Talk:Glossary of meteorology

Merge List of meteorological phenomena here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to Merge Pierre cb (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

---

List of meteorological phenomena is a subset of Glossary of meteorology and should be merge into it. Pierre cb (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Since there is no objections, I merge. Pierre cb (talk) 01:21, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding format

@Pierre cb: Please note that the column edits were meant to help improve the article. Thank you for all the work you have put into this glossary. It is very good. I just thought that it was easier to read it on a smartphone when it was just one column. But I also see your point. Thanks.

I do not know how it looks on your phone, but on my tablet it shows on a single column even with the multy columns formatting. You probably have a wrong setting. It looks terrible and long on computer in single file. Pierre cb (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your efforts. I wish all the glossaries were this good. It amazes me how just one person can work on an article and make it great. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.51 (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Pierre cb (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

New formating by PJsg1011

@PJsg1011: Why remove the multiple columns from this article. It looks awfull in single column. Furthermore, the use of Bold is discouraged in Wikipedia, it is only used for titles. This is not a good formatting. Pierre cb (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't really have a preference as to single or multiple columns. Keep the multi-column if you want, but I think once the entries in the glossary are actually filled out with full definitions, the multi-column format may no longer look so clean and organized. (It's also confusing, I think, to have different column widths for different letter sections; a consistent format where each letter's terms were arranged in the same number of columns would be better.) I was simply trying to adapt the article to what seems to have become the standard format for glossaries on Wikipedia: single-column lists divided alphabetically and having a clear visual distinction between term and definition. The use of bold for the terms is not my own doing but an inherent part of the style used by the {{glossary}} template; all glossaries using this template are supposed to look that way. The {{glossary}} template allows for the convenient and aesthetically pleasing placement of internal links to other terms in the same glossary within definitions. It will be hard to appreciate the power and usefulness of the template until this glossary is fleshed out with definitions; right now it's nothing more than a long list of terms. PJsg1011 (talk) 03:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@PJsg1011: I do not see the need for those definitions. I left them there when I added numerous links because I respected the previous editors. To my thinking, the link to the articles is the only thing that should be there. Look at the AMS Glossary, there are no definitions and they are multicolumned. This should be the format to follow. Finally, there should be a formatting option in {{glossary}} to change the Bold to Italic but this is another matter. Pierre cb (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The previous editors were correct. A glossary is supposed to have definitions; that's what a glossary is (see the first sentence in the Wikipedia article for glossary and also the Wikipedia Manual of Style article WP:Glossaries). Without definitions, this glossary is functionally useless, and essentially just a list of meteorology-related terms, a role which is already filled (and much more comprehensively) by Category:Meteorology as well as Index of meteorology articles. The format of the American Meteorological Society's glossary is not the end-all be-all example to follow; it's a useful reference to cite when defining terms for this glossary, but its format is different from the standard for Wikipedia glossaries, which is that terms and definitions be printed together on the same page. I don't mean to sound harsh, but if you don't see the need for definitions in this glossary, then you really don't understand what a glossary is. If you're looking to edit a simple list of undefined terms, then I'm sorry but the Glossary of meteorology is the wrong article to edit. I intend to continue to add and make edits to definitions for the terms in this glossary, because without them other editors may eventually realize that this article serves no functional purpose and may eventually delete it. PJsg1011 (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@PJsg1011: Then, it let it up to you. I have done what I had to do. Pierre cb (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Flashcards link

We wanted to learn all these terms in a flashcard format so we built one and made it freely available. Thought it would be helpful for anyone who wanted to learn the content of this glossary in a flashcard format like Anki to also be able to discover that they exist and have access to it from the source.

Was going to suggest it to be added in the external links section like the following but as it is linking to our own site, following the instructions of the Wikipedia guidelines, thought it would be best to leave this in the talk page for other contributors to see if it would be relevant or see if there was a better place/format to put it

• Flashcard version of the Wikipedia Glossary of meteorology in an Anki-readable format

Darigov Research (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Warm-core low

Came across warm-core low and was wondering if it should appear here. Thanks, Facts707 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)