Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/General meteorology task force/Archive 5

message: The article has been created. Let's try to keep this thing more updated and consistent than the last one; we now have the full year to work with. Also, if possible, for significant events, try to find local news articles for them, as well, as national news does not always give adequate coverage of effects on certain areas. Also, just a reminder, don't use Yahoo! News links! They go dead quickly. bob rulz 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[United States weather of 2007]]

message: On a web forum I visit, there's been a report/suggestion of a probable HP Supercell, including 3 associated tornadoes on the 30th of December 2006. I would guess that would make it not onl an outbreak, but a very rare one at that. Does anybody know anything about this?  LINK Crimsone 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible HP Supercell over UK a few days ago?

message: We currently have a quite good article at barograph, a stub at thermograph, and redlinks to hygrograph and meteorograph (the latter basically combines the first three in one device).  To my mind it doesn't really make sense to describe these in four separate articles, so I'd propose a combined article.  See Talk:barograph for discussion.  Thanks for any input! --Delirium 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  recording devices 

message: ...is that now we are starting to really branch out into our areas of expertise. For example, bob rulz is doing a lot on winter storms, I am doing a lot on severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, Oghmoir is doing the annual almanac, etc. The more we branch out, the better we all know since we are doing where we are best at. CrazyC83 02:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's an improvement. I wish we could get more people who had more expertise in meteorology, as in, the actual science, however. That's not my expertise. bob rulz 05:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What I like now... 

message: A few years ago, I did a research paper on this event, which was turned into a magazine article that was never published.  I decided to create a new article here on the Wiki about this event.  Moreover, I plan on adding additional information and graphics to this page in the future.  This article came out of an extensive research project that I did on the 1965 Palm Sunday outbreak, which affected the area I was born in.
Currently, I am doing some rather intensive research on another tornado outbreak that occurred here in Michigan back in 1917.  Apparently, the Michigan Dept. of Agriculture, in a report that detailed this event, concluded that a tornado in our state traveled along the ground at 130 km/h between two communities.  If so, this would beat the old record set by the Tri-State tornado of 1925.  I will post that article here in the future.  USRoute66 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palm Sunday tornado outbreak of 1920 

message: As many of you know, starting February 1, the NWS will be switching to the EF Scale for tornado assessments.  As such, I will be re-writing a version here to be moved to the main space once the scale becomes obselete.  Also, I created a page for the Enhanced Fujita Scale, and will move that to the main space at the same time.  Just a heads up for anyone who'd like to work on them. -Runningonbrains 17:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EF scale 

message: Rainbow has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rainbow FAR

message: I have started a few changes.  Now that we have a good project rolling here, I've begun taking recently created articles and sticking them in the portal's DYK, akin to what is done on the main page.  Also, I'll be taking recent Good Articles and, eventually, Featured Articles, and using them for the selected article on the page.  Maybe even using Featured Pictures for the selected picture, who knows?
I am thinking it could probably be updated once a month.  I'm willing to do it myself, but if anyone else wants to help leave me a message or start discussion at Portal talk:Weather. -Runningonbrains 23:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Weather]] 

message: "Aw fer cryin' out loud!"
I suggest a simple litmus test to settle this can of worms:
* Is the "proper noun" storm name (Kyrill) a World Meteorological Organization-approved designation?
Answer = no = "Kyrill" is a local name to be used as only as a redirect page to the page actually located at different name.
- Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above reminds me of the arguments over that hurricane that occurred in both 2005 and 2006. Aren't we lucky this storm didn't run from December 31 to January 1... Seriously, dates in articles are clunky. I would agree with 2007 European windstorms as a suitable overview article to cover all the European windstorms, with breakout articles under the German names. Carcharoth 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even better, someone write to the WMO and ask them what they call the storm. Seriously. Carcharoth 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeez, I leave town for a few days and people write a book without me!  I don't really have time to read all of this discussion, but the proposal to write the WMO sounds like a good one.  In the mean time, leave them as they are (?) and put a note in the lead paragraph that these are not official names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Runningonbrains (talk • contribs) 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that bot's fast. -Runningonbrains 21:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I was thinking just yesterday that this (Carcharoth's suggestion) would be the best way to handle this. That gets my vote. --Tkynerd 00:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The flaw with Carcharoth's suggestion is that there have only been two windstorms of any significance in 2007. Having three articles to describe two events is frankly a bit silly. On the other hand, having 2007 European windstorms as a article with scope covering both Per and Kyrill is reasonable (and also has precedent, see 2007 North American ice storm), but that is only really viable if Per (storm) and Kyrill (storm) redirect to it and are not standalone articles. This is a sound idea IMO, and also would work regarding Lothar (that storm is typically referred to in conjunction with the later Martin). However, a merge of the two articles may not be appropriate (though I approve).--Nilfanion (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO Kyrill is significant enough to deserve its own detailed article. Having that much detail in 2007 European windstorms would make it overly long. It's also possible that there will be more European windstorms in 2007. I think Carcharoth's idea is a very sensible one and should be implemented. It addresses your accessibility concerns in a manner that makes the resulting material more likely to be found by readers. --Tkynerd 13:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Windstorms are not common events, its unlikely (though by no means impossible) that there will be any more this winter. Winter storms of 2006-07 is the appropriate central article to cover the type of event anyway: 2007 European windstorms has no purpose if the two storms have independent articles; either the storms have their own articles and this farce continues or they don't and are at a combined article. Carcharoth's idea is nice, but is just a waste of time unless we drop seperate articles for the two storms. An alternative could be to have Kyrill at January 2007 European windstorm (which is a reasonable article name) and have a dab to mention the existence of the other storm(s).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! Problem solved: Per (storm) and Kyrill (storm) stay where they are (except for possible renaming to European windstorm Per and European windstorm Kyrill); anyone looking for them with other search terms will find them at winter storms of 2006-07. We're done. --Tkynerd 17:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope thats sarcasm. That fixes nothing, the problem is the status quo!--Nilfanion (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sarcasm at all. You see the status quo as a problem; I don't. The existence of Winter storms of 2006-07 significantly undermines your (always weak) argument that having the storm located at Kyrill (storm) makes it difficult to find. --Tkynerd 18:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read to the start of the thread, and read up on the subject and not just the Manual of Style, to see WHY the current locations are a problem to me. Ease-of-access is a concern, and seems to be your only concern; but there is more to this than that. I started initiated this discussion fully aware of the existence of the Winter storms article. Remember wherever the article is located it is no harder to find than where it is currently situated (Go works with redirects), there are intrinsic problems with the current location you do not seem to have recognised.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am well aware of the problems you say exist with the current locations. I simply do not think they are a problem on the scale you think they are, and I think your proposed solution is undesirable. I have, in fact, read all of this thread already. Your previous edit summary also constitutes a borderline personal attack, BTW. --Tkynerd 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is asking you to read up on the subject not just the policy an attack? Anyway, here is a real example of the problem this article being located at Kyrill (storm) causes. How you would phrase the lead sentence so that it is: In keeping with the MoS, reflects that Kyrill is not either the official name or how it is referred to in English-speaking countries, but a German-assigned name commonly used in German, and is grammatically correct?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tkynerd is right: All your killer phrases (better read the thread) questioning other arguments are not able to solve this problem here! By the way, your argumentation is weak and wrong proved: Kyrill is commonly in use in many other languages and names (given by germans) of former phenomenons are commonly in use in terminology, esspecially English terminology of meteorology, and in other languages too. Just the fact that germans are naming this events even does not imply that the names are German! Of course the names are not official (while there is any official name). I am astonished by your bureaucracy: Man muss ja nicht päpstlicher sein, als der Papst. Geo-Loge 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break 3

message: Unless absolutely necessary (i.e. it cannot be disambiguated any other way), I hate putting dates in the article name. I think it should stay as is. CrazyC83 23:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break 4

message: The cloud classification pages seem fairly confusing, and make no mention of what "The Cloudspotter's guide" calls the undisputed authority on cloud classification. Furthermore, I didn't find anywhere that explained the name Cloud 9, except for the following quote from that book:  I hope this can be incorporated, since the cloud classification used in articles like Cloud seem completely different to this one, and the article Cumulonimbus makes no mention of being Cloud 9. 131.111.8.99 18:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cloud 9 

message: Does anyone know how to cite an email by an NWS representative?  I recently inquired about the last tornado to be rated on the old Fujita scale, and got information via email, and would like to use the info in the article. -Runningonbrains 04:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need to ask the admin about that. CrazyC83 23:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I don't know if this has been previously discussed, but should there be a separate article for Station model? Right now, the closest thing that I can find to it is Surface weather analysis. --Havocrazy 04:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station model 

message: It surprises me that this page doesnt exist yet...its a very broad topic and very informative and encyclopaedic.  I will probably start on it in the next few days if anyone wants to contribute, it seems to me that it would take a lot of work to make such an article comprehensive. -RunningOnBrains 08:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would definitely be something to work on, even though it is a very broad topic. CrazyC83 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No page for [[weather records]]? 

message: I created a page for article requests after seeing a few important events without articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology/Article requests|Article requests]] 

message: I created this stub as it was clearly sorely needed (as part of my work on the 1999 Typhoon season). Unfortunately this project currently has a very strong US-bias (much worse than the Atlantic bias of WPTC); this article is an example of that. If someone wants to make this one good, there are half-decent links in the stub, but remember bad weather happens globally ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Thanks for your efforts.  Thegreatdr 22:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fairness to us, international sources are a good deal better for tropical cyclones than other weather events, especially for past storms.  However I know I personally have been slacking on the international front, I'll try to keep it more in mind. -RunningOnBrains 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[1999 Vietnamese floods]] 

message: I decided to have a go at using tropical cyclone track generator to plot the information archived by the HPC on winter storms. I picked this (Feb 10-11 2005) system at random to test the capability. There is a number of limitations to this, not least the HPC isn't actually providing proper lat/long information anymore... However, if you can point me in the direction of storms you might want these tracks for (post the info to User:Nilfanion/Tracks), I should be able to make it for you. Note multiple lows can be handled at once by the package; as long as each individual one can be tracked.--Nilfanion (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it helps, through 1995 the magazine Mariner's Weather Log provided storm tracks for most extratropical cyclones.  Daily Weather Maps could also be used for at least once daily positions.  Thegreatdr 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea, but they are unpredictable; sometimes they can be more than one system or not a system at all (like the record dumps in New York state earlier this month). CrazyC83 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course its not perfect, these things are more complex than TCs. However it is possible to produce a track map for multiple distinct systems; which would work with the many-systems-in-one-storm scenario (Remember multiple-TC tracks are easy). The important thing is that the data is provided in an unambiguous way; I cannot make it up. If there is a non-TC event that a track would make sense for and you have data for it - please give me a link to the data and I will be able to produce a track. I'm not proposing we make tracks for every storm, just for the ones that we can find tracking data for. If a track is possible, why not have it?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone for some tracks? 

message: I have a list of missing topics related to meteorology. I've tried to find all equivalent articles but I'd appreciate if anyone of you could have a look at it. Thank you - Skysmith 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently missing topics 

message: Apparently we have some nice material here.  I was visiting the NCDC page on Tornado Climatology, and found that they linked to many of our articles.  Just so you all know that what we're doing here is being noticed. -RunningOnBrains 09:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOAA References! 

message: There are many things to be done at the collaboration page. A few articles are up for GA/FA, and there are several top-class articles we are trying to improve to a tolerable standard.  Happy editing all! -RunningOnBrains 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder