Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/General meteorology task force/Archive 2

{{Meteorology}}

I have just modified this template to accept importance rankings as well as assessment scale rankings. I am also going to start a subpage for discussing importance and quality ratings, which I'd like to get started soon. -Runningonbrains 01:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: All the categories/subpages have been created, hopefully mathbot will be servicing us within 24 hours. -Runningonbrains 07:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend getting rid of all subprojects for now with the exception of WPTC of course ;) The reason: None of the other specific templates have mathbot coding.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That said once things are established they might be prudent. Note, I'm tagging everything in Category:Weather. Some may be inappropriate, if so just remove the tag (and the category).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to over-mark for now, we can always remove templates if they arent under the scope of this project. Have you been rating articles, or just placing {{meteorology}}? I have been going through and placing rough estimates as to the class and importance of articles as I add the template. No doubt these will be changed as we go, but I think its a good idea to get a general idea of where are articles are for now. -Runningonbrains 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've just tagged them with meteorology for now, rather than think (getting them into the unassessed cat so the project editors can do it), its not just you is it? Once they are all tagged thats the worst of it done. I tagged Cloud, Snow, Rain and Wind, so there are a lot out there.--Nilfanion (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There definately are a lot out there. I must have tagged 100 so far, not even close to done. Mostly starts and stubs, with very few up to B-class, but that's it. As far as I know, I'm the only one tagging aside from you right now. Anyone else out there?? -Runningonbrains 03:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I can get around to rating some right away, so...I'll help, too. I'm one of the ones who wanted this project so much more active in the first place. bob rulz 21:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, it's still in its early days. Not too many high-class articles yet. I'm not too worried about that at this point. The majority will be Start-class. Certainly we are months or more away from having any real FA articles. CrazyC83 03:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

{{Weather-stub}}

I went ahead and created it, since there are many pages that are strictly meteorology, as opposed to climatology (especially a lot of stubs). Hopefully this will make it easier to see which stubs fall under the discretion of our project as opposed to the climatology project--this creates Category:Weather_-_Meteorology_stubs so we can go through and improve these. -Runningonbrains 14:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Per the ruling of Wikiproject Stub sorting, I modified the template to specifically be applied to weather events. I have counted at least 100 so far (note: some of those arent stubs), so this template was definately needed. -Runningonbrains 15:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As a side note, the stub template now feeds into Category:Weather event stubs. -Runningonbrains 05:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Other thing to add to the list to do

I'm suprised looking at the list of subjects that I find only weather events and nothing related to theory, intruments or data in this project?

Pierre cb 21:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Where are you looking? There are plenty of articles out there, but I doubt they are of high-quality. Eventually every article will be listed in Category:Meteorology articles by quality, but it may take some months. I suggest looking in Category:Earth sciences...you should find just about everything about anything to do with weather and meteorology within those subcategories. -Runningonbrains 21:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I know there is a lot of articles and many of great quality. I know where to look for them, too! I'm just saying that THIS project just list sexy themes as hurricanes, tornadoes or storms but nothing on the bread and butter of meteorology, not even a category, for such subject as thermodynamic of the atmosphere, adiabatic processes, convection, meteorological instruments, meteorological satellites, data collection (weather balloon, surface stations, sea surface temperature), etc... I'm not asking to list them all just to place a categories for them in the article.

Pierre cb 03:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That's stuff that I definitely want added. However, I couldn't really help with any of those, since I know little about actual tools used in meteorology and forecasting. bob rulz 21:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Would anybody object to a Technology (Meteorology) and a Atmospheric science sub category of Category:Meteorology. Undeneath it could either go a list of pages, or there could be further subcategories for the type of technology where there is a significant grouping (sattelites may be one such area - GOES, Meteosat, etc...) --Crimsone 10:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Atmospheric sciences already exists....meteorology is one specific atmospheric science...-Runningonbrains 19:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Aviation and climate change

I have recently added a new article on Aviation and climate change which makes reference to cirrus clouds. I would like to add a reference to the new page in the cirrus cloud page. I propose something like:

"If there are many cirrus clouds in the sky it may be a sign that a frontal system or upper air disturbance is approaching. Cirrus clouds can also be the remnants of a thunderstorm. A large shield of cirrus and cirrostratus typically accompanies the high altitude outflow of hurricanes/typhoons. Cirrus clouds have been observed to develop after the persistent formation of condensation trails from aircraft (see aviation and climate change)".Normalmouth 21:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to add it. That page needs a major expansion and re-write anyway. -Runningonbrains 00:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes

On the main page, I am beginning to clean up the project's main page, updating old information and reformatting for aesthetics.

On this talk page, I have archived old discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology/Archive. Also, I added the "To do" section at top. Right now, I think we should concentrate on finding out just how broad this project is, by getting all project articles tagged with {{meteorology}}. Then we can get on improving the most important ones. I am beginning to think the amount of articles covered by this project might approach 1000. -Runningonbrains 05:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There are so many articles sitting around loose though, created completely outside the project, that are being absorbed into it. CrazyC83 04:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cold Snap of 1985

There was a cold snap in January 1985, around the 21st-23rd, that set numerous all-time records in Florida. What was the widespread effect of it? Was its notability wide enough to merit an event wikiarticle? --Kitch 17:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say so. Go ahead. CrazyC83 03:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources, definately create it. Just be sure to add the text {{meteorology}} to the talk page, so it is logged with this wikiproject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningonbrains (talk • contribs)

Assessments

I have started an assessment tracker for actual events at User:CrazyC83/Assessment, which will branch out to individual years (2006 only one done so far, 2005 next), and their individual classes. Feel free to add to it. CrazyC83 06:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Main article

Perhaps the project's most important article, meteorology, is in serious need of expansion. Anybody willing to pitch in and help with this article? bob rulz 06:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll try to find some more to do. CrazyC83 14:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense that the project's main article should be our top priority. I'll add to the "To do" list. -Runningonbrains 14:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Question

Here's a quick one:

Should we be replacing sub-project templates ({{tornado}}, {{storm}}, etc.) when we add {{meteorology}}?

My thinking is leaving the old template will help if we decide to start subprojects again sometime in the future, but it might be repetitive and clutter the talk page. Comments? -Runningonbrains 01:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking about the same thing when I did some assessments. Is there a way to combine them? I notice that some wikiprojects have fairly elaborate main templates. I think it's possible to combine. If so, somebody should attempt it, if not...then we'll figure something out. bob rulz 05:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, thats a good idea. For now, i'd say leave the old templates up when the new one is added, and I'll play around with the code on the template (I actually already have a dummy template setup at Template:Meteorology/temp for when I added the mathbot coding). I'll see what I can accomplish. You're more than welcome to try yourself as well. Or anyone who is reading this for that matter. -Runningonbrains 17:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Good news! It seems to be pretty easy to just add mathbot coding to each of the sub-project templates and have them feed into the main meteorology category. I will do this now, and hopefully the next mathbot update will have a ton of new articles to be assessed. -Runningonbrains 17:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. That'll come in handy. bob rulz 21:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Done for all except {{extremes}} (which only links to two articles anyway). I am praying for good results. I also added an additional template for weather data and instrumentation which I hope will be useful in the future. -Runningonbrains 23:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

History of Meteorology article

I have started a History of Meteorology article in a sandbox under the banner of the WikiProject: History of Science. I haven't got very far with it; it's currently more of a list of important studies/developments under common themes. Hopefully, there will be members of this meteorology WikiProject that can help me flesh it out some more before moving it to a proper Wikipedia location. Note, however, that this will be an article on the history of the study and understanding of weather/climate not on the history of weather events. Discussions of individual hurricanes, snow storms, floods, etc., are unlikely to be relevent to the article. Deditos 11:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

Why so many project banners?

Might I suggest that it would be much better if you had one project template, with parameters for workgroups? --kingboyk 14:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the initial thinking was that each of these sub-categories would be so vast it would evolve into its own sub-project. What exactly do you mean by workgroups? -Runningonbrains 15:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly what was the initial thinking, and eventually they might again. However, it creates challenges for classifying them so they decided on one banner. I am still working on the assessment pages, particularly for specific weather events. CrazyC83 02:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

September 2006 Tornado Outbreak

Someone should make it. 50+ tornado reports past 2 days, many injuries and severe damage already reported. I'm currently heading out for the weekend, but if someone else could get on it that would be awesome. -Runningonbrains 01:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It already exists as Late-September 2006 outbreak. That name would not be ambigious enough as it could confuse with last week (despite the fact it does not warrant an article). CrazyC83 04:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nominations

I have started to nominate a few articles for GA, and if I find more I will put them up as well. CrazyC83 04:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

North American blizzard of 1977

I have done some major cleanup to this article, but it's cutting off on my browser even though it's no longer got the "too long" message. Can anyone take a look and see why this might be happening? Do I need to cut/rewrite more? I've reorganized and taken quite a lot out, and the whole article displayed before. Much thanks. Vesperholly 20:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the article. When you use the <ref name> notation (after you have defined the ref), you have to add a backslash after the quotes, as in <ref name="bahr"/>. If you dont include it it cuts off everything afterwards (putting it in references, until it hits a </ref>. A simple mistake (I've done it once or twice myself), just make sure to do that in the future. -Runningonbrains 21:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

PS, you need to define some of your refs still. Also, if you removed any text thinking the article was too long, re-insert it. -Runningonbrains 21:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I was going crazy trying to figure out what I did wrong. Vesperholly 06:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Good rewriting! You learn something everyday! It's almost at B-class now. CrazyC83 01:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I still have to rewrite that hideous day-to-day section, but I'm so burned out now from all that tag drama. :) I hope the technical stuff still reads OK, my knowledge of meteorology is limited to some interested Weather Channel watching and reading about hurricanes on Wiki. Vesperholly 04:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a comment on this articles and others that have been named North American Blizzard of.... This title is much too vague as there is many blizzards during any winter in North America and often more than one noteworthy. So it would be much better to be more precise and effort should be made to have articles from other regions than Northeastern US. I'm sure the Prairies, the Great Plaines, Central Canada, The Canadian Maritimes, etc... should be added to better qualify those storms. This one for instance could be North American Southern Great Lakes Blizzard of 1997 or something similar. Pierre cb 17:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

While you do have a good point, it's fairly rare to have more than one extensive "blizzard" (meeting all the technical definitions) per year. I do agree that this should be renamed, it should be something short and defining. I vote for Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977, since the impact seems to be confined to that area, and the references provided only refer to the storm as the Blizzard of 1977. However for other storms, the impact was on a much wider scale, and names should be left broader (i.e. 1993 North American storm complex).

On a related note, some of these need disambiguation pages and the redirects need fixing, like Blizzard of 1978 and Blizzard of 1888. I'll get to work on it. -Runningonbrains 18:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Good to see that something will be done. I desagree however with the statement that there is rarely more than one blizzard per winter in North America. This is in my view a very East Coast, media driven and US centered view. Peoples in other parts, would beg to differ with that. I'm from Quebec province and many of the storms named have not even given a flurry in my region while I can find many storms giving blizzard conditions during the same years. I'm sure that Albertans of Coloradians could say the same. So a more precise naming scheme, as short as possible, is needed with possibly using the dates. For the storms that affect larger areas, the name should reflect that fact but not at the expense of vaguenest. Pierre cb 01:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

How about adding "East Coast" in? Also if there is more than one in the year (say, a bad one in December 2006), the month should be added. CrazyC83 02:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

oops, my American bias is rearing its ugly head. In truth I was thinking about the lower 48. You're probably right, up in Canada i'm sure they get blizzard conditions several times a year. But what did you mean about adding "East Coast"? This was a Great-Lakes storm... -Runningonbrains 03:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Then "Great Lakes" should be added. CrazyC83 03:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be consensus. Will go ahead and do it. -Runningonbrains 04:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Devil's advocate here: The 1977 storm had nothing to do with three of the five Great Lakes, and technically I think it only reached "blizzard" conditions in Western New York where the majority of the impact was made... "Western New York Blizzard"? "Upstate New York Blizzard"? Vesperholly 08:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right. How about Eastern Great Lakes Blizzard of 1977 or New York/Ontario Blizzard of 1977? -Runningonbrains 14:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Since Ontario extend up to the Manitoba Border, the first one is better! Be aware that there are great lakes elsewhere in the world, Africa in particular. North American Eastern Great Lakes Blizzard of January 1977 would be better.Pierre cb 14:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think here is where the title of the page starts becoming cumbersome... I doubt they are ever having a blizzard, maybe not even snow near the African great lakes, I'd probably argue against the North America part. Plus, Great Lakes is the title of the North American lakes, the others are the African Great Lakes. I really would like to get opinions from people other than you and me talking back and forth though, lol. Anyone else out there? -Runningonbrains 15:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, shouldn't something like the North American blizzard of 2006 be renamed Nor'Easter of 2006? bob rulz 00:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. If necessary (i.e. a bad December blizzard in the same area), the month can be added. CrazyC83 19:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Same system producing different types of weather

What should the article convention be for such (albeit uncommon) events where two or more components (say, a blizzard and a tornado outbreak on either side of a front) of the same system are article-worthy? Same or different articles? (I think they should all go together) CrazyC83 03:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Definately the same article. This is something I have been a little miffed about for awhile, especially with 1993 North American Storm Complex and the Great Blizzard Subtropical Derecho. It should all be covered under one article, except in the unlikely event that the article becomes incredibly long and cumbersome, or if it is the same system causing two events at two totally different times and locations (like a storm in the Great Plains producing tornadoes, then travelling across the Atlantic and becoming an article-worthy blizzard in northern Europe...and even that should probably be covered under one article). Can you think of any other examples? -Runningonbrains 04:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

May 30-31, 1998. Began as a tornado outbreak on the 30th, then as a derecho overnight, then as another tornado outbreak (no article?) the afternoon of the 31st. CrazyC83 16:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

List of blizzards

On a related note, it seems to me that Wikipedia's coverage of blizzards seems a little spotty (at best). I find it hard to believe that no big blizzards occurred between 1940 and 1977 given that we've had about 5 in the last decade in the US alone. How about a list of blizzards? Obviously this wouldnt be complete for awhile, but we could start with the articles we have currently and add to the list as we find sources. Most probably wouldnt deserve an article, so this could be a good place for semi-notable blizzards. We should note in the list that it is NOT a list of winter storms, only verified blizzards which have a relatively large impact. -Runningonbrains 04:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend that you don't make such an article without country qualifier, [[List of US blizzards] or similar. Without the country specified it would be US-biased (and a few other western states I suppose) and have a very broad scope. After all just how many blizzards in Siberia are ever going to have articles?--Nilfanion (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)