Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/General meteorology task force/Archive 1

Starting

First thing's first, there should be a template for this Wikiproject, like for the tropical cyclone wikiproject. Unfortunately, there's nothing really to define weather as it is for the little picture. Hurricanehink 15:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I just started this late last night, so it is definitely in the works. CrazyC83 16:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nice job on the template! Hurricanehink 16:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I have one for each sub-project within the project. CrazyC83 16:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, do you mean you have a template for each thing, like tornado, winter storm, heat wave, etc. ? I'm not sure if that is really needed. Just one template would be alright for now, and if the sub-projects ultimately become wikiprojects (like Wikiproject: Tornados), then it could be changed. I personally think the lightning one is fine for all meteorological articles. Hurricanehink 17:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that is what I have created, calling them sub-projects. CrazyC83 17:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole project is a fantastic work in progress, you have done a good job, and I'd like to contribute if I can --Pugzi 09:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Aviation Meteorologist

Infoboxes

After that, we should work on infoboxes. They should be different for each event, yet could still be somewhat similar.

• European windstorms and Extratropical cyclones can be nearly identical to the hurricane infobox, when possible. Have dates, a picture if possible, pressure, winds, deaths, and damage (could be hard), location, but no season (obviously).
• For tornadoes, if it's just one tornado, then it should be pretty similar to the hurricane infobox; the day (and timing in the day), strength (on the Fujita scale), damage, deaths, and locations effected (if small enough, then just cities). If it was part of a larger outbreak, that could be part of the infobox as well. Also include a picture if possible.
• For tornado outbreaks, this is when it gets different. I was thinking it would list the days, number of tornadoes, number of F3 or greater tornadoes, total damage, total deaths, and areas affected.
• For flooding or flash flooding, list the day (or days), highest amount (like 24 inches in Springfield), source for the flood (tropical cyclone, front, monsoon, snow melt), damage, deaths, and location. Pic if possible.
• Drought is very different. List the duration, damage, deaths, and location. Anything else here?
• For wildfire, list duration, peak area of the storm in square miles, damage, deaths, and locations effected.
• For heat wave/extreme cold, list duration, highest/lowest temperature observed during the wave, number of temperature records broken, total damage, deaths, and areas affected.
• For blizzard/winter storm/blizzard, list duration, peak observed winds, deaths, damage, location, and maximum amount of snow caused by the storm.

How's that for infoboxes? Hurricanehink 16:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I like those ideas. Forget about hail storm as they are usually related to a larger event and almost never worthy of their own article on their own. Otherwise, do exactly as you suggest! Note that some winter storms are mixed with ice or rain, not just snow - ice storms are included in that category. Also some flooding events (i.e. Red River Flood of 1997) involve little or no rain, but rather snowmelt or ice jams. CrazyC83 16:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I removed hail. Good point about flooding. What should we do about that? Should it be differentiated between snow melt and rain flooding, or could the source include that? A flooding infobox could include both, with proper naming (peak flooding amount could be either highest rainfall or highest flooding total). I'll work on the templates later. Hurricanehink 17:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Include both, and make a mention in rainfall amounts of "None" or "Minimal". CrazyC83 17:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice Tornado outbreak infobox. How many infoboxes have you made so far? Also, on the tornado outbreak, the image location, when blank, shows an annoying [[Image:|240px|center|]]' at the top. How do you fix that? In addition, I am going through, adding the tornado outbreak infobox and tornado templates to all that I can find. Did you make a single tornado infobox? Hurricanehink 21:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I now have three infoboxes - created ones for single tornadoes and winter storms. I am slowly working on the others, but they will be somewhat more difficult as they have different types to each. CrazyC83 22:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What about the infobox for winter storms? What if it's just a winter storm and not a blizzard? What should you put under the "peak observed winds?" ADDED: Also, I'm planning on adding some winter storms for Utah, which means that the highest snowfall amounts would be in the mountains. We should use that instead of populated locations, right? bob rulz 07:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the highest is recorded - it could even be from a radar estimate offshore. Make sure you write in the storm type (there is a bold headline for it), as ice or mixed snow/rain events also have the same infobox. CrazyC83 20:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

So if it's just a major snow storm, with no blizzard conditions, ice, etc, then would it just be classified as snow storm? I can't think of a better term for it. bob rulz 22:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You could call it such, for lack of a better term. CrazyC83 02:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Scale colors

When possible, we should keep one set of colors for all scales used. It was long established that the Fujita scale colors are the same as the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale colors. Since no other events are classified, those are the only uses so far, but if new classifications come out, we should stick to the same basic color scales (with sharper or lighter extensions if necessary). CrazyC83 22:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of pages to include

Hello everyone! I'm very happy about the starting of this WikiProject, as it is sorely needed in some areas. As you can see in this edit, I've added several pages to the general section, and there are probably still dozens more that can be added. I feel it is these "more scientific" pages that could really benefit from this project, as they don't get as much attention as, say, Hurricane. (For example, Ridge (meteorology) is sadly underdeveloped.) Let me know if anyone has a problem with the addition of these pages or related pages. Anyway, I look forward to working with all of the members of this project, and let me know if there's anything I can do. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 23:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other pages out there to work on! Feel free to do work in those areas! This project is meant to work in the areas that are scientific as well as newsworthy. CrazyC83 01:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

New templates

I find that creating new templates and planning for new features is best when an event is ongoing and when it is added to a current events page; we learned that last hurricane season. However, feel free to make any templates! CrazyC83 22:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've modified the templates a little bit to use the optional class parameter that {{hurricane}} uses. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject:Meteorology Userbox

I think we need one for members. Icelandic Hurricane #12 22:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on that! CrazyC83 02:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

This user is a member of WikiProject Meteorology.

- it has been created! CrazyC83 20:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To-do box

We need to create a to-do box. It would really help with organization. bob rulz 08:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There is so much to do it is hard to keep track with at this point. I'd focus on the spring/summer events for now as I can't see too much new winter storm activity until November at least... CrazyC83 20:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking specifically about the Great Plains Blizzard of 2006. Come on, 2 1/2 feet of snow in Nebraska and no article? I don't know anything about this storm, I was just hoping that it would be a no-brainer to create an article on, and what do I know, one never shows up. bob rulz 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good one to create. I was also think of creating a Major Winter Storms of 2005-06 article. (The boundaries for the winter storm year should be from July 1-June 30) CrazyC83 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about that too. I can think of a few major storms that happened this winter, but it can be hard to find info about major snow storms on the Internet. bob rulz 22:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That's the problem. With the focus in the spring on tornadoes and severe thunderstorms, that may be hard to come by at this time of year... CrazyC83 04:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Done! See above and below. -Runningonbrains 06:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Article criteria

Tornadoes

I'm trying to think about, in general, what the criteria is for article creation for specific events. I've been mostly think about tornado events as that is the main threat at this time of year. Generally speaking (there will be exceptions), here is what I came up with (meeting one of these):

• An F2 or stronger tornado that hits a major city, regardless of damage or other events, warrants an article automatically. A downtown F1 could also warrant an article (debatable).
• A tornado event that kills 10 or more people, even by a single tornado.
• A killer F5 tornado, including an isolated one (being so rare). (Could be revised to ANY F5 tornado)
• A tornado outbreak that involves 25 or more tornadoes and at least one killer tornado or an F4 or F5 tornado.
• A tornado outbreak that involves 50 or more tornadoes, regardless of damage or fatality counts. (After all, 50+ weak tornado events are rare outside of tropical cyclones)

What do you all think about those criteria? Of course, some tornado event articles can be created outside those boundaries if warranted (i.e. unusual timing/location). CrazyC83 04:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think those criteria sound pretty reasonable. Thankfully we don't have a flood of "non-notable tornado outbreaks" at AfD. :o) EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You won't for future events, thanks to the Tornadoes of 2006 page which evolved off an old non-notable page. That page covers smaller outbreaks, isolated moderate events and weird tornadoes (i.e. the one in Hawaii). If something comes close to those or happens in an unusual area, then it should come up for a vote. CrazyC83 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds about reasonable to me. bob rulz 06:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On the Tornado records page why are the 1980's so special?????!! Umm hello.. thats cida like saying: "well this song writer relesed this song and that and that song in 1985 his carreer lasted from 1980 to 1993".... Now let's get it fixed! DPM 01:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Winter storms

Some criteria I thought of (meeting one of these):

• A snow, ice or combined event that is geographically spread over a large area of at least 1/4 of the United States, 1/4 of Europe or similar sized area (about 1,000,000 square miles/2,500,000 square kilometres)
• An event that is record breaking for any area, or a highly unusual event (i.e. the 1993 North American storm complex or the 2004 Christmas Eve Snowstorm)
• An event that is equivalent to a NESIS Category 3 or higher (if transposed into that area)
• An event that kills 10 or more people (unless they were all from a single highway pileup)

Those are some of them; I am trying to think of others. CrazyC83 17:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you calculate what category a storm is on the NESIS scale? What are the official criteria? I know one major criteria is population, but that wouldn't be as much of an influence in nearly any other part of the country as it would be for the Northeast. bob rulz 22:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Read the criteria, then make a guess on how it would be if the storm was transposed over the Northeast region. CrazyC83 04:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-tropical systems

Basically, think of them as being tropical cyclones - then apply the standards there. CrazyC83 17:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to limit F5 tornado classifications to after 1950 (or 1900)

Currently, Wikipedia throws around tornado classifications rather liberally (certainly more liberally than the SPC). To many meteorologists, the idea of classifying tornadoes from the 1800s according to the Fujita scale is rediculous (as it is poor guesswork at best). I have proposed that we limit at least the classification of F5 tornadoes to 1950 or later (since steel-framed structures were not commonly around before then). If you have an opinion in this matter, please come over to the F5 talk page and discuss it. Thanks! Kaldari 18:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team cooperation

Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Science WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That will take a long time to assess, but we can start it out! I had thought about initiating that immediately, but decided not to. CrazyC83 04:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Help Needed

Storm is the current Collaboration of the Week. Would you mind helping us; we could use more people who specialize in weather-related articles. Thanks in advance. (^'-')^ Covington 14:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely we should work on it! CrazyC83 15:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Tornadoes

In the Regina Cyclone article, the page says that Saskatchewan has seen a confirmed F5 Tornado. This is not the case. So far, Canada has not seen such a strong tornado. (I should know. i live in Windsor, Ontario, Canada.) However, Environment Canada HAS considered upgrading the Edmonton Tornado of 1987 to an F5, based upon reviewing data and film footage from the storm.

User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 15:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe Edmonton was indeed an F5. However, until such happens, it should remain an F4 on the list. CrazyC83 01:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

should i at least say "Environment Canada has been investigating and is thinking on giving the tornado an F5 rating, for its sheer destructive power?" it's the same situation of how Hurricane Andrew was upgraded to Category 5, just a couple years ago after reviewing the data proved it was stronger than an Cat. 4... User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 16:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NE Flooding ongoing

Anyone think it is article worthy? I haven't bothered - yet - but I am considering creating it if there is consensus. CrazyC83 01:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I created it. CrazyC83 18:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to feature Ice Storm of 1998

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ice Storm of 1998. It's obvious it will fail, but the article is certainly off to a good start already. Circeus 14:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Overly Specific Articles

I was looking through the stubs and I've noticed that there is a collection of entries for specific types of clouds, such as Cumulus castellanus cloud, and it seems unweildy to have them as such...mayhap if these sort of specific entries were combined into a couple of pages it would simplify things. Dr Denim 22:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If it is a good quality page with decent information, it should be kept. CrazyC83 22:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This may be so, but thinking in terms of organization, it is much easier for someone looking up "Cumulus clouds" to have an article on all types of cumulus clouds, and not have to click 20 different links to find the information he's looking for. Runningonbrains 11:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

originally I was thinking like categorizing them by low, mid, high, and then vertical developing clouds...but organizing them by cloud genus would make more sense for something like this where the reader might not think to look in that sort of articleDr Denim 12:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I figure that if it is generally decided that we combine the articles then a list of the articles would be helpful... I'm assuming that we'd add the cumulus cloud species to the cumulus cloud genus page

• Cumulus_cloud

• Cumulus castellanus cloud
• Cumulus mediocris cloud
• Cumulus congestus cloud
• Cumulus humilis cloud
• Cumulonimbus cloud

• not entirely sure how to group these

• Accessory cloud
• Altocumulus cloud
• Altostratus cloud
• Arcus
• Cirrostratus cloud
• Fall streaks
• Fractus cloud
• Shelf cloud
• Roll cloud
• Stratocumulus cloud
• Stratus cloud
• Virga
• Wall cloud
• Wave cloud

I've only looked through the meteorology stubs so there might be more articles out there that either have been upgraded out of the stubs or for whatever reason might not have been marked to go into the meteorology stub section...Dr Denim 14:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the cloud articles have their own category as and cumulus-type clouds are a subcategory...although I still think some of the articles could be combinedDr Denim 14:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

From the Cumulonimbus page...most of these havent been written but should be included in the cumulonimbus page itself...

• Cumulonimbus calvus
• Cumulonimbus capillatus
• Cumulonimbus praecipitatio
• Cumulonimbus virga
• Cumulonimbus pannus
• Cumulonimbus incus
• Cumulonimbus mammatus
• Cumulonimbus pileus
• Cumulonimbus velum
• Cumulonimbus arcus
• Cumulonimbus tuba
• Pileus (meteorology)

Runningonbrains 15:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And as I explored futher, i found that an article for these stubs already exists at cloud types. A whole boat-load of links to stubs and not-yet created cloud articles. I for one would be willing to volunteer to beef up this page, or split this page into a separate one for each main cloud type, with sections on each specific type. Opinions? Runningonbrains 15:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

seems like a good place to start at least...probably better to beef up that article first and if it is later decided that it is more efficient to have seperate articles then it can be broken up. Also I'm willing to help with that if needs beDr Denim 16:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

New "cloud types" format

I have redone the "cirrus" section in cloud types...my thinking now is that we can have one of three formats:

1. Have a separate article for each main cloud type (cirrus, cumulus, etc.) and put all the information on the minor cloud types on these pages in different sections

2. Keep the "cloud types" article as is, and create an article for each minor cloud type

3. Keep the cloud types article as is, only with a short, 1-3 sentence definition of each minor cloud type below the name of each cloud type (like I have done to the cirrus section. This would also require a seperate article for each minor cloud type.

I would prefer the 1st option, but I think any one of these could work. Opinions? Additional suggestions? Runningonbrains 20:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

if not the first then definately the third as it would give a general idea about what the cloud is. Although I'd try to go with

the first optionDr Denim 20:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations

I nominated tornado for Version 0.5. This won't be completed until at least the end of August, so any other articles that anyone wants to nominate can be done until then. Let your imaginations run wild! Runningonbrains 00:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nominations wont be completed until the end of August, that is Runningonbrains 00:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles needing improvement

There are many meteorology articles out there which would be good for Wikipedia 0.5, and possibly essential for Wikipedia:Version 1.0, that are not up to snuff in the least. Precipitation (meteorology) needs a major cleanup/reorganization, and 1993 North American Storm Complex, Super Outbreak, Freezing rain and Sleet are pretty short given their significance (at least in the US).

Even though it's already been accepted, Tornado needs some cleanup, especially in the final few sections on climatology and social significance. Cloud, Rain, Blizzard and Snow could also use some cleanup/expansion and nomination.

All of this, of course, in my very humble opinion. Runningonbrains 18:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Meteorology itself also seems to need some work, and I imagine that page would be near essential for Wikipedia:Version 1.0. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 07:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FPC

I put the Storm of the Century picture up for FPC. I hope that's good and that you suppport it. íslenska hurikein #12_(samtal) 18:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit disappointed...

...and quite shocked at the lack of just about anything going on with this project. I was under the impression that there were lots of weather geeks just like me out there giving their free time to Wikipedia. I mean, the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject has hundreds of participants, and is maybe the most active and beneficial project in all of Wikipedia! If there are others that are just as frustrated as I am (or just mildly annoyed...or just bored and looking for something to do), lets light up this page, and get some stuff done! Runningonbrains 23:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I have some ideas for the improvement of this wikiproject. I just haven't done anything because nobody else seems to be here. bob rulz 11:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm here! :) íslenska hurikein #12 _(samtal) 14:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, good...now we just need to pick up the scraps that remain and get this thing going. bob rulz 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I know; I've been working on the individual pages (slowly) but really haven't come up with too many new templates. CrazyC83 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good to know some of you are still out there! I was beginning to think I was here alone...so lonely on the cold, dark, internet.

But to my point: In my opinion, there needs to be a methodical, organized effort to get all the main meteorological orders above the embarassing level (same as start class). If we could even get this done on the main ones, a.k.a. meteorology, weather, storm, rain, snow, precipitation (meteorology), etc., almost all of which are in pretty poor shape right now, we could at least have a basic set of solid articles to branch out from.

Any thoughts on starting to assess articles in the same way that the tropical cyclones project assesses articles? We may run into a little trouble overlapping with that project, but I think it would be well worth it.

It seems this has already been requested by Version 1.0 editors above. I am very for it: Template:Meteorology already has the code to carry assesment scale ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningonbrains (talk • contribs)

I've just presented a list of improvements I think could be made on CrazyC83's talk page. Hopefully they're good suggestions (I'm still learning things about WikiProjects).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob rulz (talk • contribs)

On moving Cloud types...

IMHO, this page is a list, and as such should be renamed List of cloud types. I will do this in a week if no one objects. Runningonbrains 23:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Runningonbrains 22:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Getting things going again

What should we do first to get this project rolling again?

In my opinion, the first thing we should do is make a list of articles which would be rated as Top or High importance ratings if we were to start using an importance scale in addition to the assessment, again, similar to if not the same as the tropical cyclones project. We should then methodically go through these articles and get them up to B class at least. From there, the sky's the limit. Runningonbrains 00:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

All WikiProjects use an identical assessment scale, so it will be identical to the one in the tropical cyclones wikiproject. bob rulz 08:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

United States weather of 2006

I have created the United States weather of 2006 article; please help in developing this article and providing sources; there's definitely more work to be done on it. bob rulz 08:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Willing to help

Hello folks,

I'm brand new to Wikipedia, and I'm a Ph.D. meteorology student at the University of Oklahoma, specializing in storm-scale NWP and data assimilation. I would like to help with this project in any way I can. How would I get my name on the project list? Remember, I'm brand new to this! Wthrman13 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome aboard! Sign in on that list up at the top and start working away! CrazyC83 03:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Radar toy

(crossposted from WPTC talk)

I just found a really useful java program on the NCDC site here. It seems to be exceptionally powerful. In a few minute of messing around I managed to produce images like Image:Hurricane Katrina Doppler.gif and animations like Image:Hurricane Katrina LA landfall radar.gif. Oooh shiny!!!!--Nilfanion (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Right I've finished messing around now, I understand its capabilities. The source images come from the NEXRAD radar network. This exists in all 50 states and also Guam, Puerto Rico and 2 sites in South Korea. The viewer has built in a number of background maps, for those familiar with World Wind all the background available there are usable. In addition it has a number of simpler schematic overlays. As for output it can produce .png static images and .gif animations. It seems to be particularly useful for hurricanes and tornadoes. Here are some example images: Image:Nora 1997 Radar.png, Image:Kansas 2003 tornado hook echo.png, Image:Kansas 2003 tornado radar.gif and Image:Hurricane Katrina LA landfall radar.gif.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)