Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology

Active discussions
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Lightning0.jpg This is the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article here.
Portal.svg Quick links:
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2020-10-02

Top priorities in bold

Cscr-candidate.svg

     Other candidates:

Johnstown flood of 1977Edit

Hello, please take a look at the new article Johnstown flood of 1977.

Johnstown flood of 1936Edit

Hello, please also take a look at the new article Johnstown flood of 1936.

CfD nomination: merger of Category:Meteorological phenomena and Category:Basic meteorological concepts and phenomenaEdit

Category:Meteorological phenomena has been nominated for merging with Category:Basic meteorological concepts and phenomena. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.


Wikipedia's coverage of floods found lackingEdit

In case anyone here is interested, it seems English Wikipedia has a large blind spot when it comes to coverage of floods: "fewer than 20 percent of major floods in low-income countries have Wikipedia pages in English."[1][2] I'm creating 2018 floods in Sudan as a start (in case anyone wants to help). Kaldari (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree it does seem to lack coverage of seasonal flooding/droughts - I was coming here to suggest a template to link all the related china floods - and perhaps the seasonal droughts in between, but perhaps there should be several of these templates with countries and dates - and maybe with links to geographically adjacent templates? EdwardLane (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I wish these far-flung events would get more coverage, but Wikipedia in general tends to be biased toward Western countries, simply due to that's where the majority of the editors are, and that's what they read about. Speaking from experience from the tropical cyclone project, what we found works well is a top-down approach. So, for instance, lists of storms by individual area, or by each year. We could do the same for floods, like create a Floods in 2020 (or Floods of 2020), making a dedicated article out of 2020 floods, or have lists for a given area. India, for instance, has yearly floods related to its monsoon, so a List of Indian monsoon seasons might be a good idea to cover the seasonal flooding. Likewise, as EdwardLane (talk · contribs) said, perhaps a List of floods in China as a parent article for the related China floods. There will be significant overlap with tropical cyclones in some areas (such as China and India), but that's not a bad thing. There are three articles for Lists of floods in the United States, so that can be a good inspiration for other countries, provided we have people willing to create those articles (which can be rather time consuming). Going back to the 1980s, the Dartmouth Flood Observatory would be a good resource to flesh out some of these lists. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Not sure we need a 'list' Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates - but any and all have different uses EdwardLane (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that there are only 87 countries listed in the category for floods by country. Since there are 196 countries (+a few odd territories), there are a lot of categories that don't exist. The most populated country without a category is Egypt, followed by Algeria (despite apparently having two of the top 100 deadliest floods). A dedicated list by country would help make sure we catch the random events that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on. It would be a big undertaking but worth it in the end. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I have been working on [List of floods in Fiji] and have been very fortunate to be able to build on the work of a few researchers who have compiled a list of floods back to 1840. Yes there are some overlaps with tropical cyclones but some of their worst flooding events are not associated with tropical cyclones, which is why i feel that flooding articles would be a good idea. However, I doubt that every island nation will get flooding articles because of a lack of information.Jason Rees (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Paleotempestology/GA1Edit

Greetings,

there has been a request for a second opinion on Talk:Paleotempestology/GA1 that needs input. Note that I am the GA nominator of that article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Hurricane WillaEdit

Hello all, I just wanted to ask if anyone would be willing to review Hurricane Willa. It is currently a featured article candidate and was quite an impactful storm for Mexico. NoahTalk 20:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal.Edit

The 15th anniversary of the tropical cyclone project is fast approaching and it provides us all with a chance to stop and reflect on the last 15 years while looking to the future. We see that the tropical cyclone project has enjoyed a lot of success with various articles being used and referenced by the various RSMC/TCWC’s. However, we also see that the other meteorology projects haven’t done so well and that we have a blind spot when it comes to floods. As a result of this reflection @Hurricanehink: and I have decided that we would like to revamp the various weather projects, in order to better reflect and develop Wikipedia’s coverage of meteorology. At the moment, we currently have Wikiprojects for Tropical Cyclones, Severe Weather, Non-Tropical Storms, Meteorology and Climate which causes confusion over which wikiproject covers what, a lot of overlap and has led to the blind spot with regards to flooding. For example: I look at Severe Tropical Cyclone Harold which impacted the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji and Tonga. Now obviously it was a Tropical Cyclone and is classified as a part of it, however, it should also be classified as a part of the Severe Weather Wikiproject. This is because it spawned several tornadoes in Fiji and is obviously considered to be Severe Weather. Tropical Cyclones are also important parts of meteorology and climate since they transport heat around the globe and help regulate the Earth’s temperature.

While I was preparing this proposal, I was alerted that European Windstorms that are named by various meteorological services including the United Kingdom’s Met Office and Meteo France are not covered by Severe Weather but Non-Tropical Storms. This is despite them only being named when they are expected to cause severe weather severe enough to prompt an orange or a red warning. As a result, I would like to propose the merger of the Tropical Cyclones, Severe Weather, Non-Tropical Storms, Meteorology, UK Storms and Climate wikiprojects into one single project under into a new project to be called Wikiproject: Weather. This weather wikiproject would also feature sub-taskforces devoted to every major weather event such as Tropical Cyclones, Tornadoes, Flooding, Droughts, Wildfires, Blizzards, Biographies of notable weather forecasters/scientists, ENSO and Warning Centres. This merger would also provide us with a better opportunity to develop fresh articles for every type of such as List of named storms A, B, C etc, Floods in 2018, 2019, 2020 etc Floods in Bangladesh United States, Fiji etc, Weather of 1997, 1998, 2020 etc as well as the Climate of Tokelau etc, Hurricanes in the United States, Hurricanes in Mexico, Typhoons in China etc. Some of these articles already exist in one form or another but would benefit better from a combined wikiproject. I also feel that this would allow editors to exchange their ideas, skills and resources easier as well as standardise some of our articles. Any thoughts are welcome below.Jason Rees (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It would help to have a bulleted list of wikilinks to the impacted wikiprojects. Is there a project for climate, specifically (as opposed to that for WP:WikiProject Climate change?I am active in the latter. How would the climate change project be effected? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Jason and I have been discussing this for a few weeks. I support what he said. I agree that we need more of a top-down look. It's why pages like Tropical cyclones in 2020 are so important, or Tornadoes in 2020. There can be a US bias look at how long JTWC was/is considered the primary warning center in WPAC articles, or Indian Ocean or the southern hemisphere. I have created a Draft:Weather of 2020, which covers weather records on a global scale. Hopefully there'll be one for each year. As Jason noted, there are times when there is an overlap, such as flooding. Just as there should be a List of Bangladesh tropical cyclones, so should there be List of Bangladesh floods and List of Bangladesh tornadoes. So often, there is a nor'easter that also produced a tornado outbreak, as well as a blizzard, plus flooding and high winds. It could belong to several projects. Given the misinformation out there, plus the increasing reliance of Wikipedia as a top Google search, we should have a long term plan for improving all weather-related articles around the world. Look at how successful the hurricane and tornado projects are. There is good quality content whether it is a storm today in the Bahamas (there should be a List of hurricanes in the Bahamas, but it doesn't exist yet), or a tornado outbreak record in some unexpected part of the world - is an 8 tornado outbreak common in Poland and Russia? What about yearly temperature extremes, or temperature records that are broken? Temperature extremes might get ignored if we focus so much on one topic. We (Wikipedians in general) are writing the first draft of history that's digital and for everyone to see, and it happens to be an era of climate extremes. I would rather share any resources (such as editors, guidelines, sources, templates) and have all weather covered under one umbrella than risk 20% of significant events getting ignored. That number didn't just come from anywhere, see the topic earlier (this one).
Also, NewsAndEventsGuy, the affected Wikiprojects are Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate (defunct), Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather, Wikipedia:WikiProject Non-tropical storms (defunct), and Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate (but not Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change). Or maybe we should reach out to that project too? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: I would assume that the combined wikiproject would work with the Climate Change Project more and more, which is why I invited the project to comment on the proposal. For example: List of tropical cyclones in Fiji & List of Floods in Fiji should look towards the future and that's before we look at articles such as the Climate of Fiji etc.Jason Rees (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, Hurricanehink and Jason Rees. The proposal seems to make sense to me, but I will abstain from not-voting, since I'm not a member of any project mentioned in this thread, other than the climate change project (which is not effected, except maybe that there will be easier collaboration with these related topics later). Good luck! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Nay. This will not address the root cause, which is getting interest in other areas of meteorology.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with you @Jasper Deng: as I believe the root cause of WPTC's success has been developing the decent high-quality articles that has led to people contributing time and time again. As a result, if we can share resources and develop these new articles under a combined wikiproject, then we can hopefully develop some interest in other areas of meteorology.Jason Rees (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Also, to Jasper Deng, that has been a problem with Wikipedia since day one. For a while, there was little interest in working in older articles. When I first started, I worked with a few other users to make the season articles for Atlantic seasons before 1851, as well as the North Indian Ocean. I also believe that our current system of having six weather Wikiprojects means that some topics fall through the cracks, such as biography articles, or, as listed above, the various flood articles that don't exist but should. One of the biggest successes in the tropical cyclone Wikiproject is the top-down view, aiming to cover everything, whether by lists, or by yearly articles. I believe the Non-tropical storm project was a great effort to catch some of these other articles (namely the nor'easters and European windstorms). Having all weather articles under the same roof would reveal where some of our shortcomings are, and hopefully inspire curious editors to try other articles elsewhere in the project. After all, if someone was interested in tropical cyclones, then they might be interested in floods, or tornadoes, or even blizzards, as they are all related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricanehink (talkcontribs) 13:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)k
I think Jasper Deng makes a valid point, though I think it may perhaps be more about fostering a community of supportive editors who will work on various topics. It seems tropical storm meteorology is an area which has successfully done this. Perhaps there are lessons on forming such communities which could be made and applied to other areas, or perhaps it is just simply a question of areas editors are naturally drawn to.Lacunae (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't have a strong opinion on the other organization of topics, but I think WikiProject Climate Change would be out of scope for this one -- its very explicitely focused on the range of topics from science to public policy and reactions and social changes caused by climate change -- its much wider than a meteorology focused project. Sadads (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Climate Change is about the weather of the moment meeting the weather of the future, just like geology is essentially related to the weather of the long term past (ancient flooding carving rivers and canyons). I think that the proposal is stronger without having CC in it. Below I have a proposed heirarchy of articles, showing ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree. Climate change can stay its own WikiProject because it often deals more with other branches of science and social issues and politics that meteorology. I suggest removing WPCC from the proposal. ~ Destroyeraa (talk|Contribs) 21:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Destroyeraa: You can consider it removed if you like, but we were never proposing to merge WP:CC in. However, I felt that they needed to be notified as we will need to work together more and more.Jason Rees (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merger into a new WP Weather. I wasn't exactly on board with this at first, but I realized how we spread ourselves thin over time. All of weather being under one project would help draw attention to areas that need work done. If possible, could we create "branches" (these would be the current projects) with task forces located underneath them so we can still maintain wikiwork for specific areas? NoahTalk 21:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree about these branches/task forces, I think we would maintain them, especially what already works. For instance, there are thousands of articles in the tropical cyclone Wikiproject, but arguably the storms and seasons get the most attention. It would still be right to calculate the Wikiwork for the basins/storms, just as it would be for biography and science articles in general. Just as there would be wikiwork for specific areas, there would be calculations for the whole project. We'd be able to see what years are better than others - I'd guess weather events since 2005 are of higher quality, and that weather events in the US are of higher quality than other parts of the world. It might be nice seeing the numbers, being able to see the Wikiwork by country (or state/territory/province), or by year, or by weather type. Tropical cyclones' Wikiwork average is 3.142, with 2,724 articles. Severe weather's Wikiwork average is 4.531, with 601 articles. WikiProject Meteorology as a whole has a Wikiwork average of 4.092, with 6077 articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Full support per Other Supporters ~ AC5230 talk 02:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Oppose. This proposal really doesn't address the core root of the problem, which is that users have preferences on which articles they want to edit. This isn't an awareness issue. Whether WP:WPTC or WP:SEVERE are task forces or WikiProjects won't make editors edit articles they don't want to edit. Titoxd(?!?) 19:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • These same users will still be editing whatever they want. I don't think the goal here is making editors edit articles they don't want to edit. Instead the goal is to highlight what work still needs to be done, and what other similar articles are out there. There is already a significant overlap between WPTC and severe and the other types of weather articles. A user editing a storm that hit Bermuda, for instance, might be likewise interested in tornadoes in Bermuda, and likewise blizzards (if they've ever happened there). Having more of a top-down approach would make sure, in the long run, that articles don't fall through the cracks, and it could also encourage new editors/collaborations. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • We could do those collaborations already, but we don't. While it would be worthwhile to figure out why those collaborations don't happen through the existing framework, I simply don't see this causing any actual change—besides the upfront busywork required to merge the projects. Still oppose. Titoxd(?!?) 19:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of the more successful collaborations are the annual season articles for hurricanes, tornadoes, and European wind storms. They're also some of the more visible articles. Editors interested in heat waves, or floods, likely haven't found the same level of collaborations because some articles don't get the same amount of interest. If a user heard a hurricane was coming, they might look it up and see a well-developed season or storm article. Great, the WPTC is great, hurricane articles are better than most other types of articles, end of story :P That's not the same for a flood, or heat wave. There's not even a category for 2020 heat waves because there hasn't been an article yet. Thankfully, two heat waves in 2020 have a mention in List of heat waves, but that entire list has only been edited 30 times this year. List of floods? Edited 44 times this year. List of droughts has been edited 18 times this year. I believe that bringing all weather articles under a single WikiProject could better organize the content that we have. I also believe that the proposed new articles (see below) could incentivize and excite potential new users. Wikipedia isn't too fun if the big articles you know about are already done - think Hurricane Katrina, which would take an expert to comb through and organize. However, we could make a big push for new articles such as List of floods in Egypt, and ditto for every country. As an example of the hundreds of new articles needed, check out User talk:Jason Rees/Flood articles, which Jason Rees thankfully put together. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • And all of that completely ignores my point that changing a label won't change whether people edit articles or not, just like it didn't do anything back in 2008. The two people that added themselves to that task force are the only ones still on that task force, 12 years later, and are the only ones who have focused on that area of WPTC over the years. That leads me to believe that the hope that editors would follow and edit other areas that they historically haven't edited is just that—a hope. Changing to strong oppose. Titoxd(?!?) 22:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – I'm all down with having a more hierarchical structure for weather and climate articles on Wikipedia. That said, we'll need to establish certain guidelines. 'Weather in year' articles, for instance, should include summaries of tropical cyclones worldwide, tornadoes worldwide, etc. in a general sense, without mentioning specific tropical cyclones, tornadoes, floods, etc. in too much detail. The moment you start including too much detail in an article of this scale, you end up with a rehash of the Global storm activity series, which wasn't very good. If individual events are mentioned, they should be done so very sparingly with judgement made based on how significant they are. On another note, I think that we could improve the quality of tornado, flood, etc. articles if we could create more high-quality / FA-class articles for reference. As of right now, WikiProject Severe weather has a grand total of only four features articles and three featured lists. If we could add a few high-quality articles for these topics, we'd be able to better create more in the future by using these articles as a reference / to create 'templates' to compare to. Master of Time (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I ageee with your comments @Master of Time: with the need to establish certain guidelines for the 'Weather in year' articles and that they should include tropical cyclone, tornadoes floods etc in a general sense. Ideally, these would be the leads of the subarticles but things are up in the air. I also agree that we need to get more high-quality articles for tornadoes floods etc and am currently working on a list of Floods in Fiji as time allows. I also note that not every article is classified as a part of WP: Meteorology or its subprojects yet as I have already found a lot of floods that are weather-related but not classified as part of the projects, I would bet that there are a lot more out there.Jason Rees (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    • You're right Master of Time about the global storm activity series. I propose that a yearly weather article would only include a summary of the different weather events of the year. For example, it would have an overview for tropical cyclone activity, which currently exists at Tropical cyclones in 2020. Ditto for Tornadoes in 2020. A Hurricane Katrina-level event would be mentioned in the Weather in 2020, but not Jose, which existed around the same time as the storm, but orders of magnitude less damage/deaths. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
      • I'll just say a couple things quickly. You've linked Tornadoes in 2020 a couple times; I assume you meant to link Tornadoes of 2020? And that aside, nice to see we're on the same page, and with that being the case, I was thinking it might be worth pinging some of the more historically-active members of WP:METEO and/or related subprojects to encourage more discussion. It seems to have stagnated a bit for the time being. If we want to take it further, then at some point, maybe we could have a streamlined off-wiki discussion where we cover it all in more detail. Master of Time (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
        • I am more than happy to talk about about the proposal off-wiki with you or anyone else. On-wiki, we have a few things in the pipeline that will hopefully generate a bit more discussion, including sending the bi-monthly newsletter out next week. The Tornadoes in 2020 vs Tornadoes of 2020 thing is just semantics as far as I know.Jason Rees (talk) 13:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merging WP Climate and WP Non-tropical, but Oppose merging WPTC. Neutral on mergin WPSW. WikiProject Climate and WikiProject Non-tropical storms are defunct, so they can easily be merged. I oppose mergin WPTC because WPTC is a a big project of its own. We have over 2000 articles related to WPTC, and over 80 active editors. Merging it may cause some editors to gain more interest in SW or other aspects of weather, but most users will still stick to editing only TC articles. Also, if we merge it, WPTC will likely become a sub-Wikiproject (like WikiProject Louisiana) or a Task force. We already have so many task forces, and adding more the WP Met will make it more confusing for newer editors. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I second Destroyeraa on this one. I'm pretty uncomfortable when it comes to the rest of meteorology. SMB99thx my edits 11:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Destroyeraa: I am aware that we have several taskforces already, but I feel that they are focused on the wrong parts of Meteorology ones. I would also point out that WPTC's articles are a part of WP:Met regardless of this proposal and should be classified for tornadoes and floods taskforces where appropiate, especially as some of our TC articles are better presented as flood articles rather than TC. It would also allow us to handle events like Ionas better, as we would be able to identify local sources that contain significant information.Jason Rees (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I do see that flood task force is vital to WP:Met, since many of our flood articles are less than impressive. However, for such a big project as WPTC, I'm still nay about merging it. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
        • FWIW Destroyeraa (talk · contribs), there is a lot of crossover between flood articles and TCs (think of how many TC remnants or precursors get flood articles, there are dozens). Further, WPTC isn't that big of a project with slightly less than 3,000 articles (0.04% of all Wikipedia articles). WP:MET as a whole has around 6,000 articles (0.09% of all all Wikipedia articles), so the TCs would be a slight plurality, but it's still a rather small project. That is partly because of the sustained editor attention for TC's, perhaps at the expense of other met topics. For comparison, WP:MILHIST has 190,000 articles (3% of all articles), and is one of the better functioning projects. Having more users under the same umbrella means more reviewers, more sharing of resources, and more input when it comes to discussions. For many years (particularly in the NHEM winter) the WPTC gets rather quiet, some discussions/goals peter out, and we're left with maybe 10-15 active contributors doing their best to keep the project propped up. Having more users means more productive discussions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Outside support; it's difficult to sustain smaller WikiProjects, as can be seen in the legions of abandoned WikiProjevt pages out there. Larger, in this case, is better. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed article structureEdit

  • I
  • U
  • V
  • W
  • X
  • Y
  • Z
  • All other letters, eventually replacing the individual dab pages
  • Weather effects by location, including
  • Droughts by area
  • 2020 cold waves/blizzards/cold stuff
  • Droughts and heat waves in 2020
  • 2020 floods
  • Tornadoes of 2020
  • US tornadoes by month
  • 2020 Atlantic hurricane season/Pacific hurricane season/Pacific typhoon season/North Indian Ocean cyclone season/2020 half of the 19/20 or 20/21 cyclone year
  • 2019–20 and 2020-21 European windstorm seasons
  • +The same for every year as far back as we have good recordkeeping.
    • Based on this list, I decided to set up this sandbox so that we can work out the articles for each country based on the local knowledge that we have all developed over the years.Jason Rees (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad other people have recognised Wikipedia's relative lacking towards flooding articles. However I have some misgivings about the proposal especially regarding the almost total dominance of editors and viewpoints from the tropical storm expertise pools, and the inevitable tide of "clean-up" or "standardisation" of templates etc this will bring about. This proposal is also I suspect going to be rather dominated by North American editors, and I think I'd need a commitment that you'd actively recruit editors and advisors from other regions, perhaps even those working on other language Wikipedias. I don't know but perhaps regionalised (as in continental) Meteorology groupings may be another option?Lacunae (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
My intention is to get away from such a regional focus. For the tornadoes page, for instance, there is always a bias toward US, partly because it gets affected more. Some people might read an article because they looked it up on Google, but what happens when Google fails, or they don't know the exact name. As for templates/standardisation, there are already infoboxes for each project. The only standardisation would be having them all on the same page. The track map that was originally used for tropical cyclone articles has been used for nor'easters and European windstorms. I agree though, we'd need to recruit people from other areas. They might be more incentivized if there was a broad push for flooding articles for every part of the world, ditto for tropical cyclones, tornadoes, blizzards, heat waves/droughts. I love the idea about working w other language Wikis. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I congratulate your ideas, as a larger and more integrated community would act as a bulwark against the (what I might refer to as the bureaucratic community) who seem to constantly wish to rationalise options, usually with only a swift assent from the most active projects with little regard for more minor ones. But I'm still not assuaged that this is not going to result in an american tropical-centric centralisation, aided by Wikipedia's "consensus" approach.Lacunae (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
(EC) Hi @Lacunae:, I don't know if you are aware but I am English born and bred, have been to the UKMO and contribute to articles around the world, which is why I made the European Windstorms being named by the UKMO et all as a part of the proposal. I also know that WPTC has a German and a Taiwanese editor in WPTC, who im sure would contribute to this discussion, the articles and provide resources towards the combined project if they so wish. I will note that I have invited editors to comment on this proposal from all the Wikiprojects impacted by the proposal to comment on it as well as the climate change project and may invite other members to comment. Yes, there will inevitably some cleaning up of the articles and templates etc but that includes WPTC, as I am sure that some of the TC templates would be better merged or generalised etc. As for other editors, I feel that we would attract more editors by naming the project: Weather, as opposed to Severe Weather, Tropical Cyclone, Non-Tropical Storms and Meteorology. I would also be interested in reaching out to projects like the TORRO, Royal Met Society, New Zealand Met Society etc to try and gain some more editors. However, they would probably be better incentivized if there was a better structure to Wikipedia's articles/topics.Jason Rees (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I do see the logic to the proposal, and on that level I might welcome it, I'm just a little sceptical on how it would actually operate and function.Lacunae (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
To be honest @Lacunae: I think a lot of it is still up in the air and will be figured out as we go and of course you would be allowed to provide your input as you wish. In fact, I would say that it is vital as I had no idea what Jökulhlaup's are and may have unintentionlly ignored them.Jason Rees (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Weather databaseEdit

As part of the proposal above, I'd like to suggest that we implement a project wide categorization scheme to be synchronized with WP:WikiData, or, dare I say, Abstract Wikipedia. Google already uses Wikipedia's infoboxes for their search results, and Alexa often uses Wikipedia (partly because it's more accurate, partly because of how comprehensive it is). I'm not exactly sure the best way to implement it, but essentially we could have one category as location, date, fatalities, injuries, damage total, and weather event - all the basic stuff we usually include. The international disasters database - [3] - already kinda does this, but not everyone knows to look there. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is known as an institution at this point. I once argued in the past that Wikipedia wasn't the place for trivial records, or being a general weather database. Seeing that Wikipedia isn't going away, and in this era of climate denialism, I think it's important to have the facts out there about every weather event. In the proposal above, we identified an article structure for the proposed joined WikiProject. We can think bigger, and work on a weather database accessible in every language, so anyone on Earth can read about every known natural disaster. Knowledge is power, and is a big endeavor to catalog, but sharing knowledge is one of the best things humanity can do to ensure our success as a species. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

User:Hurricane Noah/TCMap This could work for showing TCs and named/prominent extratropical storms. NoahTalk 19:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I like, and perhaps heat waves, deadly ongoing floods, and tornado outbreaks if they're significant (have an article, basically). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I brought up the proposal for a weather database on WikiData's Project chat. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Climate of India FAREdit

I have nominated Climate of India for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Return to the project page "WikiProject Meteorology".