people like better; this one with full damage descriptions, or this one with just a brief statement of damage level? -Runningonbrains 17:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the brief statement of damage level. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really like that too. Also remember that another one for the EF-Scale will be needed by February 1, 2007. The templates will be reworked in January as well with new ones for EF scale. I am currently working on the article for the current outbreak. CrazyC83 19:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{[[Template:Fujita small|Fujita small]]}} 

message: I was just sitting here thinking to myself about the process of updating project specific lists (for example, the collaboration page FA/GA candidates section (and de-listing when failed to be added to the currently working section), or the articles needing attention section I did a little work on earlier), Runningonbrains's regular count meteorology specific articles by quality (which apparently is done manually using the Mathbot numbers), trawling through the meteorology categories to tag previously untagged new articles and things of that sort.
It seems to me that it would all run a lot more smoothly and require less user effort if we had a WikiProject Meteorology specific bot (maybe we could call it "WeatherBot" or something equally catchy). With such a Bot, we would always know the current status of the project just by looking at the page - obviously it would be somewhat laborious for even a group of us to monitor each change on some 568 articles and growing to catch every merge tag that appears, and it's a little bit of a pain to come back to the project page to update it everytime you spot or make a change to an articles status.
Does anybody else think this might be a good idea? Yes? No? Crimsone 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a great idea. I don't know why it wasn't brought up earlier. bob rulz 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally have absolutely no expertise on the matter of creating/running bots, however, it is an excellent idea.  Would this be something to monitor articles tagged with  and other talk page templates for things like expand/merge/references tags?  What I mean is, do we want something to populate the list found here?  Because that would be amazing. -Runningonbrains 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, that would be the idea. One thing I have been considering though is using that page or the equivelant on the meteorology project page (or perhaps a merge of both) and transcluding it into the collaboration page. The collaboration page could then be linked on the project page, and the whole thing would be all the more organised. Such a bot would monitor articles tagged for this project, but it would also monitor this projects categories for new articles and the likes much like MathBot does for Maths. Crimsone 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To Bot, or not to Bot...

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: I just joined this project tonight so I'm not real famaliar with what should be done with this, but I've been working on Climate of Minnesota with someone from the WikiProject Minnesota.  I've submitted it for WP:GAC and I just want to make sure someone here knows it exists.  From what I can tell there are no other 'Climate of "State"' articles.  Gopher backer 04:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That article looks really good at a first glance! It could use some more sources, but good job with such an article. Using the four seasons as subtopics and really developing them works well. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, nice article! I think I'm going to use it as inspiration for a future Climate of Utah article. bob rulz 04:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I created a new category state climate articles, Category:Climate of United States by state Gopher backer 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Climate of Minnesota

message: The two articles Wind gradient and Wind shear appear to be identically defined.  I'm proposing the merger of those two articles.  Leave comments about the merger either here or on the wind gradient page.  Thegreatdr 14:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given how short they both are and their similarities, that's probably a good idea to combine them. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wind gradient and wind shear have different usage, IF there is a merger, gradient should be merged with shear.  Wind shear is the most common meteorological term and is highly important.  Gradient wind, on the other hand, is a specific term warranting its own article.  Thermal wind, Geostrophic wind, and similar, all are also very important in meteorology, are distinct with nuanced usages/meanings, and require their own articles. Evolauxia 23:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gradient wind is different that wind gradient, I agree.  Geostropic wind is a different concept.  So we would keep nearly identical articles for wind shear and thermal wind?  How would anyone know what to add to one over another?  Thegreatdr 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wind shear is definitely not identical to the thermal wind.  Thermal wind is a special case of wind shear, that, on the synoptic scale, under the assumption of geostrophic balance, is due to horizontal temperature gradients, and is defined as the vertical shear of the *geostrophic* wind.  Vertical wind shear can occur on smaller scales that is not in thermal wind balance, if the flow is highly ageostrophic (such as near thunderstorms for example).Wthrman13 21:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger or Thermal Wind/Wind Gradient/Wind Shear?

message: I've been more within the meteorology/non-tropical cyclone part of the project as of late due to filling out some related meteorology stubs and getting them up to at least B class.  Also, the work on the extratropical cyclone article and our recent Late November 2006 Nor'easter offshore the Southeast has led me to create and fill out other extratropical cyclone/blizzard/nor'easter articles.  I've noticed a couple of people currently and previously in the tropical cyclone part of the project have been assigning extratropical cyclones equivalent Saffir-Simpson categories based on their central pressure.  Please don't do this.  Extratropical cyclones are larger systems with broader wind fields, and I'm worried that calling some 980ish cyclone that affects the East or Pacific Northwest (which happens frequently for New England and the Pacific Northwest during the winter season) as a category 1 or 2 hurricane is going to lead the unknowing to an incorrect conclusion for its maximum sustained winds and anticipated damage.  Thegreatdr 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The SSHS is based on winds, not pressure. While some equivalent mentions can be included in the text, it should be considered filler and not core information. And yes, some of those systems routinely drop into the 930s and 940s pressure-wise. CrazyC83 04:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A plea concerning the extratropical cyclone articles

message: Would your WikiProject like to endorse Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? If so, please let those editors at that guideline know. --ScienceApologist 19:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific citations

message: A couple things going on here...  First, there is a link for a future article to January 1975 Tornado Outbreak on the List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks page.  However, this same storm system produced a blizzard of regional record proportions across the Upper Midwest.  I am planning on starting an article on that event.  In a situation like this, should there only be one article that described both events, or should there be two, one on the blizzard and one for the tornadoes?  Gopher backer 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I've been dealing with names for extratropical systems, which is similar to HPC and their storm summaries, is to mention all related effects in the same article.  I'd name the article either after a name the media came up with to describe the storm, or due to its main effects/impact.  If it is known as being a blizzard more than a tornado outbreak, name it a blizzard.  If it is known more for its tornado outbreak, the title should have tornado in it.  Either way, storm should likely be used in the tag of its talk page.  Thegreatdr 05:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one article should cover both bases. CrazyC83 01:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 1975 

message: Climate of Minnesota is up for review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Climate of Minnesota/archive1. Any input would be appreciated! -Ravedave (help name my baby) 06:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review of Climate of Minnesota 

message: London was hit this morning by a "significant" (by UK standards) tornado, hence the new article. Feel free to help out as the information arrives, and please excuse the uneducaded UK media for the rediculous term "mini-tornado" - they seem to use it regardless of strength (they even used it to describe a F3/T4 tornado a week or so ago). Crimsone 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a Stub-Low though, which calls for a merge where feasible (in this case, to Tornadoes of 2006#December 7) unless it can be expanded. CrazyC83 01:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment, the cost and effects are still being counted, and new information is still coming in in dribs and drabs. Crimsone 04:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[London Tornado of 2006]]

message: Should it have an article? I think so (if it doesn't already), but what to call it? CrazyC83 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I started it. It is at December 2006 Pacific Northwest storms. CrazyC83 03:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific Northwest storm 

message: Right now there are articles on there for Panhandle Hooks, Alberta Clippers and Nor'easters.  However, these are only three types of storms or storm tracks that affect the eastern North America.  A few more that do would be a Gulf Low, Colorado Low, Manitoba Mauler, and Saskatchewan Screamer.  I'm not sure that all of them should have their own article since in some cases, the storm systems are very closely related, and the only different between them may be 100 miles difference on where they originate.  Still though, each of these storm generally has its own characteristics so I think that somehow, somewhere they deserve a mention.  Any suggestions on the best way to handle this?  Gopher backer 15:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are the last two anyway? CrazyC83 02:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they are very similar to Alberta Clippers, only with a different area of origin.  I may be wrong. -Runningonbrains 02:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct.  They're not referenced very often. A lot of people will just call them Clippers anyway just so people don't get confused.  All I could find on the web is that these storms are "a variation" of a Clipper, but nothing really substantial as far as what kinds of differences there are.  I did find another Wikipedia article with a brief mention... Groundhog Day gale of 1976 Gopher backer 04:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winter storm tracks 

message: Dear contributors and members of WikiProject Meteorology,
In the coming weeks, several editors from Singapore and possibly some from Malaysia and Indonsia will be collaborating on a major article pertaining to the current December 2006 floods on the Malay Peninsula, including Singapore, and Sumatra, which would fall under the scope of this WikiProject. There are several issues which we must clear up before the creation of this article, including fixing the appropriate nomenclature and scope for the article. Please consider helping out in this collaboration. A sandbox and talkpage have been created. On a separate note, here's wishing all of you a merry Christmas. - SpLoT (*C*+u+g) 05:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you already know by now, but there's already an article 2006 Malaysian floods. However it's not suitably named Nil Einne 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Floods in Malaysia, Singapore and Sumatra 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 18:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards