Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

2024–25 WikiProject Weather Good Article Reassessment

I would like to announce that a new task force has been created to re-examine the status of every GA in the project. Many good articles have not been reviewed in quite a while (15+ years for some) and notability requirements have changed quite a bit over the years. The goal of this task force is to save as many articles as possible. Anyone not reviewing an article may jump in to help get it up to par if it does not meet the GA requirements. The process will start officially on February 1 and will continue until every article has been checked and either kept or delisted. The task force may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/2024–25 Good Article Reassessment. Noah, AA^Talk 15:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Articles under review

• 1949 Texas hurricane (review)
• Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado (GAR)
• Wind shear (GAR)

Requested move at Talk:Jasper wildfire#Requested move 6 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jasper wildfire#Requested move 6 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2024 Wayanad landslides

2024 Wayanad landslides has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

A few Chicago-area drafts

I'm working on 3 draft articles centering on the Chicago metropolitan area right now, so feel free to help out. The drafts are:

• Draft:2021 Naperville–Woodridge tornado – EF3 tornado in Naperville on June 20, 2021
• Draft:1976 Lemont tornado – F4 tornado that struck Lemont, Illinois and the Argonne National Laboratory on June 13, 1976
• Draft:June 2022 Chicago supercell – Record-breaking discrete supercell in the Chicago area on June 13, 2022.

Oddly enough, these all happened in June of their respective years. I'm certain that the Naperville–Woodridge tornado is notable enough to make it to mainspace, having attained WP:LASTING coverage with local news stories painting it as a big story still. The other two might go into joint articles for Draft:2022 Great Lakes derecho and Draft:Tornado outbreak of June 13, 1976, as they weren't the only events of those days, but I'll still work on them as Wikipedia has a bit of a drought of coverage for individual tornadoes that weren't F5s, and as practice for future weather articles. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The Naperville seems to have been part of a broader outbreak that extended into Canada, with 16 events overall. How would you feel about a bigger article, like June 2021 Great Lakes tornado outbreak? Even the NWS treats it as part of the outbreak. I'm not sure what the notability criteria is for a single tornado, but I'm not sure the Naperville one qualifies. If it's mostly for its significance in terms of Chicago tornado climatology, may I point you to the recently-created List of Illinois tornadoes. Some Chicago-specific climatology could be useful there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

My reply to that is that the Quebec tornado might warrant its own article, as EF2+ tornadoes seem to be quite rare in Quebec. However, aside from that EF2 and the EF3 in Naperville, the rest were weak (EF0/EF1) and likely don't warrant an overall outbreak article. The Naperville-Woodridge tornado is also still receiving news coverage as recently as 2 months ago, so it isn't completely forgettable like even the QLCS tornado mania during the July 14–15 outbreaks across Northern Illinois. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

For sure, I'm just thinking it might be easier to flesh out the article if it covered a few tornadoes, including another notable one part of the same system. Although if there is enough aftermath (which there could be since it's still in the news) then that further establishes the case for notability for the individual tornado. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Fahrenheit degree vs Fahrenheit scale - Wikidata

Not sure if this project is appropriate for handling this. If not, please forward to the right place or people.

On Wikidata, there is a distinction between degree Fahrenheit (Q42289) and Fahrenheit scale (Q105525247). Unfortunately, Wikipedia pages are all assigned to the former, regardless of what they describe. Usually they are both about the scale and about the degree. This needs cleanup. I see two ways of handling this:

Option 1: sort by subject

Every article needs to be assigned either to degree Fahrenheit (Q42289) or Fahrenheit scale (Q105525247) based on the name or main topic. If the same article also describes the other item, the other item should be assigned an appropriate redirect to the article. (For example, Fahrenheit scale (Q105525247) should be assigned the Fahrenheit scale redirect.)

Option 2: create a new item for lumping everything together

Create a Wikidata item like "Fahrenheit scale and degree" and move all Wikipedia articles there. (Unless an article talks only about one of the concepts.) Redirects should still be assigned to degree Fahrenheit (Q42289) and Fahrenheit scale (Q105525247), like described in option 1 above. --Tengwar (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

CoCoRaHS as a source for precipitation records

Hi all, I'm wondering whether CoCoRaHS records would be acceptable as a source for precipitation records. For example, the precipitation total for Hurricane Hone at Template:Wettest tropical cyclones in Hawaii could be increased to 34.37" at Volcano, Hawaii based on CoCoRaHS data, but I'm unsure if CoCoRaHS is considered reliable enough. Thanks! Jokullmusic 22:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

My view is that anyone can contribute to CoCoRaHS data, simply due to the nature of the program. I see it as generally unreliable in of itself, being a self-published primary source. However, I don't see why rainfall amounts from CoCoRaHS confirmed by the NWS or other relevant bodies couldn't be cited as fair secondary sources. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

My personal view is that taking data directly from CoCoRaHS is a no no since it would be us directly analysing it. If WFO Honolulu includes it in their post storm report or the WPC (@Thegreatdr:) includes it then we can include it.Jason Rees (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this take. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 14:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense, thanks! Jokullmusic 03:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2013 Washington, Illinois tornado#Requested move 20 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2013 Washington, Illinois tornado#Requested move 20 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Question about MOS in tornado / weather event ledes

I notice there are two distinct styles of introducing a tornado or other weather event in their lede. I'll illustrate it here with a hypothetical EF5 tornado in New Ulm, Minnesota before sunset on June 14, 2025 (please note this is purely for illustration purposes and is by no means a prediction).

(Style 1) The 2025 New Ulm tornado was a catastrophic and violent tornado affecting the cities of Springfield and New Ulm, Minnesota on June 14, 2025 . . .

(Style 2) On the evening of June 14, 2025, a catastrophic and violent EF5 tornado affected the cities of Springfield and New Ulm, Minnesota. It was the . . .

Which of these styles is preferred, and is there any desire to standardize all short-scale weather articles into that style? GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The second option is more elegant. But I'll point to MOS:AVOIDBOLD, which I think is useful here and even uses a natural disaster as an example. Underlined emphasis is mine.

"If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy.

The 2011 Mississippi River floods were a series of floods affecting the Mississippi River in April and May 2011, which were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century.

Major floods along the Mississippi River in April and May 2011 were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century."

— Penitentes (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

This is what I had figured. I only bolded it to be consistent with Option 1; most I've seen in Style 2 are indeed not bolded. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Cool. I think the second option is pretty much always better; very rarely is a weather event (other than wildfires and tropical cyclones) actually given a moniker that is less clunky than just describing the event as in the example above. — Penitentes (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• The second option is what I always strive for. For the most infamous tornadoes where a date is often associated with it (1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado / 2013 Moore tornado or like the 2011 Joplin tornado), the bolding as in style one may be more appropriate in my opinion, since most news articles will specifically note the year with the tornado. But, if you look at the more recent tornadoes with articles (2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado, 2021 Western Kentucky tornado), they use the 2nd style since most news articles don’t say “2023 Rolling Fork tornado”. Most news article, when referencing the Moore tornado, for example, have to say the year. That is my take on the 2 styles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to also bring up tornadoes or weather events where the locations are not named in the title, for instance, if the 2021 Naperville - Woodridge tornado was titled the "Father's Day" tornado (which it could have been called, but currently doesn't have a widely used name in media coverage).

Some examples below.

(Style 1) The 2021 Father's Day tornado was an intense EF3 tornado affecting the communities of Naperville and Woodridge, Illinois. It was the . . .

(Style 2) On the evening of June 20, 2021, an intense EF3 tornado, often titled the Father's Day tornado, affected the communities of . . .

I'd like to get the community's input on this example as well. Most newer tornadoes are named after where they hit nowadays, even something like the 2020 Nashville tornado that struck on Super Tuesday 2020. However, a lot of older tornadoes and a few outbreaks aren't, such as the 1925 Tri-State tornado and any and all super outbreaks. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC) GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

List of tornadoes striking airports

Would this topic be notable enough for its own article? I'd start a draft but I'd like to know beforehand if it has a fighting chance of making it to mainspace. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Certain places, you'd almost expect the airports to be struck, like in the midwest or Florida. It seems rather niche to focus only on airports, unless the airport was used as climatology for a certain area (due to their longtime weather records). There are lists of tornadoes in various states, like List of California tornadoes or List of Illinois tornadoes, so you would definitely have a chance of a successful article if you did a list for a state that doesn't yet have one. Here is the list of requested lists for certain areas, including in the US, and other parts around the world. I think any of those would be more useful than a tornado that happened to cross an airport. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I personally think that, while niche, it wouldn't be too hard to fill out since 2020 at least. Just this year, I can name off the EF2 in Rome, New York, the EF0 in Rosemont, Illinois, and the EF3 in Omaha, Nebraska, all of which hit airports. For reference, this would be filled out about as fast as List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of large cities, counting regional, municipal, and international airports. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

That's the thing, the list would have to accomplish two things. First, you have to show that there is established literature on the subject, that is, tornadoes striking airports. Is there anything that unusual or important about that specific factor? You could also do tornadoes hitting sports stadiums, or college campuses, but unless there is a decent bit of information on that that topic specifically, I don't think it's worth making such a list. I honestly don't think it could survive AFD. I'm not even sure if List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of large cities could survive AFD (indeed, there was an AFD back in 2017 that was 2 votes for deletion to 3 for keep), but that's for a different discussion. Is there a reason why the focus is on airports in particular? There are a lot of airports in the world, after all, not just in the United States (the three examples you gave). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand that. At this point I don't think I'll make the draft, after all.

By the way... I'm going to start a talk page at List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of large cities about changing the focus of the article. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if what I said dissuaded you from editing in any way. I hope you find a topic you want to explore and that it's a useful one too! I'll follow the discussion on the other page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

PD-NWS Violations Update #2 (Key To Read Third Section)

I am providing members of the WikiProject of Weather along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an new update (2nd update) to the discussions regarding the PD-NWS image copyright template.

On the Commons, an RFC discussion is taking place to figure out how to manage the template. No "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred, so nothing has changed. That is not a surprise as the RFC is still ongoing.

What is new?

• The entire Template:PD-NWS has been placed inside a "License Review" template, which is viewable via the link aforementioned.
• Most of the photographs which were uploaded to the Commons originally under the PD-NWS template (approximately 1,500) have been reviewed. Out of those ~1,500 images, only about 150 are requiring additional looks. Most images have been verified as free-to-use and switched to a respective, valid template.
• As of this moment, approximately 50 photos have been nominated for deletion (results pending).
• A handful of images have been deleted (either confirmed copyrighted or under the Commons precautionary principle.
• One image has been kept following a deletion request under the PD-NWS template.

How to deal with new photos?

Given all of this, you might be wondering how the heck you use weather photos while creating articles? Well, here is what you can do!

• If the photo was made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (excluding NWS), You can upload it under the PD-NOAA template via {{PD-NOAA}}.
• If the photo was made by the National Weather Service (NOT Third Party), you can upload it using the new PD-NWS-employee template via {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}}.
  • If the photo originates on the Damage Assessment Toolkit, you can upload it using the PD-DAT template via {{PD-DAT}}.
• If the photo is from a U.S. NEXRAD radar, you can upload it using the PD-NEXRAD template via via {{PD-NEXRAD}}.

What about third-party photos?

In the case of third-party photos...i.e. ones not taken by the National Weather Service themselves...there is an option which was discussed and confirmed to be valid from an English Wikipedia Administrator.

• KEY: Third party images of tornadoes & weather-related content can potentially be uploaded via Wikipedia's Non-Free Content Guidelines!
• Experiments/testing has been done already! In fact, I bet you couldn't tell the difference, but the tornado photograph used at the top of the 2011 Joplin tornado was already switched to a Non-Free File (NFF)! Check it out: File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg! That photo's description can also be used as a template for future third-party tornado photographs uploaded to Wikipedia...with their respective information replaced.
• NFFs can be uploaded to multiple articles as well!
• The absolute key aspect of NFFs is that they relate to the article and are not decoration. For example with the Joplin tornado, the photograph: (1) shows the size of the tornado, (2) shows the "wall of darkness", which was described by witnesses, (3) shows a historic, non-repeatable event of the deadliest tornado in modern U.S. history. The exact reasoning does not have to be extremely specific as Wikipedia's NFF guidelines "is one of the most generous in the world" (words of Rlandmann (not pinged), the administrator reviewing all the PD-NWS template images).
• Tornado photographs will almost certainly qualify under the NFF guidelines, especially for tornadoes with standalone articles or standalone sections.
• NFFs cannot be used when a free-photograph is available, no matter the quality, unless the section is about that specific photograph. For example, the photograph used at the top of the 2013 Moore tornado article is confirmed to be free-to-use, therefore, no NFFs of that tornado can be uploaded on Wikipedia. However, the "Dead Man Walking" photograph could almost certainly be uploaded as an NFF to the 1997 Jarrell tornado article as that photograph is the topic of a section in the article.
• NFFs currently on Wikipedia can and should be placed in this category: Category:Non-free pictures of tornadoes.

Update Closing

Hopefully all of that information kept you informed on the Commons copyright discussion process and how you can still create the best articles possible! If you have a question about something mentioned above, reply back and I will do my best to answer it! Also, ping me in the process to ensure I see it! Have a good day! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Merging vs. breaking out storm articles into/from parent articles

I reviewed 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado at FAC, and commented there that I thought it should be merged into the parent season article, Tornado outbreak sequence of April 4–7, 2022. I know I've seen some storm articles merged into their season articles -- Tropical Storm Erick (2007) used to be an FA, for example, but was merged into 2007 Pacific hurricane season in 2013. Does this project have any guidelines on when splits or merges should happen? I'm considering nominating 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado for merging but wanted to check with this project first since I suspect there must have been discussions on this sort of thing in the past. Pinging WeatherWriter, the nominator of that article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t need merged. It was broken out due to coverage vs the rest of the outbreak. That single tornado’s article is about 22,000 bytes in size while the outbreak article is 115,000 bytes. The outbreak article is for 89 tornadoes. The “small” (quotes for a reason) section in the outbreak article for that tornado is 5,700 bytes long. Roughly, if you subtrack what is duplicate/near duplicate from the two articles, you are left with about 16,000 bytes worth of content. So that is about 16,000 bytes of content that would be merged…meaning the outbreak article would be 131,000 bytes. Out of that 132,000 bytes, over 16% of the article would be about this single tornado. Note, a merge would mean over 16% of an article related to four days worth of tornadoes…with 89 total tornadoes…would be about a single tornado. That is why it was split out. I have been creating GA-worthy articles for tornadoes when they start reaching 10+% of a large outbreak’s worth of content. One tornado should not be over 16% of an article which is about 89 tornadoes. Right now, due to it being split out, it is actually 5% of the total article. The strongest tornado of the year should have additional coverage (obviously based on RS), but 5% for an article about 89 tornadoes sounds a lot better than over 16% coverage. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I am just mentioning this as how it is. If one tornado is indeed the “main” tornado that defines an outbreak, it should not be split out. But instead, the outbreak article is renamed. A good example of this is the 2020 Nashville tornado outbreak. The 2020 Nashville tornado, despite not being the strongest tornado of the outbreak, is 20% of the entire article’s length. Due to it being the tornado of the Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020, consensus formed to rename the article. A similar thing exists for the 1953 Waco tornado outbreak. So, if a merge was ever done, given that single tornado would be +16% of the entire article length, the entire article should be renamed, which consensus almost certainly would not fall behind, as other notable (and well RS-covered) tornadoes occurred that day as well. Basically, there isn’t any clear-cut guidelines on when to split vs not split, but my personal “go-to” is that 10% mark in terms of byte-length. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• As an additional P.S. note, you mentioned the merge of Tropical Storm Erick (2007) into 2007 Pacific hurricane season, when it was an FA. What’s funny is the split article on Erick was only 7,200 bytes in size, I would even support that for a merge. My typical goal is that it needs to have at least 20,000 bytes in size before I even consider a split article, and 7,200 is well short of 20k. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• A merge would be justified per WP:SIZERULE and WP:OVERLAP. The main outbreak article is nowhere near the recommended minimum prose size for a split. Noah, BSBA^Talk 21:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• WP:IAR due to above. If it is over 16% of the article’s content, then it doesn’t need to be merged. It is notable enough to stand on its own. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael was larger than this and got merged as a redundant content fork. Heck, I created that article and argued for its merger since I saw Jasper Deng's oppose rationale at the FAC was correct. I see no valid reasoning for IAR to apply here. Noah, BSBA^Talk 21:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

A common discussion in merge discussion is counting the size in bytes (which includes references and coding) versus counting the number of words (readable prose). The outbreak sequence article has around 7,500 words, including 672 words (8.96% percent of the article as is). The 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado article is only 1,273 words, which includes the lead, the synopsis for the event, aftermath, and image captions. If you add the ~600 new words by merging, then the parent article would be 8,100 words, with about 1,200 words dedicated to the EF4 tornado, or 15% of the total word count. I don't think that's unreasonable for the only EF4 of the event, so I agree that a merger is appropriate. The benchmark I think about is the 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak and the 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado, which has lengthy analysis and coverage of the single event. That doesn't seem to be the case for the Pembroke tornado. In general, I don't think individual tornadoes should get their own articles if they're part of a bigger outbreak, unless they're extraordinary on their own. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

• Well, I’m never doing FACs again. F this. Two failed FACs and now one of my only 6-ever GAs is about to be entirely overturned on stupid merging rules. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Instead of pouting, you could work on something that's important enough that won't be merged, such as the outbreak article that the article is the merger target. This isn't targeted toward you WeatherWriter (talk · contribs). You don't own the article, but at the same time, your contributions are generally appreciated. Try putting that editing energy toward something more important, which will likely mean that even more people will appreciate your edits. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m not pouting. In the last 2 months, non-Weather editors have done a 180 to weather articles. Nothing personally against Mike Christie, but at the same time, my dumb choice to do an FAC brought non-weather editors to the article. A lot of out tornado photos are going to be gone from the Commons due to non-weather editors, several long-time weather editors (myself included) are too tired/busy to make articles. Just really annoyed that we have no clear-cut guidelines and everything has changed dramatically in the last 2-3 months. Now, one of things I was proud of is being more or less deleted. Yes, I know it isn’t deleted, but I was proud of getting that article to GA status…now y’all are about to take that pride 100% away. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

That's part of the process, figuring out better guidelines so they're in line with longstanding Wikipedia policies. It wasn't a dumb choice to do an FAC either, since you felt it was a good article. I'm sorry you went through that effort and now you're finding out that your work might not be kept on Wikipedia. That does suck, and there are a lot of users who can probably relate to that feeling. At the same time, there is a right way of doing things, and sometimes that takes figuring things out, even if that includes input from meddling outside editors :P If you want to salvage as much as you can, then you can help participate in the process of making the outbreak a featured article. You're already invested in that topic. I don't think it will be that difficult, considering you've already tackled the most important part of the outbreak. Try not to be discouraged though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and proposed the merge, here; please add !votes and comments there. WeatherWriter, Hink says above that plenty of other users can sympathize with your situation, and I agree. Plenty of the articles I've created have been deleted; it's annoying, but you might think about it as a graduation process -- it's certainly part of how I learned the rules here, and it was no fun for me either to realize I'd wasted my own time on some things. I've been here a long time and I think I understand the rules but I still had a new article of mine taken to AfD not that long ago. It happens. And don't feel like your content is at risk of being destroyed; if the merge happens much of what you wrote will survive in the target article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)