Talk:Weather lore

message: Does the "red sky at morning" refer to the color of the sunrise itself?  It's more than two hours till sunrise here, raining heavily, and the sky is a very noticable dark red color (but brighter than usual at this time of night).  Is that what the sailor's rhyme refers to or am I seeing something else? (like a weird effect of LA light pollution, etc.) BCoates 12:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red sky at morning 

message: I really don't think the behaviour of Groundhogs has anything to do with it, rather, if the sky is cear that day, the weather will be rough.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.4.213.81 (talk • contribs) 12:53, April 28, 2006
:The Groundhog Day myth is that a groundhog can predict whether spring will start early or late. It is nothing to do with what the weather is like on that day or during the next couple of weeks. The point is that many people claim and believe that what a particular animal does in a particular place on a particular day can predict when spring will begin, when the reality is that it is nonsense. Jim Michael (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feb. 2 

message: *Well-written - Fail - Just at a quick glance, it's not well-written. Examples include the usage of probably, a question for a section header, short lede, and five typos
*Factually accurate - Fail - Several sections have no sources at all
*Broad in coverage - Pass - Appears to be fairly comprehensive
*Non POV - Fail - At a quick look- "a humorous rhyme", also doesn't represent the opposing view (do scientists dislike lore, for example?)
*Stable - Pass - Appears to be so
*Images - Pass - Good image placement
All in all, it's pretty interesting, but I don't think it's written in that of an encyclopediac style. Parts have tone issues, as well. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: What I am concerned about:
*Well-written: This is the failing editor's opinion. It was not the opinion of those who selected it as a Featured Article. There were not five typos - there was only one, which has been corrected. Perhaps the failing editor needs some upgrading? I would also note that "probably" is a well-entrenched term in meteorology, cf "probability of precipitation". Today's weather forecast may well be tomorrow's cage lining. The lede sums up the thrust of the article well, and is of an appropriate length for the length of the article.
*Factually accurate: Every section has had sources all along.
*Non-POV: how can you possibly be POV about the weather?? The failing editor takes exception to the humorous rhyme. I cannot possibly imagine a meteorologist taking such slight.
I am particularly concerned that only one editor is required to pass or fail a candidate. Even speedy deletion requires the consensus of two editors.
What I have corrected:
*one typo
*question headings converted to statement headings
*several more references Dennitalk 02:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New nomination

message: The nomination is on hold. This means that minor changes or clarifications are needed. If the issues are addressed within a reasonable length of time, the article will be promoted.
The current state of the nomination is as follows:
#Well-written -- fail
#*The prose is excellent, but the sections need work. In particular, "True lore, and why" and its counterpart urgently need to have subsections, or at least dividers indicating which paragraph is associated with which lore. Those two section titles could use cleanup as well.
#*Many users would complain about the "unencyclopedic tone." I see no real problem with the tone, but I would recommend that in particularly informal parts, especially the lead, the tone be moderated slightly. I won't fail the article on this count, but many editors would do so.
#*Watch out for phrases like "the next little while," "probably," and "it should be noted." They don't necessarily need to be changed, but I'd recommend doing so for at least some of them.
#Factually accurate -- fail
#*This is the most serious problem with the article right now. In particular, the sources "Coldal.org", "Nautical Weather Lore," and "The Weather Doctor" may not be reliable. Keep in mind that when I say "reliable," I mean in the sense of WP:RS, not in the sense of "making correct claims." I recognize the difficulty of finding reliable sources for what amounts to a set of folk beliefs, but I'm sure that a trip to a (large) library would uncover something.
#*Statements in the "False lore, and why" section are likely to be disputed and therefore need to be sourced. If you can't source them, the best thing to do may be to remove them until you can find sources.
#Broad in coverage -- pass
#Neutral point of view -- pass
#*You might want to see the second point under "Factually accurate," though.
#Stable -- pass
#Images -- pass
In order to remain impartial, I will refrain from substantially editing the article, though I am allowed to fix typos and do other minor edits. Please feel free to ask for clarifications or comments either here or on my talk page -- I'll be around.
--N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination is on hold 

message: The problems have largely been addressed. I'm right now leaning towards passing the article, but I will need to read it again. I'll make a final decision in under 24 hours. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 20:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination update 

message: *This article was promoted by me, N Shar (talk • contribs), at 06:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoted to [[WP:GA|good article]] 

message: This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was delisted by consensus, as it failed some aspects of the good article criteria. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Please see the archived discussion for further information. PeterSymonds | talk 13:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do hope that people involved in this article will continue to improve it.  In my opinion, it's at least very close to Good.  I don't think the rhymes need sourcing, but the meteorological explanations must, of course, be up to snuff and well-sourced.  --Hordaland (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It all needs sourcing.  That's the GA criteria nowadays.  Unless it's common sense (like the statement "the ground gets wet when it rains") in-line sources are needed, which includes the rhymes.  Thegreatdr (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:GAR|Good article reassessment]]

message: From this article:
: 
:: If spring comes in like a lion, it will go out like a lamb.
: 
: According to records, fierce weather when spring begins does not necessarily imply gentler weather later. Spring comes in and goes out equally as often in either guise.
: 
I changed to to say
: 
:: If March (or spring) comes in like a lion, it will go out like a lamb.
: 
I've always heard this said of the month of March, and never before of spring.  At the beginning of March it's still winter; it can snow heavily; at the end of March, it's spring. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about basing it on sources?  I found a good one, but haven't found a good way to add it yet...  Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

text: And that's why I added sources for both ways.  The "if" version is only about 20% of the totals in books and magazines before 1920. Dicklyon (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  March, or spring? 

message: The ref/note scheme in this article, combined with dynamic renumbering, has been completely screwed up for well over a year.  Does anyone have a good proposal for how we should fix it?  Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Refs are fine.  Isn't it amazing how far wikipedia has come?  This was a featured article over 4 years ago, and now it's C class!  Once I tried finding some refs for this article, but it got old fast.  It would have been nice if wikipedia insisted on the inline reference notation from the get-go, instead of changing the game around the beginning of 2006.  Oh well.  Thegreatdr (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screwed up references 

message: after the sentence about russia, part of the previous section is repeated with slightly different wording. i would fix this myself, but i dont want to be drastic w/o permission, so if someone could fix that and post here i'd be grateful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.166.210 (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific weather predicting days 

message: Wow. This is why people grouse about Wikipedia. Dust anyone? "Red sky at night" is due to dry air holding dust particles aloft, so chances of rain low. Please see http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/weather-sailor.html (Fun science facts from the Library of Congress)Mdjgutie (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a good idea to mention the alternate variant "shepherd's delight", which is probably the most predominant version for inland areas of Britain, at least. 82.153.97.188 (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red sky at night  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Weather lore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-2eZUkuIK3QJ:aqua.nasa.gov/doc/pubs/Wx_Forecasting.pdf+weather+lore+accuracy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=ca with https://web.archive.org/web/20140824232557/http://aqua.nasa.gov/doc/pubs/Wx_Forecasting.pdf on http://aqua.nasa.gov/doc/pubs/Wx_Forecasting.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070529121129/http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/weather_systems/lightning.html to http://www.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/weather_systems/lightning.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'm going to renmae "Special weather-forecasting days" as "Calendrical lore" and sequence them by month, as I saw done on the de wiki.
I'm also removing lore out of "False lore, and why" if it is calendrical lore.
Nobody has to be told in so many words that groundhogs seeing their shadow on February 2 is not a reliable indicator of how long the winter spell will last. It is stating the obvious and a waste of time to read.--Kiyoweap (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calendrical 

message: There was POV in characterizing the Groundhog prediction as inaccurate. It used one source that didnt give pecentages but just said it didnt have ability to predict.
I added more sources. The data is different depending on who issued it and they were 28%, 38%, 50% etc. Those may not be considered good numbers, but pure chance only yields 33% accuracy according to one source. So the critter outperformed by a margin that was probably beyond statistical error according to some numbers (and underperformed according to others), and you can hardly say "no correlation" in that.--Kiyoweap (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groundhog day 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Weather lore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070227073114/http://www.wscsd.org/ejournal/article.php3?id_article=152 to http://www.wscsd.org/ejournal/article.php3?id_article=152
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130106041039/http://wilstar.com/skywatch.htm to http://wilstar.com/skywatch.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)