Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/General meteorology task force/Archive 5

United States weather of 2007

The article has been created. Let's try to keep this thing more updated and consistent than the last one; we now have the full year to work with. Also, if possible, for significant events, try to find local news articles for them, as well, as national news does not always give adequate coverage of effects on certain areas. Also, just a reminder, don't use Yahoo! News links! They go dead quickly. bob rulz 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Weather in 2006, Weather in 2007, ...

Hello,

I have started a series of articles documenting the most important weather events of a specific year, starting with Weather in 2006, which I have attempted to make a comprehensive but concise overview of last year's weather around the globe. An article for this year is expected, as well as for years prior to 2006. Please also see the talk page in the first article: Talk:Weather in 2006.

I'm sorry if I have ignored any guidelines of this WikiProject or of Wikipedia generally. My time and capacity for finding things out are finite, which is why I'm trying to direct these articles to the consciousness of a wider group of wiser people. :) I have tried not to express in the original article anything that weren't contained and properly referenced in the articles about the specific weather events.

Happy New Year 2007! May we help further the knowledge of mankind. -Oghmoir 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The article looks excellent! I will try my best to keep them updated and include any other weather events I feel should be included. bob rulz 15:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You thinking of going back in time with this series, like the hurricane articles? Thegreatdr 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I guess I should express it in the form of "..., Weather in 2005, Weather in 2006, Weather in 2007, ..." :)

I see no reason not to include articles for previous years, although it's probably easier to add events to the article of the current year than to look back on past years for extensive coverage. Perhaps it would be better if there would eventually be articles for decades instead of years for the time before 2000, like "Weather in the 1990s" or so.

PS. Here in Finland it's terribly warm at the moment, considering it's winter at these latitudes. Last month was the warmest December ever recorded here, with temperatures 6 to 7 degrees centigrade above average. I would include this fact in the article for last year, but it's not very significant compared to the situation in Northern Europe generally, and is covered by the section about the European heat wave. However, what I'd like to include is the current coldness in New Zealand, which I need to look into when I have time.

O Nature, what have we done to thou? Oh... right... (hehe) Oghmoir 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Weather in 2007 started. Now we only need to keep it up to date. Oghmoir 13:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job! Keep it going! CrazyC83 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible HP Supercell over UK a few days ago?

On a web forum I visit, there's been a report/suggestion of a probable HP Supercell, including 3 associated tornadoes on the 30th of December 2006. I would guess that would make it not onl an outbreak, but a very rare one at that. Does anybody know anything about this? LINK Crimsone 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

recording devices

We currently have a quite good article at barograph, a stub at thermograph, and redlinks to hygrograph and meteorograph (the latter basically combines the first three in one device). To my mind it doesn't really make sense to describe these in four separate articles, so I'd propose a combined article. See Talk:barograph for discussion. Thanks for any input! --Delirium 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What I like now...

...is that now we are starting to really branch out into our areas of expertise. For example, bob rulz is doing a lot on winter storms, I am doing a lot on severe thunderstorms and tornadoes, Oghmoir is doing the annual almanac, etc. The more we branch out, the better we all know since we are doing where we are best at. CrazyC83 02:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's an improvement. I wish we could get more people who had more expertise in meteorology, as in, the actual science, however. That's not my expertise. bob rulz 05:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Palm Sunday tornado outbreak of 1920

A few years ago, I did a research paper on this event, which was turned into a magazine article that was never published. I decided to create a new article here on the Wiki about this event. Moreover, I plan on adding additional information and graphics to this page in the future. This article came out of an extensive research project that I did on the 1965 Palm Sunday outbreak, which affected the area I was born in.

Currently, I am doing some rather intensive research on another tornado outbreak that occurred here in Michigan back in 1917. Apparently, the Michigan Dept. of Agriculture, in a report that detailed this event, concluded that a tornado in our state traveled along the ground at 130 km/h between two communities. If so, this would beat the old record set by the Tri-State tornado of 1925. I will post that article here in the future. USRoute66 01:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

EF scale

As many of you know, starting February 1, the NWS will be switching to the EF Scale for tornado assessments. As such, I will be re-writing a version here to be moved to the main space once the scale becomes obselete. Also, I created a page for the Enhanced Fujita Scale, and will move that to the main space at the same time. Just a heads up for anyone who'd like to work on them. -Runningonbrains 17:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Climate of (place)

I am lately noticing a lot of new articles on the climates of countries, regions and cities. I think an infobox is needed, but I have yet to really think about the design. As for the importance of each, here is my view:

• Top - only a worldwide article (if ever made)
• High - Climates of countries
• Mid - Climates of first-level subnational entities (i.e. states)
• Low - Climates of lower level areas (i.e. cities)

CrazyC83 02:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone keeping track of these? I see only a few at Category:Climate. Raymond Arritt 03:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Try this one Template:Infobox Weather. —MJCdetroit 03:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'd be more inclined to look at the articles importance according not only to the scale/scope of the region, but also the significance and "uniquness" of the climate of the area concerned. In terms of encyclopedic value, the importance of an article on climate of an area should reflect the importance of that area to the science of meteorology. I would imagine this to be mostly identical to your suggestions for the main part, but I would also imagine that there are the odd few exceptions to the rule also.

Might I also suggest that we tag such articles with a newly created Category:Regional climates or similar? Crimsone 03:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Since they were often created out of other projects, it will be hard to assemble them, but that would work. We just need to find them all. CrazyC83 21:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, thoug there's not intense rush. Not that an intense rush wouldn't get it done more efficiently, but it's not going to bring down the project if it happens slowly :). I'll make a start on it shortly. I'm assuming it should have a climate category parent? Perhaps instead of a climate parent for it, would category:meteorology be a better parent, as each of the artincles will inevitably be focused primarily on the prevailing weather of an area, how it changes through the year, and what makes it "tick"?Crimsone 21:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems that a (perhaps poorly stuctured) category tree exists for this already at Category:Climate Crimsone 22:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Rainbow FAR

Rainbow has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Weather

I have started a few changes. Now that we have a good project rolling here, I've begun taking recently created articles and sticking them in the portal's DYK, akin to what is done on the main page. Also, I'll be taking recent Good Articles and, eventually, Featured Articles, and using them for the selected article on the page. Maybe even using Featured Pictures for the selected picture, who knows?

I am thinking it could probably be updated once a month. I'm willing to do it myself, but if anyone else wants to help leave me a message or start discussion at Portal talk:Weather. -Runningonbrains 23:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

European windstorm article naming

Hey, call from little hyper brother here on something that seems reminiscent of TC problems. European windstorm names are unofficial, and the ones used for article locations on-wiki are those used by the Meteorology Institute at the Free University of Berlin. The RSMC duties for the European region are shared the UK Met Office and Meteo-France; neither of them names these storms. I personally have been affected by Kyrill but was not aware of this name until I found it on-wiki. Looking around on national press in various European countries and international press, this storm is referred to by that name only in Germany; elsewhere it is just described as a violent storm. As a result I think the correct location for these storms is at a descriptive title (like North American ice storm of 2007 for example) with a redirect from the German (or any other names); this is the English Wikipedia after all.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I, too, was skeptical about the name, and it's unofficial. It should be moved. bob rulz 04:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's wait until more opinions arrive, and then do this for all European windstorms, otherwise we will end up with inconsistency between articles. Please list below all the European windstorms named using the German system, and propose new names for them. Carcharoth 10:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that unlike NOAA in the US, there's no official meterological body for Europe which could give storms names, which means every nation gets to do its own thing. Per (storm), for example, was called Franz by the University of Berlin, but the name issued by the Norwegian institutes caught on instead, because the storm largely involved Norway. The German names mainly do see usage in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, unless it's a real big event - if you have a look at the References section in the article Kyrill (storm), you'll see that at least the Czech and Polish have picked up the name now, making it a de facto name for the storm now. By the way, speaking of NOAA, how "official" are their names to begin with? Are they used in Mexico, the Caribbean et al. in an official context? Otherwise, the argument of moving the storm because it is "not an official name" (because the Beeb refuses to use it) is a bit like asking to move Hurricane Katrina to 5th Hurricane of the 2005 Atlantic Hurricane Season, imo. :) --doco (☏) 14:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones are named off a WMO-approved list. Not so here in this case, though. – Chacor 14:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

All tropical cyclone names are internationally chosen and approved. (This means, for instance, that the North Atlantic basin list uses English, French and Spanish names - not sure if Dutch names are used or not). So they are 100% official, no artificial ingredients. - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 14:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The German met list of names are at the national-level as they are used by the German met agency. This is functionally equivalent to PAGASA naming of tropical cyclones; the difference is the RSMC (which would be the UKMO for this storm) does not name. Per (storm) is an example of another agency using its own list, as its fully entitled to do...--Nilfanion (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As an aside the Germans name every last frontal system, we really should take these names with a pinch of salt IMO. As there is no official name, and the German system is not used commonly in the English-speaking world, the English Wikipedia should use descriptive names for storms like Kyrill. Hurricane Katrina is invariably referred to as "Hurricane Katrina" (or its translation), Kyrill is not referred to as such in the vast majority of English-language sources.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I was of the opinion that storms which had their primary effects in Germany should be at their German name (though there are serious MOS issues with just name (storm)). However, Coredesat found this after a bit of search. I am strongly opposed to using a storm name for an article which was selected by the highest bidder on eBay, or bought for a predetermined price.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference between picking from a predetermined list or picking from a list of names the public has participated in? Don't be so prejudiced just because they sell some of the names on ebay (which is nothing more than a fundraiser for the university's weather station), that doesn't make their naming choice any less valid. --doco (☏) 00:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree there isn't all that much difference. However, I feel these names are fundamentally unusable on the English Wikipedia anyway due to their lack of use in the English part of the world, something like that is enough to make me want to avoid using the "name" as the article title.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's simple enough to have Windstorm Burkhardt (or whatever) redirect to the more usual English descriptive name. Raymond Arritt 00:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep exactly, I have no problem with the redirects , I just feel the article location should not be using these names in general.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Redirects for the names would be a great solution. The problem is what the article name would be. Rather than doing it exactly by date, could you just do Month Year, Location windstorm format? The location then could be the area of greatest impact. I dunno, little brother has a similar problem with old storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately a by-month breakdown is insufficient. See below, both Per and Kyrill are in Jan 2007 - and its hard to give a more descriptive name for Kyrill given its wide ranging impact.--Nilfanion (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, FWIW, Per doesn't look like enough for an article, but it could become part of 2006-07 Europe windstorms or something like that. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That may or may not be true (looking at the swedish wiki article on Per I'm not sure), but it is irrelevant ultimately to this problem - if the storm has an article or not isn't relevant to the storm's existence and Jan 2007 on its own would be ambiguous.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'date-location-event' naming system is quite common when there is no settled alternative, but don't forget that if a name does become widespread in common usage, the article would have to move there. But that often doesn't become clear for months, if not years. It helps if secondary literature on the event starts to appear. Then we can see what the event is being called. Often the name "Great" is used to name these things. For example: Great Chilean Earthquake, Great Lisbon Earthquake, Great Storm of 1987, Great Storm of 1703. In fact, using Special:Prefixindex, you can get a list of all articles starting with the word 'Great': [1]. Possibly, Great Storm of 2007 might catch on. We will have to wait and see. That list of 'Greats' was interesting. Here are some more: Great Atlanta fire of 1917; Great Alaska Earthquake; Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944; Great Baltimore Fire; Great Blizzard of 1888; Great Blizzard of 1899; Great Blizzard of 1978; Great Boston Fire of 1872; Great Bosnian uprising; Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635; Great Comet of 1882; Great Fire of 1901; Great Flood of 1844. Carcharoth 08:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I expect a common use name for Kyrill to develop in the UK (it is the most significant since the Burns' Day storm). However, that sort of things usually takes some time, if and when it happens noone is seriously going to complain about that pagemove.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really solve the problem, but what about having the recent Europe storm as being January 2007 Europe windstorm? This is clearly the storm of the month, with plenty of news coverage. Per wasn't as widespread or as damaging. It wouldn't get the main article for the month, but it could get a dab, as well as any other windstorms during the month. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

List

It was requested above by Carcaroth that a list of names of these articles with possible replacements should be listed, so here goes (obviously the stylistic order of the name and date is not an issue, but the content is what matters):

1. Anatol to December 3 1999 Denmark windstorm
2. Lothar (storm) to December 26 1999 Central European windstorm
3. Erwin (storm) to January 8 2005 Scandinavian windstorm
4. Per (storm) to January 14 2007 Scandinavian windstorm
5. Kyrill (storm) to January 18 2007 European windstorm

(the name would have to be January 18 - January 19 2007 European windstorm because Western European countries were most affected on January 18, Eastern European countries on January 19, or January 15 2007 - current European windstorm after the whole existence of the storm --88.76.207.132 12:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC))

Using January 18-19 might work actually.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

These all aren't perfect names (and assume no common-use name for Kyrill in the UK develops, which I would expect to be honest); the full date is needed due to the sheer number of frontal storms :(--Nilfanion (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. The full dates are necessary, but the new names get around the "unofficiality" of the German/Norwegian names. --Coredesat 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Support! Oghmoir 12:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone would be able to differentiate between December 3 1999 Denmark windstorm and December 26 1999 Central European windstorm or January 18 2007 European windstorm and January 14 2007 Scandinavian windstorm. The problem is that storms in North Europe are often part of a sturm serial. Everybody would refer Denmark windstorm to a local event, that does not affect Sweden and Germany. What is the difference between Scandinavian windstorm and Denmark windstorm? There is even evidence that the names are part of international english terminology. [2] A lemma referencing to a complete date is at least just over complicated. Geo-Loge 14:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Its complex yes but absolutely necessary (due to the number of storms) if this methodology is used. The biggest problem with names for these storms is best illustrated with Erwin (storm). The DWD called this storm Erwin, the NMI called it Gudrun. Is either of these names in any sense "more valid"? No, to pick one or the other is POV ultimately, so we should use a NPOV alternative, which means descriptive names like above. Interestingly, de.wiki uses the Norwegian name there...--Nilfanion (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, Wikipedia has a NPOV method in place for dealing with naming conflicts of this kind. It's called a "redirect." Check out Gudrun (storm). Conflicts arise sometimes as to which name should be used for the article and which one for the redirect, but those are worked out through consensus. --Tkynerd 15:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No need for the sarcasm. I know what redirects are... However the point here is that we are selecting the German name for a European-wide event by using these names, that is POV. Furthermore, the most commonly used "name" for all these storms in English is the null-name (ie unnamed).--Nilfanion (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

That's even better! If a storm only has one name, than certainly that name should be used. --88.76.207.132 15:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there is no other name for Kyrill. If there were an English name, the right choice would be to use it; however, there isn't one. Ultimately the article should be given the name by which the storm is best known in the English-speaking world, but I don't think we know yet what that is. You seem to be determined to reject the German name at all costs (given the lack of an English alternative), which is also POV. --Tkynerd 15:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My issue is that the UK usage is the null-name, which is different from no name. That is not the same as not giving the event a name. Kyrill is referred to in the UK at the moment as "the storms of a couple days ago", that is a descriptive name.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me you're not proposing The storms of a couple days ago as the article name. :-) Actually you're making my point, which is that right now, we don't know what it will be referred to in the English-speaking world in the future; consequently, a renaming is premature. --Tkynerd 15:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No im suggesting we put it at The weather in London ;) I agree at some point in the future a common-use English name will likely develop, and for Kyrill it is a holding location. However, that process will take a considerable time (years) in my opinion. What I'm saying is that a descriptive name for the article is superior to Kryill (storm). Both are implausible search terms as the average UK-based reader will not have heard of Kyrill and a descriptive name has inherent flaws in that regard. However, it is clear what a descriptive title refers to, but Kyrill (storm) is unclear if you haven't heard of the name (that is my personal problem with the German name, it is obscure in the UK). Having the article at a reasonably transparent location is probably superior.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(restarting indenting) -- :-P HAHA! (on The weather in London) Seriously, though, I want to remind you again that the UK reader is not the standard here; all English-speaking Wikipedia readers are the standard. I don't think it's clear that Kyrill is unknown to them or that a generic name would make the article easier for them to find. The principle applies to the other articles in this category as well. --Tkynerd 15:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Simple solution: If a storm has several well known names, the one of the most affected country is chosen and other names redirect to it. So Erwin should be called Gudrun. You don't call the article Color Visual perceptual property corresponding in humans to the categories called red, yellow, white, etc. or so because calling it Color or Colour would both be POV. --88.76.207.132 15:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Yes, Wikipedia has a policy in place for dealing with that particular type of naming conflict, but the point still holds. --Tkynerd 15:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Obviously the German names for storms in Central Europe are used by scientists all over the world, even in the USA and U.K. Because of that I am against renaming the articles. If common people and scientists use these names, they should be used in Wikipedia too. Even if they are not "WMO official". --88.76.207.132 14:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about this. While I applaud NPOV names, if they are long and complex, it kind of defeats the purpose of giving a storm a short, simple name in the first place. I suggest using the most commonly used name, and having everything else redirect to that, and mentioning the various names prominently in the first few sentences. At the moment, I don't support the above renaming. Carcharoth 15:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is: Why are many cyclones (not storms!) named by german or norwegian authorities? Because both are responsible for shipping weather forecasts, services and warnings in the North Sea (Deutscher Wetterdienst) and in the Norwegian Sea (Norwegian Meteorological Institute). So both are the first to name this cyclones establishing an clear identification independly from impacts, characteristics and influences and so on. The British weather service seems to be able to give clear unmistakable forecasts without identification. I hardly can image that they even do not give codes or something like that to cyclones and high pressure areas.

Another question is: Why are Hurricans named in an alphabetical order and European cyclones without any system? Very easy: Every cyclone and every high pressure system is named in Europe, but there are much more than hurricans crossing the Atlantic. Geo-Loge 17:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The UKMO makes no mention of the Kyrill nomenclature in any of it's news releases [7] on it's official website. As I said on the article's talk page apart from a few brief mentions the name Kyrill is unknown in the UK as a descriptor for the January 18th storm. If that is the name which is most understood by those who would use German wikipedia then fair enough, I wouldn't want to change it there to something like January 18th 2007 storm equally for English wikipedia I don't think a title which has no meaning or relevance for the majority of users should be used. Yorkshiresky 17:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll reiterate once more that UK readers are not the majority of English Wikipedia users and are not the standard by which articles must be named. The name that would be understood by UK readers (and by the way, there is no such name) is relevant but not determinative. --Tkynerd 18:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is no such name, but a description is how the UK reader understand the term. The UK may not be the majority of en readers, but they are the most relevant ones here. The vast majority of en readers are not local to the area, and do not have a name for it either so the solution that works best for UK readers also works best for Americans, Canadians, Indians and so on. Continental European English-readers are a small proportion of the total and are the only ones of the "general public" who will understand the term.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I realise that the majority of english wikipedia users are in the USA and Canada, however as Nilf has already stated it should be a title which is most relevant to the users who will actually use this. Although this is a fairly significant event in Europe, it will be of little more than brief passing interest to most Wikipedians outside this area, but people in the areas affected will refer to it for years to come. Therefore I would argue in this case choosing a title which is relevant to English speaking users is more relevant than the wider community. As it happens outside Germany, the title of Kyrill is still largely unknown so your criticism is moot. A NPOV title should be chosen with a redirect from Kyrill (storm) .Yorkshiresky 19:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, no, that isn't how we name articles on Wikipedia. WP:Naming is what we use. We do, in fact, take into account the fact that not all of our readers are in the UK (or even native speakers of English). The other problem is that there is no good "NPOV" title. (Quotes used to reflect the fact that I find the idea that "Kyrill" is somehow a POV name more than a bit silly.) For all you know, a few months from now the name "Kyrill" (or its English equivalent, "Cyril") may take hold among English speakers as the name for this storm. There is no need to rush to perform a controversial renaming when we don't even know what the appropriate name will be in the long term. --Tkynerd 21:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I must confess, I know of no such system that has had such a name become commonplace. Putting this in a certain context for a moment, if there is/was such a name for the Great Storm of 1987 would anybody honestly suggest a change of name for that article? Crimsone 22:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(Actually, yes - i'd uncapitalise the "S". :p Crimsone 22:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Regarding the capitalisation, 'storm' in Great Storm of 1987 should be capitalised, as this is a given name. Compare Great Lisbon Earthquake (a given name, hence capitalised) with 1755 Lisbon earthquake (a constructed name following the year-location-event convention). Given names (popular use) are capitalised. Constructed names aren't. 23:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The criterion is, yet again: Under what name is the subject of the article known to English speakers? If we found that the Great Storm of 1987 was called something else by most English speakers, then we should change the name. If we find that Kyrill becomes best known in the English-speaking world under the name Great Storm of 2007, we should change the title of our article to that name. That hasn't happened yet, so there's no reason to change it. --Tkynerd 22:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing with Kyrill is it is barely known under that name in the English-speaking world, the current English common name is descriptive; so why should it be at the current title? Anyway can we talk about the others?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Great Storm almost certainly was, apparently the Burns' day storm was Vivian. Leaving aside should the page title include these names or not, a page move is absolutely necessary. For example Lothar (storm) is ambiguous, another system was called this in 2003, and its bad for stylistic reasons; European windstorm Lothar would be better. This gives some of the context missing from the existing location, ditto the other storms. One comment to make here is a page-move doesn't actually do any harm. Remember this proposal is for all these storms not just Kyrill, which would (probably) be moved for consistency, these have existed long enough for a real debate to be meaningful. I suggest we focus this debate on the first 3 storms listed above and not the last two; the former 3 will give meaningful guidance to how to locate the other two. Other storms of relevance to this include: Great Storm of 1987, Burns' Day storm, Boxing Day Storm and the others listed at European windstorm. That listing demonstrates that storms with significant impact in the British Isles get a common name in the UK, which gets mirrored onto here (I see no reason at this time to believe Kyrill will end up being any different, I suspect it to end up being the "Storm of 18th January" or similar). The storms that only had an impact in non-British locations refer to the names, with these I'd like to see a genuine effort to see how the storms are referred to today in the affected countries (and elsewhere); we need more information otherwise we will end up going around in circles :)--Nilfanion (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You're mixing together two issues: (1) Which kind of name do we use for these articles -- a descriptive phrase using the date, or an assigned name? (2) How, more precisely, should the chosen name be formatted? To take the second question first, I agree that, e.g., "Lothar (storm)" is a bad name, because we normally use that form of name for ambiguous names -- i.e., links from dab pages. As to the first question, the criterion remains the same: Under what name is the subject known in English? Note that this does not mean "in the UK." The fact that "Lothar (storm)," or the alternative "European windstorm Lothar," would be ambiguous is not necessarily a problem; our normal practice there is: if there is one article subject that is best-known, the main article is put there, and we either link to the other article from the main article, or we create a dab page if there are more than two articles. It would not appear that anyone has wished to write an article about the storm in 2003 called Lothar; if they did, they would find the existing article and either follow the procedure I've just outlined, or ask about it at the Help desk or somewhere else, where this procedure would be explained and assistance offered. It happens all the time. Finally, it is the person wishing to make a change who needs to justify the change, and you haven't done that. What harm has having the articles at their existing locations caused, for that matter? None, I'd say. I'm at a loss to understand why you are so insistent about having these articles moved. --Tkynerd 23:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The primary reasons for the moves are consistency with other similar storms (the common-named British, North American and so on) and for more precise, clearer names; at this time hardly anyone in the UK would know what Kyrill (storm) was about without reading the article (and this is unlikely to change) whereas an English-speaker in Germany would know that a descriptive titled article referred to Kyrill; and the appropriate redirects are a benefit here. I am not opposed to keeping the storms at some variant of the present locations IF evidence is given that the titles are appropriate, IMO a descriptive name is better than a name no-one has heard of!--Nilfanion (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break 1

(restart indentation) Again, since you're looking to move the articles, YOU need to provide evidence that the names (again, note that a collection of similar descriptive phrases does not constitute a name) are the ones under which these storms are known in English. You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that, e.g., "Great Storm of 1987" is a "common name," which it is not. It is the very essence of a name that it is at least minimally unambiguous (if there were more than one "Great Storm" in 1987, this name would be ambiguous) and has a reasonably consistent form. The latter condition does not apply to the storm designations you want to use for these storms; they simply are not names, and so they are actually not better than a name no one has heard of. --Tkynerd 23:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, but it's a bad example. the Great Storm of 1987 is a common name. It's even used by the Met Office. To be honest, I don't really think the kind of evidence you're looking for is what's required either. a name is merely something an article is called, which can include a descriptive phrase. While I'm being honest, I also feel that a descriptive phrase would be better. On the german encyclopedia the names should probably be used, but on this one, the most likely people to be interested are from the UK (the only english speaking nation to have been affected), and in the UK people simply don't know of such storm names, because the UK doesn't name them, nor does the UK particularly recognise such names. Crimsone 00:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My point was not really to define what a name is, but what works well as a name. (Perhaps I should have said "good name" above rather than just "name.") Descriptive phrases simply don't. They have too many possible variations, and unless someone hits exactly the right variant, they're not going to find the article anyway unless we create an absurd number of redirects (which good names don't require!). I'll also reiterate that (1) what UK readers call the storm is not determinative; Wikipedia should be accessible to all readers, and (2) it's entirely too early to make the call either way. --Tkynerd 00:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Remember though, what goes for UK readers is also true for English speakers outside of the region, who are the vast majority. People don't hit pages on more obscure topics by just typing in their guess directly as the URL they either follow links from related articles or search for it; in which case a descriptive title works fine. What is wrong with 2007 North American ice storm for instance? There are 2 scenarios here at this time:

1. The name uses Kyrill. Readers who have not heard of the term (most UK residents and non-Europeans) will not have the slightest idea what storm the article is about from the title (which they should do) and reader who are aware of the name will find it relatively easily. In either case a search for relevant terms (storm, January 2007, Kyrill, etc) will get them there.
2. The name is descriptive. In this case people who are not aware of the name Kyrill will know what the article is about (assuming they have been following the relevant news). People who have heard of Kyrill will still know the article refers to that storm. A search for relevant terms (including Kryill) will find the article; and with the redirect those who attempt to guess the name will find it.

In summary, using a descriptive name does not disadvantage either group in locating the article and for those who are not familiar with the name the title is essentially what they would expect (some variant of date-location-event).--Nilfanion (talk) 00:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's not correct. If we use the assigned name, some people will be able to find the article; if we use the descriptive phrase, nobody will be able to find it. I don't see the advantage of abandoning a name few people know about to instead use a phrase nobody in their right mind would expect to be the title of an encyclopedia article. Further, as to this: "The name uses Kyrill. Readers who have not heard of the term (most UK residents and non-Europeans) will not have the slightest idea what storm the article is about from the title (which they should do)" -- um, well, those people won't find the article under that title anyway, no? If they do, a brief perusal of the first sentence will let them know they've found the right article. It's not true that every reader should get an idea of what the article is about from the article name; here is a good example I just dealt with a few minutes ago: Planchet. If you don't already know what a planchet is, that article title ain't gonna tell you. Yet that is the appropriate title for the article because it is the name of the subject of the article. That is the primary consideration. Note that the first paragraph at the link you provided ends with an admonition to "name your articles precisely." --Tkynerd 06:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This argument has gone on far too long. If Kyrill is known by almost no one in the English-speaking world (which is true), we should not use it, and then if no one can find it under a descriptive name (which is untrue), then what do you propose naming it Tkynerd? Nobody would be able to find it under the descriptive name (under your logic Tkynerd), but nobody would be able to find it at Kyrill, either (which is logically true). At least with the descriptive name, people who don't know exactly what to search under can get some sort of idea by searching for general terms; nobody would find it under Kyrill, except for the people who know it already (which would be primarily people who speak English that are from continental Europe). I have not seen a single news source from the English-speaking world use Kyrill as the name. A descriptive name is best because it best represents what the storm is. Kyrill gives absolutely no indication to the uninformed what storm it's referring to, while people who do happen to find January 18-19 European windstorm would immediately have an idea of what it's referring to, where it happened, and when it happened when people happen upon it in the future (and people who search for it now would know immediately what it was referring to, but many of them would likely be lost by the name Kyrill until they read the article, or if they didn't already know the name, they would have no idea where to search for because the descriptive name wouldn't be there). Neither solution is perfect, but the descriptive name is far more logical. bob rulz 08:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't know what I meant, do you, about people not being able to find the article under a descriptive name? Let's say we rename Erwin (storm) to January 8 2005 Scandinavian windstorm as proposed above. A reader who looks for "8 January 2005 Scandinavian windstorm" will not find that article reliably, because the "Go" function requires an exact match, and the Wikipedia search function isn't sufficiently reliable. Furthermore, I'd like to see some evidence that these storms are better known in English by these descriptive phrases than by their names. Evidence to the contrary includes the fact that when I search on "Erwin storm 2005" and restrict the language to English, I get about 281,000 hits; searching on "8 January 2005 Scandinavian windstorm" gives me a whopping 892 hits. Other than that, the point I made above (and that Geo-Loge made again below) holds: should we change the name of every article on Wikipedia whose name is a term unknown to a general audience to a descriptive phrase? The argument is ludicrous on its face. --Tkynerd 15:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The point you are missing is that "Erwin" is not the name of that storm! It is a name for the storm, and further there is no evidence that that is the name used in English (Gudrun is more likely for a start) and there is no restriction that different languages use the same name (and a name can be a word or phrase). Take Typhoon Xangsane, this storm had its primary effects in the Philippines where it was known in Tagalog as Bagyong Milenyo, but the internationally used name is Xangsane. And remember a more restrictive google search will find less. Which of "Hurricane Katrina" and "Hurricane Katrina 2005" is going to find more websites referring to Hurricane Katrina? Quoting Googlehits in this case is a fallacy for that reason.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not missing that point. Check out Gudrun (storm). The fact that there are multiple names for an article's subject is not an argument for using descriptive phrases as article names instead. Furthermore, if you don't like Google hits as a measure, then YOU need to find some way to demonstrate what you're asserting (that, e.g., Erwin is not used in English and we should change the name of that article to a descriptive phrase). FWIW, a Google search on "Erwin storm 8 January 2005" returns about 144,000 hits; we're still at 892 for "8 January 2005 Scandinavian windstorm." --Tkynerd 16:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well do you think that a descriptive phrase can constitute a name at all? "8 January 2005 Scandinavian windstorm" and "January 8 2005 Scandinavian windstorm" are different, but they are no more different than "World War Two" and "Second World War"; they are both reflections of the same name. By the way windstorm is a highly technical term, change it to "8 January 2006 Scandinavian storm" or to "Erwin windstorm January 2005" and see what happens. In both cases a more in-depth search of the google results would be required, X Ghits doesnt mean X relevant Ghits after all :) The fact Erwin is mentioned in an article doesn't mean the website is using Erwin as the name, it may be mentioning that Erwin was assigned to the system as an aside, a look at the numbers wouldn't give a clue.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again I'll say that instead of criticizing MY methodology, YOU need to come up with your own methodology/documentation that proves the assertion YOU are making. And I think the large discrepancy in the number of hits tells its own tale; it's extremely unlikely that among 144,000 hits there are fewer than 892 relevant hits. --Tkynerd 17:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Burden-of-proof may be on the party who wants the change, but the roles could be reversed. So stating that as a reason per se to keep them were they are is fundamentally flawed. I have provided some rationales, how strong they are is debatable of course. In summary and in no particular order: (1) People are not finding the articles at the present locations, (2) this gives broader consistency within this topic, (3) the UK (Met Office or press) do not use these names and is directly impacted by this class of event, including some of these storms, (4) Americans (NOAA or press) do not use these terms either and (5) the redirects can point from the names to a descriptive one easily meaining ZERO loss and some gain, because a descriptive name is a LOT more decipherable in a Search (using Go is unlikely to hit these storms wherever they are). As I said below, a search for Kyrill using various keywords gives a redirect from a (bad) generic name as the first hit. And please defend YOUR methodology, responding to the flaws I'm highlighting instead of ignoring them. I was attempting to illustrate to you that if you use the different terms I suggest above you get hundreds of thousands for the generic name and hundreds for Erwin, these are comparable numbers to what you obtained, so the Ghit count is not of any value to determining this. The descriptive names above are suggestions, we can work on a compromise between precision and brevity. Do you have a suggestion as how to improve the descriptive names? After all the more concise they are the less of a problem they are. As far as I can tell the only significant grouping to use these names in English-speaking countries are insurance-related businesses (who like names) and not the relevant scientific community or the general public.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break 2

(restarting indentation) (1) You're guessing that people aren't finding the articles at the present location; you have not demonstrated this; (2) consistency is fine and is a virtue for many reasons, consistently using bad article names is not; (3,4) if Google hits are not reliable measures of what is being used, single links to pages on the Internet are even less so; (5) the fact that redirects can point from good names to bad ones is not a reason to use bad ones. And sorry, but the burden of proof IS on the person wanting to make a change. There are no "descriptive names"; you only have descriptive phrases that ARE NOT NAMES and cannot function as names. Since these will not improve the accessibility of the articles without an absurd number of redirects (for two reasons: unsophisticated readers always use the Go function anyway, and the search function is unreliable in itself), there is no reason to use them. Finally, as to the search terms I used, you'll note that I used the present and proposed article names to judge how the terminology is being used; rigging the search to prove a point by using other terms is either incompetent or dishonest. --Tkynerd 19:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Search the websites I linked to if you want, you won't find much; they represent a fair cross-section of the community I am referring to - the UK/US press and met science communites and I'd ask you to rephrase your response to (2) as it is getting close to an ad hominem attack. And observe The Storm of 2007, that was created when one of these articles was linked from the main page! And I was stating a google search can get whatever results you want, my inclination for the location of the article on Erwin if kept at some variant of its current name is "European windstorm Erwin".--Nilfanion (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Rather than restricting myself to those Web sites, I searched Google again -- this time, for "Erwin storm" in English with the quotes (44 hits) and for "Scandinavian windstorm 8 January 2005" in English with the quotes (0 hits). If a phrase is going to be used (despite the stupidity of doing so) to name an article, it could at least be a phrase that is actually in use. A similar search on "European windstorm Erwin" in English with the quotes returns 116 hits, so I guess that is actually the best variant. (I agreed with you already on stylistic grounds about this anyway.) The Storm of 2007 is, on its face, a ridiculous and POV term for Kyrill; I'm frankly surprised you would use it as an example of any kind, for any purpose. --Tkynerd 20:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Why you are continuing to use Google as the only measure is unclear to me, Google hits on their own are not reliable for anything on their own and can prove anything, AfD regulars know this. You should use GHits in conjunction with other things. I managed to generate comparable results with similarly plausible terms for the converse result after all. Remember "Erwin storm" picks up wikipedia mirrors, and "Scandinavian windstorm 8 January 2005" is not grammatically good, its no wonder it doesn't appear - and its not what I propose either. I agree The Storm of 2007 is obviously flawed, but you have to ask why it was created, I don't think it was created in bad faith. My suggestions at the start of this topic are just that, do you have any thoughts about what the best possible descriptive phrase IS?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So let us go around and change every name of objects that are unknown to the reader. No one knows Neryungri => better name it Sibirian town at 56°40′24″N 124°42′51″E or Mitral regurgitation? Let us take Leaky mitral heart valve so that every reader has an image created by the lemma. Why have I taken the last term? The answer is terminology! All the names of cyclones that are unknown to the readers in the UK are accepted by meteorological scientist all over Europe (as shown above). Wikipedia is going to make a fool of itself giving strange blurred names while scientist of meteorology, insurance economics and so on are going to use the term Kyrill given by the german authorities. Geo-Loge 10:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(Although I neither knew the town in Sibiria nor the medical term nor I am a native English speaker, I found the right terms! What an unexplainable sensation! Geo-Loge 10:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

All the names of cyclones that are unknown to the readers in the UK are accepted by meteorological scientist all over Europe (as shown above). Maybe, except in the UK which is the most relevant for English speaking users of Wikipedia. I'm a professional meteorologist and none of my work colleagues use the term to describe this event, if we don't use it what chance will a layperson use it? As for Tyknerds problem using a descriptive name, as there's no way that someone will be able to find it, there's no reason that there could be a number of names with redirects to the main article.Yorkshiresky 10:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well there are even scientists in the United States (I thought them to be native English speaker too?) using this terms. Seems to be a conflict of aims: en.Wikipedia as global scientific reference and en.wikipedia as substitution of mass media (that are not able to give clearer names than "Killer storm"). And I do not understand why british meteorologist are dogmatically rejecting these names in contrast to their international colleagues (may be the loss of competence in shipping weather service?). Authentic language must be very tensed and involuntarily comical on international congresses of meteorology. Geo-Loge 11:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Giving the article a title such as January 18th 2007 Storm or European Storm January 2007 is hardly pandering to hysterical mass media terms such as killer storm, which no-one other than you has suggested. If Kyrill was widely used as a naming term outside continental Europe then I'd be very happy to use it, as it is it is more or less unknown to people who'd use en:wiki. This isn't about a dogmatic UK vs Germany rivalry, it is about clarity of use and at the moment it fails miserably. Yorkshiresky 12:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Killer storm was not meant to be a suggestion. But if we refer the behavior of mass media and mass information we have to consider that mass media do not have to search for sustainable names.

So again the problems of your suggestion:

• European Storm January 2007 is a suggestion to be quickly wasted due to there are two storms impacting in Europe with almost equal power in January 2007
• January 18th 2007 Storm is an enormously unclear suggestion due to anybody knows what the January 18th refers to (date of storm forming? date of extratropical cyclone forming? date of most damages? date of impact somewhere (Where?)?)

Both names are not able to adress knowledge under basic theorems of working information systems: The names are ambiguous, unclear and not even more known than the current names (which are at least non-ambiguous, clear and known to more readers). The only understandable argument is that the names are unknown to readers in the UK. Due to that we have to choose a name that is unknown to everybody? Geo-Loge 13:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Try using the search function for "storm 2007 europe january". That is an altogether plausible selection of keywords. Note that a redirect for Kyrill is the first entry - that was created as a mistaken fork, Kyrill is #19 - that is not easy to find. Let me state this in clear terms. "Kyrill" is unknown in the UK. However, Kyrill is effectively unknown in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India and so on yet these nations carried plenty of reports about the storms in Europe. The German Wikipedia can use German practice, this is the English Wikipedia and should reflect English practice. Kyrill is not the English name of this storm (as reflected by UK, US etc media). A pagemove would not hinder those looking for "Kyrill" (the redirect), but it would be of significant benefit for those looking for the storm who DON'T know it!--Nilfanion (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Kyrill is easy to find: Check winter storms of 2006-07 and you will find the entry or take the first redirect of your search. Please believe that people are able to find entries without to know the correct terminology. Kyrill is probably going to be part of terminology as like as all the (german/norwegian) terms in the past.

But if you are so confident? Please change the names.. I will get me some crisps and we are going to have fun with dozens of readers asking for the background and/or sense of January 18th 2007 Storm. Geo-Loge 13:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at Vivian (storm)?--Nilfanion (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay: "Burns' Day storm" is non-ambiguous, clear and better known than "Vivian" which is also non-ambiguous and clear. There is no reason not to take Burns' Day storm. So present an similar alternative to Kyrill. Why not start a naming competition in the en.wikipedia like zoos do when cute animal were born. Geo-Loge 13:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Some variant (precise ordering never matters with a constructed name, redirects are cheap) of "January 18th 2007 Storm" is exactly the same as Burns' Day storm at this time; there is no conceptual difference between the two. Imagine this as the lead sentence: "The January 18th 2007 Storm, named Kyrill by the DWD, was a severe European windstorm that affected a large portion of Northern Europe."; that is no different from the Burns' Day storm (which incidentally should mention Vivian prominently).--Nilfanion (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

How is Burns Day Storm non-ambiguous, using your logic from above it is an enormously unclear suggestion due to anybody knows what... ....refers to (date of storm forming? date of extratropical cyclone forming? date of most damages? date of impact somewhere (Where?)?

Why not start a naming competition in the en.wikipedia like zoos do when cute animal were born., such as the German Met service do in naming cyclones ;-) ? There's no reason that the event should be known by the same name on the different language versions of wikipedia, in real life they certainly aren't. As the obscurity of the name Kyrill shows for the bulk of english users of wikipedia. Yorkshiresky 14:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Due to the discussion more and more becomes bizarre: Please change it to January 18th 2007 Storm.. terminology will use Kyrill in future and the wikipedia-creation January 18th 2007 Storm will be rechanged in a couple of months when first reports, analysis and so on were published. The other names are part of terminology yet and should not be changed if there is no "real" common name in the anglosphere (like Burns' Day storm). But my advice is still that wikipedia fools itself by such blurred naming using unclear dates. Geo-Loge 14:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Burns Day Storm encodes where and when the storm impacted. A pure date does not. It could be everything. Geo-Loge 14:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

As one aside to all this I'd like to mention the existence of Europe's January Storms and The Storm of 2007. Both of these articles were created in good faith about Kyrill, after that article was created. The second of these was created with Kyrill linked prominently from the main page. That is clear evidence people are not expecting to find the article where it is...--Nilfanion (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break 3

"Aw fer cryin' out loud!"

I suggest a simple litmus test to settle this can of worms:

• Is the "proper noun" storm name (Kyrill) a World Meteorological Organization-approved designation?

Answer = no = "Kyrill" is a local name to be used as only as a redirect page to the page actually located at different name.

- Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 00:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The above reminds me of the arguments over that hurricane that occurred in both 2005 and 2006. Aren't we lucky this storm didn't run from December 31 to January 1... Seriously, dates in articles are clunky. I would agree with 2007 European windstorms as a suitable overview article to cover all the European windstorms, with breakout articles under the German names. Carcharoth 00:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Even better, someone write to the WMO and ask them what they call the storm. Seriously. Carcharoth 00:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jeez, I leave town for a few days and people write a book without me! I don't really have time to read all of this discussion, but the proposal to write the WMO sounds like a good one. In the mean time, leave them as they are (?) and put a note in the lead paragraph that these are not official names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Runningonbrains (talk • contribs) 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Wow, that bot's fast. -Runningonbrains 21:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking just yesterday that this (Carcharoth's suggestion) would be the best way to handle this. That gets my vote. --Tkynerd 00:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The flaw with Carcharoth's suggestion is that there have only been two windstorms of any significance in 2007. Having three articles to describe two events is frankly a bit silly. On the other hand, having 2007 European windstorms as a article with scope covering both Per and Kyrill is reasonable (and also has precedent, see 2007 North American ice storm), but that is only really viable if Per (storm) and Kyrill (storm) redirect to it and are not standalone articles. This is a sound idea IMO, and also would work regarding Lothar (that storm is typically referred to in conjunction with the later Martin). However, a merge of the two articles may not be appropriate (though I approve).--Nilfanion (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

IMO Kyrill is significant enough to deserve its own detailed article. Having that much detail in 2007 European windstorms would make it overly long. It's also possible that there will be more European windstorms in 2007. I think Carcharoth's idea is a very sensible one and should be implemented. It addresses your accessibility concerns in a manner that makes the resulting material more likely to be found by readers. --Tkynerd 13:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Windstorms are not common events, its unlikely (though by no means impossible) that there will be any more this winter. Winter storms of 2006-07 is the appropriate central article to cover the type of event anyway: 2007 European windstorms has no purpose if the two storms have independent articles; either the storms have their own articles and this farce continues or they don't and are at a combined article. Carcharoth's idea is nice, but is just a waste of time unless we drop seperate articles for the two storms. An alternative could be to have Kyrill at January 2007 European windstorm (which is a reasonable article name) and have a dab to mention the existence of the other storm(s).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! Problem solved: Per (storm) and Kyrill (storm) stay where they are (except for possible renaming to European windstorm Per and European windstorm Kyrill); anyone looking for them with other search terms will find them at winter storms of 2006-07. We're done. --Tkynerd 17:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope thats sarcasm. That fixes nothing, the problem is the status quo!--Nilfanion (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sarcasm at all. You see the status quo as a problem; I don't. The existence of Winter storms of 2006-07 significantly undermines your (always weak) argument that having the storm located at Kyrill (storm) makes it difficult to find. --Tkynerd 18:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you read to the start of the thread, and read up on the subject and not just the Manual of Style, to see WHY the current locations are a problem to me. Ease-of-access is a concern, and seems to be your only concern; but there is more to this than that. I started initiated this discussion fully aware of the existence of the Winter storms article. Remember wherever the article is located it is no harder to find than where it is currently situated (Go works with redirects), there are intrinsic problems with the current location you do not seem to have recognised.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am well aware of the problems you say exist with the current locations. I simply do not think they are a problem on the scale you think they are, and I think your proposed solution is undesirable. I have, in fact, read all of this thread already. Your previous edit summary also constitutes a borderline personal attack, BTW. --Tkynerd 20:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How is asking you to read up on the subject not just the policy an attack? Anyway, here is a real example of the problem this article being located at Kyrill (storm) causes. How you would phrase the lead sentence so that it is: In keeping with the MoS, reflects that Kyrill is not either the official name or how it is referred to in English-speaking countries, but a German-assigned name commonly used in German, and is grammatically correct?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tkynerd is right: All your killer phrases (better read the thread) questioning other arguments are not able to solve this problem here! By the way, your argumentation is weak and wrong proved: Kyrill is commonly in use in many other languages and names (given by germans) of former phenomenons are commonly in use in terminology, esspecially English terminology of meteorology, and in other languages too. Just the fact that germans are naming this events even does not imply that the names are German! Of course the names are not official (while there is any official name). I am astonished by your bureaucracy: Man muss ja nicht päpstlicher sein, als der Papst. Geo-Loge 22:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break 4

Unless absolutely necessary (i.e. it cannot be disambiguated any other way), I hate putting dates in the article name. I think it should stay as is. CrazyC83 23:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Cloud 9

The cloud classification pages seem fairly confusing, and make no mention of what "The Cloudspotter's guide" calls the undisputed authority on cloud classification. Furthermore, I didn't find anywhere that explained the name Cloud 9, except for the following quote from that book:

Published in three languages, the book was called 'The International Cloud Atlas' and contained numerous photographs to illustrate the ten cloud genera agreed upon by the Royal Meteorological Society Cloud committee. Number nine in the list was Cumulonimbus, the tallest of the types. To be on cloud nine is therefore to be on the highest one. Since 1896, there have been seven further English-language editions of 'The International Cloud Atlas', the most recent being in 1975. Now published by the World Meteorological Organisation, it is the undisputed authority on cloud classification, and a book that any serious cloudspotter should own. Sadly, the order of the genera was rearranged in the second edition and Cumulonimbus relegated to number ten.

I hope this can be incorporated, since the cloud classification used in articles like Cloud seem completely different to this one, and the article Cumulonimbus makes no mention of being Cloud 9. 131.111.8.99 18:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Does anyone know how to cite an email by an NWS representative? I recently inquired about the last tornado to be rated on the old Fujita scale, and got information via email, and would like to use the info in the article. -Runningonbrains 04:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll need to ask the admin about that. CrazyC83 23:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Station model

I don't know if this has been previously discussed, but should there be a separate article for Station model? Right now, the closest thing that I can find to it is Surface weather analysis. --Havocrazy 04:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No page for weather records?

It surprises me that this page doesnt exist yet...its a very broad topic and very informative and encyclopaedic. I will probably start on it in the next few days if anyone wants to contribute, it seems to me that it would take a lot of work to make such an article comprehensive. -RunningOnBrains 08:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That would definitely be something to work on, even though it is a very broad topic. CrazyC83 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Article requests

I created a page for article requests after seeing a few important events without articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

1999 Vietnamese floods

I created this stub as it was clearly sorely needed (as part of my work on the 1999 Typhoon season). Unfortunately this project currently has a very strong US-bias (much worse than the Atlantic bias of WPTC); this article is an example of that. If someone wants to make this one good, there are half-decent links in the stub, but remember bad weather happens globally ;)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for your efforts. Thegreatdr 22:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In fairness to us, international sources are a good deal better for tropical cyclones than other weather events, especially for past storms. However I know I personally have been slacking on the international front, I'll try to keep it more in mind. -RunningOnBrains 22:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone for some tracks?

A typical winter storm

I decided to have a go at using tropical cyclone track generator to plot the information archived by the HPC on winter storms. I picked this (Feb 10-11 2005) system at random to test the capability. There is a number of limitations to this, not least the HPC isn't actually providing proper lat/long information anymore... However, if you can point me in the direction of storms you might want these tracks for (post the info to User:Nilfanion/Tracks), I should be able to make it for you. Note multiple lows can be handled at once by the package; as long as each individual one can be tracked.--Nilfanion (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, through 1995 the magazine Mariner's Weather Log provided storm tracks for most extratropical cyclones. Daily Weather Maps could also be used for at least once daily positions. Thegreatdr 15:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but they are unpredictable; sometimes they can be more than one system or not a system at all (like the record dumps in New York state earlier this month). CrazyC83 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course its not perfect, these things are more complex than TCs. However it is possible to produce a track map for multiple distinct systems; which would work with the many-systems-in-one-storm scenario (Remember multiple-TC tracks are easy). The important thing is that the data is provided in an unambiguous way; I cannot make it up. If there is a non-TC event that a track would make sense for and you have data for it - please give me a link to the data and I will be able to produce a track. I'm not proposing we make tracks for every storm, just for the ones that we can find tracking data for. If a track is possible, why not have it?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently missing topics

I have a list of missing topics related to meteorology. I've tried to find all equivalent articles but I'd appreciate if anyone of you could have a look at it. Thank you - Skysmith 11:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

NOAA References!

Apparently we have some nice material here. I was visiting the NCDC page on Tornado Climatology, and found that they linked to many of our articles. Just so you all know that what we're doing here is being noticed. -RunningOnBrains 09:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

There are many things to be done at the collaboration page. A few articles are up for GA/FA, and there are several top-class articles we are trying to improve to a tolerable standard. Happy editing all! -RunningOnBrains 20:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Tornado FAC

Just to letch y'all know, I put Tornado up for FAC. Stop by and give some feedback.

On a related note, there could be an epic tornado outbreak in the Southern United States starting tonight. Might want to keep an eye on the storm, as the Blizzard/Outbreak combo will likely make a good article.