Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not

Topic: Galleries (November 2005–January 2006) Topic: Newspaper Articles (May–July 2007) Topic: Unencyclopedic (2003) Topic: Trivia (July–October 2007)

"NOT:DICTIONARY" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect NOT:DICTIONARY has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 13 § NOT:DICTIONARY until a consensus is reached. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 01:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Are hurricane forecasts WP:CRYSTAL or are they covered under WP:V

An interesting question has come up in part from a reversion by @MarioProtIV. Basically, MarioProtIV stated the following is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL:

Also at 4:00 PM CDT on June 17, Jack Beven with the National Hurricane Center published an official forecast, which included the system reaching tropical cyclone strength in 36 hours, with a forecasted maximum strength of 1-minute sustained winds of 40 mph (64 km/h) within 48 hours.

My argument for it not being a violation of Crystal, despite "predicting" the future, is WP:Verifiability's policy. The NHC is a reliable source for information and already, despite being named formally about 45 minutes ago, several RS media are already covering it and, more importantly, the potential impacts (i.e. the forecast). Examples include national-level sources like Fox Weather, CNN as well as regional-level RS like WDSU, KHOU, WKRG, WTXL and many more. All of these sources talk about the future or potential impacts. For example, an article from WGNO is even titled "First “Cone of Uncertainty” of the season with Potential Tropical Cyclone One. Here’s the latest."

So, my question is, does mentioning, in wiki-text similar to the highlighted one above, the official/RS-stated forecast of a hurricane, count as a CRYSTAL violation, or does it fall under the exceptions of the first CRYSTAL clause due to large-scale RS usage. Short TL;DR – Does WP:V trump WP:CRYSTAL if it is sourced by multiple (even-say dozens) of RS? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I think it’s CRYSTAL because forecasts are just a prediction. Many, many times we’ve seen systems defy or not follow these forecasts because of forecasts. Who’s to say this system doesn’t form until it’s right on the coast or tonight? It’s best reserved for cases post-storm in which the intensity exceeded the predicted forecast intensity or location. Adding the above type of commentary while the storm is still active, is basically saying we’d have to do it for many advisories and change the expected location, which are all derived from a blend of computer models and the NHC’s thinking. Things change, and so I don’t think it’s necessary for Wikipedia to give a play by play for every single advisory. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

As a counter statement to "forecasts are just a prediction" - A prediction from a subject-expert in the field, which is widely published by secondary reliable sources. Whether things change would be irrelevant, since, factually, NHC published that forecast at this time. It is no different than recording the forecast of a tornado from the past. It was forecasted by NHC to be that strength at 4:00 PM on June 17. That statement cannot change whatsoever. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the first part, but I also stress that they are also predicting the future as well. We have generally refrained from including the contested info when a tropical cyclone is active (at least, in the Atlantic basin), because it’s subject to change. Hence why CRYSTAL comes into play here. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, if it is excluded because "it's subject to change", why are "current" watches/warning boxes included? Those change often as well. Those are sourced by the NHC posts (and respective RS), just the same as the NHC cone of uncertainty forecast is. The "it's subject to change" argument, respectfully, has 0 ground to stand on. By that logic, the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season#Watches and warnings, would also be a CRYSTAL violation. I don't believe it is, but there is no differences.

(1) Both [both being the forecast in the colored text above & watches/warnings] are published in the NHC advisories, and (2) both constantly change, every advisory.

The only real difference is, one would be a perm addition to Wiki-text while the other is entirely deleted after the storm. Like I said, there is no difference in terms of the CRYSTAL argument. Honestly, why does Wikipedia include things only temporarily (i.e. the watch/warning section). It is done for every active storm, and yet, it is deleted after the storm ends. Under the idea of it is subject to change, wouldn't that be a CRYSTAL violation?

As I stated, I do not believe either the text above nor the section are crystal violations (as of this moment in time), however, I think I just pointed out how shaky the ground is for your current reasoning that it is a crystal violation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oh, as a quick note, this question is not about whether it should or should not be included. Strictly just to see if the above statement would truly be a crystal violation or if it falls under Verifiability. That is the reason for the question, not about inclusion in an article or not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
• This doesn't appear to run against WP:CRYSTAL. CRYSTAL talks about often poorly-sourced content characterizing uncertain events or speculation as if they are bound to happen, which invites further speculative content. This doesn't seem to be what's going on here. Instead, this appears to be an attributed description of a well-sourced and verifiable forecast per se from a noteworthy agency, which comports with WP:V. Care should be taken when describing forecasts: they can only be used to describe what was or is predicted, and never to describe what will (or in retrospect, did) happen. That said, there are definite tweaks that could be made here. While forecasters may have wide latitude to craft their forecasts as they so wish, specifically singling out Jack Beven seems undue. Sources generally refer to these forecasts as put out by the agency, not by the individual. Secondly, the hurricane center does not explicitly forecast peak intensities, so the mention of a predicted maximum intensity can probably be axed. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 23:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Weather predictions are famously inaccurate. If you want to talk about a serious past event and the prior predictions and how they mattered, fine. But we are an encyclopedia. We don't document the future and don't want users to come here to know the future (where predictions constantly change). O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Just a head’s up Objective3000 — Wikipedia has “current” info on the storm related to this topic (2024 Atlantic hurricane season#Current storm information) as well as an image of the forecasted cone. I.e., rather than in text form, the image-form of the highlighted text (the one which started the discussion) is present right now in the overall article. So saying “we don’t document the future” is technically not true. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

“we don’t document the future” was surely meant to be “we should not document the future” in the same way that we say we don't misspell words but we all know that it happens (and should be corrected).

Why would obeying WP:V override WP:CRYSTALBALL ? If either one fails then it doesn't belong. CRYSTAL attempts to stop "facts" that have a high probability of changing - hurricanes often change from the prediction even when the prediction is by the excellent people at the weather bureaus. I would say that it also fails WP:RECENTISM and it would be better being recorded when the event is finished - or at least the part of the event under discussion is finished. Readers should be looking at the national weather sources and not WP for emergency weather advice.  Stepho  talk  02:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

But why is acknowledging what NHC forecasted a violation of CRYSTAL? For instance, on the 2013 Moore tornado we have "The Storm Prediction Center issued a tornado watch at 1:10 p.m. Central Daylight Time (CDT) early that afternoon for the eastern two-thirds of Oklahoma, northwestern Arkansas, and portions of north-central Texas." Why would saying, in short, "At 4:00 PM CDT on June 17, the National Hurricane Center forecasted a maximum strength of 1-minute sustained winds of 40 mph (64 km/h) within 48 hours" be a violation of CRYSTAL, when the other statement clearly isn't? Both are in the past now. It isn't 4PM CDT on June 17th. That statement cannot change. NHC did issue that forecast. By arguing that it as a "high probability of changing", you are saying the fact they issued a forecast at 4PM CDT on June 17 can change. It cannot. That is what my argument is. The shear fact they issued a forecast isn't a CRYSTAL violation, since the fact they issued a forecast cannot be changed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I can make a prediction based on the writings of Nostradamus that there will be a volcano eruption in the US tomorrow. The fact that I made a prediction is true and will never change - therefore my prediction does not fail CRYSTAL.

Which is of course total crap. It's not the fact that I made a prediction, its about how reliable the prediction is and how long it is likely to remain valid. If, say, physicists tracked a comet heading directly for the Earth then it would have a high degree of reliability and we could predict it will (or very, very, very likely) hit the Earth because celestial mechanics is well understand and is just a calculation with only a few variables. But weather systems are highly complex, have literally millions of variables, are very, very hard to predict reliably and storm predictions change frequently as new data comes in.  Stepho  talk  04:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on what this thread is describing, the following would indeed violate CRYSTAL:

"At 4:00 PM CDT on June 17, the National Hurricane Center forecasted a maximum strength of 1-minute sustained winds of 40 mph (64 km/h) within 48 hours. At 10:00 PM CDT on June 17, the National Hurricane Center forecasted a maximum strength of 1-minute sustained winds of 50 mph (80 km/h) within 48 hours."

Since weather forecasts are hard to be reliable, those two sentences would be a violation of CRYSTAL based on what you are saying? Correct? If yes, then that answers the original question. NHC published a new forecast (update #2) about an hour ago. So, the text, in theory, would read something like the highlighted statement I just typed out. I am honestly curious how the statement about 4:00 PM is a violation of CRYSTAL, since there is absolutely no denying that it is 100% true. Like it is not possible to deny that first sentence (or for that fact the 2nd sentence) is true. Both are, technically historical fact. So please, explain how historical facts are predicting the future. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

NHC made a prediction - that is a fact. The contents of that prediction is not a fact.

Just like my prediction of a volcano eruption. I made a prediction - that is fact. The contents of my prediction (a volcano erupting at that time/place) is total crap. My prediction violates CRYSTAL. So does NHC's prediction (including the 2 green sentences just before this response).

The fact that within 6 hours they changed it from 40 mph to 50 mph for the next 48 hours is an indication that weather predictions are not 100% accurate yet. In another 6 hours it might increase, or decrease, or its path might deviate, or die out completely.  Stepho  talk  06:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, “the contents of that prediction is not a fact” is irrelevant. WP:VNT. Heck, right now Tornadoes of 2022 has factually inaccurate information, but it is verifiable. It doesn’t matter if it is true or not. Their prediction is verifiable per tons of secondary RS. Saying their prediction, sourced by secondary RS, is perfectly in-line with Wikipedia’s policy. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Mu Why are we considering whether an encyclopedia should include verifiable statements of future prediction with a horizon of days to weeks? Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Ok, question seems to be solved and discussion can be over. At no point should Wikipedia mention what a meteorological forecaster predicted or forecasted for, as it is a violation of CRYSTAL. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• That is definitely not the case. If the NHC anticipated strengthening to hurricane status and it doesn’t happen, that’s verifiable and legit info, as the very forecast itself could affect people’s actions they took to prepare. Similarly if the NHC thought it would stay a TS and failure to predict strengthening, like Hurricane Otis last year. The biggest thing with mentioning forecasts is whether it’s relevant to the narrative. If the NHC forecast strengthening to a TS, and that happened, a useful verifiable statement would be something like “The NHC anticipated strengthening due to a variety of environmental factors.” But if it’s just “The NHC predicted a peak of 40 mph this day, and 45 mph on the next advisory, then that’s trivial, as the minor difference wouldn’t have caused any change in outcome. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Forecasts of past events might occasionally be worth mentioning, when they caused a panic, are noted by others as being unusually accurate or unusually inaccurate, etc. I think forecasts of future events fall under WP:NOTNEWS. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

  I agree with David. We must remember that our standards for notability exist as a fuzzy eco-system, and the more we try to establish blanket rules that apply to everything, the less well those rules work in concrete situations. In the case of hurricanes, there is an allowance for images of maps with the predicted path of a hurricane, and we do have a current list of tropical storm watches and warnings. However, I do not think that current prose of forecasts are helpful to readers (and probably fail NOTNEWS) as the information will quickly become dated and there is never just one forecast. Now, past forecasts may be notable as others have suggested. - Enos733 (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Everything is about “future” events. So let me get this straight, are those sentences CRYSTAL violation or not? If they are, then are they a crystal violation in a month (i.e. after the storm has dissipated)? I still do not understand how mentioning an unchanging fact is a crystal violation. Those sentences cannot and will not change now or ever in terms of their content. But whatever. I guess mentioning the past on a current event is considered mentioning the future (somehow). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

My concern is that an editor might cherry pick which forecast to use in the prose - if the NOAA is predicting a named storm, but the UKMO is not, which one should be used? Now, this question could be generally resolved through normal editing, our project works better in talking about the past, or the current, rather than speculating. What we have in this case is a Potential Tropical Cyclone, and at this moment, includes current information about the system. The proposed addition does not add much to our understanding of the weather system, except that one forecaster thinks it could quickly become a named storm. - Enos733 (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

• They might be unsuitable or suboptimal for other reasons, but forecasts like this are fine with respect to WP:CRYSTAL. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. Really, we're talking about predictions for the further unfolding of events that have already begun, which isn't fundamentally what WP:CRYSTAL addresses in the first place. XOR'easter (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

References

By-the-book approach against NOTBURO and IAR?

I've been thinking. If my way of enforcing rules is too "by the book", would this be against longstanding WP:NOTBURO and/or WP:IAR? What about following strictly WP:NFCC or WP:N, including WP:GNG, or whatever better example? George Ho (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• You have asked us to assume that your way of enforcing the rules is "too" by the book. Given that assumption, my answer to your first question is "yes."
  

With regard to your second question, IAR says to ignore rules when they prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Can you suggest a situation in which, for example, it would improve or maintain Wikipedia to violate copyright laws and subject the Foundation to being sued (putting Wikipedia at financial risk)? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you suggest a situation in which, for example, it would improve or maintain Wikipedia to violate copyright laws and subject the Foundation to being sued (putting Wikipedia at financial risk)? Hmm... (Assuming your question is rhetorical,) Good point. I shouldn't have mentioned NFCC broadly. What about "contextual significance" criterion? It's interpreted variously, especially in FFD discussions, yet WP:NFC#CS is doing its best to clarify (the meaning and enforcement of) "contextual significance". —George Ho (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm guessing that disputes over the contextual significance criterium are about whether proposed content will "significantly increase" or be "detrimental to" understanding. If the result of such a dispute is that copyrighted material is only marginally beneficial or, worse, detrimental then I don't see the "improving and maintaining Wikipedia" condition is present and IAR does not apply. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

be "detrimental to" understanding – Umm... I don't think "detrimental" means the content's presence would harm the project. Rather it refers to whether omitting, i.e. removing or deleting, the non-free content from an article or the whole project would harm readers' (contextual) understanding of a certain topic in question, i.e. article subject, like a person or a song. If omitting the NFC file or text doesn't harm what's already understood, then the said non-free content would automatically fail that criterion and fail to contextually signify the said topic. (BTW, I don't mean to make you feel bad, but "criterium" means bike race consisting of closed circuits. Criterion is a singular form of criteria; bacterium, bacteria.) George Ho (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I submit that content that is detrimental to understanding an article does not improve or maintain that article. And, if it does not improve or maintain the article, it does not improve or maintain Wikipedia. (Thanks for the BTW. It's good to learn things.) - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no danger whatsoever that Wikipedia will violate copyright laws and subject the Foundation to being sued (putting Wikipedia at financial risk). This is because nearly everything we do falls under fair use. Our rules go well beyond what is legally required. What it would mean though is that someone could not appropriate all or part of the Wikipedia for commercial use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

NOTNEWS

What's happened to the enforcement of WP:NOTNEWS? I look at a number of articles created in the wake of October 7 that pay no heed to this. The article is the Wikipedia version of a live blog of a news event. Is this not a main tenet of Wikipedia anymore? MaskedSinger (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@MaskedSinger on top of that, several Philippine-related articles may run counter to WP:NOTNEWS, in particular 2013 Metro Manila Skyway bus accident and 2010 Balamban bus accident. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. MaskedSinger (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)