Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/General meteorology task force/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FA needs some tweaking

I just stumbled across a weather event FA which wasnt even tagged: Great Lakes Storm of 1913 is a very good article, however, the meteorological explanations are a bit simplistic. Could use a good looking at. -Runningonbrains 19:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still a really good article...I think it would survive any FA review. CrazyC83 03:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I completely agree. I was just saying that we could beef up the meteorology part of the article. But maybe I'm wrong...simplistic is better I suppose. -Runningonbrains 11:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of beefing up articles...

If Extratropical cyclone makes it through FA (it seems likely at this moment), does anybody think that Anticyclone would be a good choice of article to try and escalate to FA afterwards (I'm just thinking about it being the natural counterpart of extratropical cyclones). Of course, it will generate a few new stubs such as anticyclolysis and anticyclogenesis, But I'm just wondering whether it would be best to try and improve major articles in some kind of order making sure the basics are done first, or to do it on an add-hoc basis as and when people are inclined to do so?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsone (talk • contribs)

Seems like a good idea. I'm not sure why that article wasnt at Top importance...it only seems logical, so i added it. -Runningonbrains 19:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
No problem - I've started work on Anticyclone, and have created a fully wikified stub for Anticyclogenesis (really isn't much in it at this point!), despite my hugely irritating headcold. If it looks odd, comments on what exactly I was up to can be found on the anticyclone talk page.
Might it be a good idea then to develope some manner of system or ordered list for improving existing articles, or shall we simply decide off-hand each time an article is deemed "improved"? Either way seems good to me.Crimsone 20:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for DYK

Just a general reminder, if you create a new article that isn't something completely mundane, consider nominating it for the Did You Know section on the Main Page. Right now tornadogenesis is on there. Just another way to educate people about meteorology. -Runningonbrains 19:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw that earlier on your talk page. Well done. If ever I write something that people will be interested in, I'll be sure to nominate it ;) Crimsone 20:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we couldn't do it for extratropical cyclone since it wasn't a new article. It could have been done for cyclogenesis or tropical cyclogenesis though. Doesn't it require that the article is within 5 days old? Thegreatdr 22:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that if a new article is created for a specific event (either current or historical), we should put something into DYK if it is interesting. CrazyC83 04:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

New infobox

I created a new standard infobox Template:Infobox Weather for your use. —MJCdetroit 03:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That is for city and location pages? I really like it! CrazyC83 03:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I like it. However, I do have a couple of suggestions. Is it possible to put fahrenheit and celsius in the same squares? If so, that would be great, but if not, then that's no big deal. That would be great so that it wouldn't get too cluttered after we add a line for extreme highs and lows. Also, a line for snowfall would be nice. If some of these criteria don't fit (some stations don't have official snowfall totals, for example), then they could simply be redone for that page. bob rulz 05:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
They probably could be placed in the same square but then I would have to put a °F and °C after each number or one in parenthesis (which is equally as cluttered). I thought this looked the simpliest. Other fields can also be added but I think that they will have to be as optional for the end user (i.e. #if). Any more suggestions—the suggestion box will be at Template talk:Infobox Weather. —MJCdetroit 17:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I like it as well. One suggestion though... Would it be possible to create another infobox for Northern climate cities, same as this one, but with a snowfall section below precipitation? Gopher backer 15:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
It maybe possible to add a field to this one. Any more suggestions should be given over at Template talk:Infobox Weather as this isn't really the best a place for them. —MJCdetroit 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Extratropical cyclone is now an FA!

Just thought I'd leave the message to tell everybody the good news. Crimsone 19:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to everyone that labored on extratropical cyclone. Given the extraordinary importance to meteorology as a science, it should also be a Top Importance article of the WikiProject. Evolauxia 11:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

{{Fujita small}}

Poking my nose in here... while working on reviewing Tropical Storm Bill (2003) (currently on FAC), I thought it would be a good idea to create a template similar to {{Saffir-Simpson small}} for the Fujita scale. So, I created {{Fujita small}}, with the same color scheme used in the Fujita scale article. Just thought I'd let you know... Titoxd(?!?) 19:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, but I have to object to the inclusion of wind speeds. The Fujita scale windspeeds are unproven estimates and likely inaccurate (as Fujita himself admitted). Maybe instead of windspeeds, have something like "F0:Weak damage". I'm going to peek through the code and see what I can do. -Runningonbrains 17:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so which would people like better; this one with full damage descriptions, or this one with just a brief statement of damage level? -Runningonbrains 17:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I like the brief statement of damage level. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I really like that too. Also remember that another one for the EF-Scale will be needed by February 1, 2007. The templates will be reworked in January as well with new ones for EF scale. I am currently working on the article for the current outbreak. CrazyC83 19:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To Bot, or not to Bot...

I was just sitting here thinking to myself about the process of updating project specific lists (for example, the collaboration page FA/GA candidates section (and de-listing when failed to be added to the currently working section), or the articles needing attention section I did a little work on earlier), Runningonbrains's regular count meteorology specific articles by quality (which apparently is done manually using the Mathbot numbers), trawling through the meteorology categories to tag previously untagged new articles and things of that sort.

It seems to me that it would all run a lot more smoothly and require less user effort if we had a WikiProject Meteorology specific bot (maybe we could call it "WeatherBot" or something equally catchy). With such a Bot, we would always know the current status of the project just by looking at the page - obviously it would be somewhat laborious for even a group of us to monitor each change on some 568 articles and growing to catch every merge tag that appears, and it's a little bit of a pain to come back to the project page to update it everytime you spot or make a change to an articles status.

Does anybody else think this might be a good idea? Yes? No? Crimsone 21:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. I don't know why it wasn't brought up earlier. bob rulz 22:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I personally have absolutely no expertise on the matter of creating/running bots, however, it is an excellent idea. Would this be something to monitor articles tagged with {{meteorology}} and other talk page templates for things like expand/merge/references tags? What I mean is, do we want something to populate the list found here? Because that would be amazing. -Runningonbrains 00:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, that would be the idea. One thing I have been considering though is using that page or the equivelant on the meteorology project page (or perhaps a merge of both) and transcluding it into the collaboration page. The collaboration page could then be linked on the project page, and the whole thing would be all the more organised. Such a bot would monitor articles tagged for this project, but it would also monitor this projects categories for new articles and the likes much like MathBot does for Maths. Crimsone 02:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys: Crimsone directed me to this page. I also agree with the idea of using a bot for this WikiProject. Your best bet for finding someone to write it/run it for you would be to ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests, where you're pretty sure to get attention from a current bot owner or someone else who's good with bots. You should probably read Wikipedia:Bots as well before asking at Wikipedia:Bot requests to get an idea of our bot policy. The other option, if any of you are good with computer programming and are feeling ambitious, would be for one of you to learn python and create a bot yourself based on the pywikipedia framework. You could then get this bot approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. —Mets501 (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

More on same-system page merges

At this point, I have found two necessary page merges for same-system events (one of them is a three-page merge).

I cannot find any blizzard/tornado outbreak merges or similar event merges though. CrazyC83 05:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Given the amount of information and notability of the distinct events, I support merging Huntsville AL tornado and the NY school downburst. Should be called Mid November 89 outbreak or whatever as a good catch all.
The Spencer SD tornado event should be a section in the overall derecho article, linking to the the current Spencer article which should be retained and expanded. The Mechanicsville Tornado Outbreak article should be completely merged unless enough information is written to warrant an additional page.
Evolauxia 01:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I completed the first merge (Mechanicsville --> derecho). That was a stub anyway so it was ripe for the merge. CrazyC83 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★TWO YEARS OF MESSEDROCKER★ 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Climate of Minnesota

I just joined this project tonight so I'm not real famaliar with what should be done with this, but I've been working on Climate of Minnesota with someone from the WikiProject Minnesota. I've submitted it for WP:GAC and I just want to make sure someone here knows it exists. From what I can tell there are no other 'Climate of "State"' articles. Gopher backer 04:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That article looks really good at a first glance! It could use some more sources, but good job with such an article. Using the four seasons as subtopics and really developing them works well. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, nice article! I think I'm going to use it as inspiration for a future Climate of Utah article. bob rulz 04:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I created a new category state climate articles, Category:Climate of United States by state Gopher backer 15:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Merger or Thermal Wind/Wind Gradient/Wind Shear?

The two articles Wind gradient and Wind shear appear to be identically defined. I'm proposing the merger of those two articles. Leave comments about the merger either here or on the wind gradient page. Thegreatdr 14:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Given how short they both are and their similarities, that's probably a good idea to combine them. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hink. Actually, I just became aware of a third article called thermal wind, which is a fancy meteorological term defined as vertical wind shear. That article could be merged in with wind shear as well. Thegreatdr 23:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wind gradient and wind shear have different usage, IF there is a merger, gradient should be merged with shear. Wind shear is the most common meteorological term and is highly important. Gradient wind, on the other hand, is a specific term warranting its own article. Thermal wind, Geostrophic wind, and similar, all are also very important in meteorology, are distinct with nuanced usages/meanings, and require their own articles. Evolauxia 23:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Gradient wind is different that wind gradient, I agree. Geostropic wind is a different concept. So we would keep nearly identical articles for wind shear and thermal wind? How would anyone know what to add to one over another? Thegreatdr 18:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Wind shear is definitely not identical to the thermal wind. Thermal wind is a special case of wind shear, that, on the synoptic scale, under the assumption of geostrophic balance, is due to horizontal temperature gradients, and is defined as the vertical shear of the *geostrophic* wind. Vertical wind shear can occur on smaller scales that is not in thermal wind balance, if the flow is highly ageostrophic (such as near thunderstorms for example).Wthrman13 21:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A plea concerning the extratropical cyclone articles

I've been more within the meteorology/non-tropical cyclone part of the project as of late due to filling out some related meteorology stubs and getting them up to at least B class. Also, the work on the extratropical cyclone article and our recent Late November 2006 Nor'easter offshore the Southeast has led me to create and fill out other extratropical cyclone/blizzard/nor'easter articles. I've noticed a couple of people currently and previously in the tropical cyclone part of the project have been assigning extratropical cyclones equivalent Saffir-Simpson categories based on their central pressure. Please don't do this. Extratropical cyclones are larger systems with broader wind fields, and I'm worried that calling some 980ish cyclone that affects the East or Pacific Northwest (which happens frequently for New England and the Pacific Northwest during the winter season) as a category 1 or 2 hurricane is going to lead the unknowing to an incorrect conclusion for its maximum sustained winds and anticipated damage. Thegreatdr 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The SSHS is based on winds, not pressure. While some equivalent mentions can be included in the text, it should be considered filler and not core information. And yes, some of those systems routinely drop into the 930s and 940s pressure-wise. CrazyC83 04:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific citations

Would your WikiProject like to endorse Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? If so, please let those editors at that guideline know. --ScienceApologist 19:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Mesoscale and Cyclones

I need a little help! lol

  1. A Mesocyclone is a mesoscale cyclonic vortex of air within a convective storm. The term doesn't apply to mesoscale cyclones outside of convective storms (per AMS glossary).
  2. A Mesoscale Convective System is, in and of itself, a type of cylone on the mesoscale. Even so, it's a convective storm system. Can the overall cyclonic action be described as a mesocyclone, because it seems a little on the large side for that! If not, what type of cyclone would it be, or is it just called a MCS?
  3. are there any non-storm/convection driven mesoscale cyclone types?

If anybody can set me straight I'd very much appreciate it. Crimsone 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good questions. Actually, a Mesoscale Convective System (MCS) is a general term. It does not necessarily have to be a cyclone, but MCS's often do contain a Mesoscale Convective Vortex, which is a type of cyclone. An MCV, however, is *not* considered to be a mesocyclone. A mesocyclone (perhaps poorly named, since it is more of a microscale phenomenon) is a strong, deep cyclone usually associated with supercell thunderstorms, and are usually on the order of 5 km in diameter or so, whereas an MCV, which is truly a mesoscale feature, is much less intense but has a much larger diameter (on the order of 100 or so kilometers). They also have somewhat different formative mechanisms.
To answer your final question. Yes, there are non-convective driven mesoscale cyclones. Many of these are associated with local topographical features, an example of which is the Denver Cyclone. Wthrman13 21:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

January 1975

A couple things going on here... First, there is a link for a future article to January 1975 Tornado Outbreak on the List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks page. However, this same storm system produced a blizzard of regional record proportions across the Upper Midwest. I am planning on starting an article on that event. In a situation like this, should there only be one article that described both events, or should there be two, one on the blizzard and one for the tornadoes? Gopher backer 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The way I've been dealing with names for extratropical systems, which is similar to HPC and their storm summaries, is to mention all related effects in the same article. I'd name the article either after a name the media came up with to describe the storm, or due to its main effects/impact. If it is known as being a blizzard more than a tornado outbreak, name it a blizzard. If it is known more for its tornado outbreak, the title should have tornado in it. Either way, storm should likely be used in the tag of its talk page. Thegreatdr 05:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The one article should cover both bases. CrazyC83 01:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Peer review of Climate of Minnesota

Climate of Minnesota is up for review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Climate of Minnesota/archive1. Any input would be appreciated! -Ravedave (help name my baby) 06:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

London Tornado of 2006

London was hit this morning by a "significant" (by UK standards) tornado, hence the new article. Feel free to help out as the information arrives, and please excuse the uneducaded UK media for the rediculous term "mini-tornado" - they seem to use it regardless of strength (they even used it to describe a F3/T4 tornado a week or so ago). Crimsone 17:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a Stub-Low though, which calls for a merge where feasible (in this case, to Tornadoes of 2006#December 7) unless it can be expanded. CrazyC83 01:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
At the moment, the cost and effects are still being counted, and new information is still coming in in dribs and drabs. Crimsone 04:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

New Article List

I have recently truncated the section to articles created during the past month, similar to what is done in the tropical cyclone project. If this is a problem, speak now in this section, or it will be considered a good thing. Thegreatdr 17:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In this project, might I suggest that we truncate the list at two months instead? The reason I suggest it is simply because this project sadly doesn't seem to have the same high level of activity that the TC project enjoys, and so new articles on meteorology wouldn't attract quite the same level of attention.
As for truncating itself, I can only agree, because a new article is only new for a finite period of time :) --Crimsone 17:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Then again, we are a much newer project - that one is over a year older than we are (and was better organized even before it developed). CrazyC83 01:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest storm

Should it have an article? I think so (if it doesn't already), but what to call it? CrazyC83 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I started it. It is at December 2006 Pacific Northwest storms. CrazyC83 03:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Winter storm tracks

Right now there are articles on there for Panhandle Hooks, Alberta Clippers and Nor'easters. However, these are only three types of storms or storm tracks that affect the eastern North America. A few more that do would be a Gulf Low, Colorado Low, Manitoba Mauler, and Saskatchewan Screamer. I'm not sure that all of them should have their own article since in some cases, the storm systems are very closely related, and the only different between them may be 100 miles difference on where they originate. Still though, each of these storm generally has its own characteristics so I think that somehow, somewhere they deserve a mention. Any suggestions on the best way to handle this? Gopher backer 15:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What are the last two anyway? CrazyC83 02:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe they are very similar to Alberta Clippers, only with a different area of origin. I may be wrong. -Runningonbrains 02:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Correct. They're not referenced very often. A lot of people will just call them Clippers anyway just so people don't get confused. All I could find on the web is that these storms are "a variation" of a Clipper, but nothing really substantial as far as what kinds of differences there are. I did find another Wikipedia article with a brief mention... Groundhog Day gale of 1976 Gopher backer 04:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Floods in Malaysia, Singapore and Sumatra

Dear contributors and members of WikiProject Meteorology,

In the coming weeks, several editors from Singapore and possibly some from Malaysia and Indonsia will be collaborating on a major article pertaining to the current December 2006 floods on the Malay Peninsula, including Singapore, and Sumatra, which would fall under the scope of this WikiProject. There are several issues which we must clear up before the creation of this article, including fixing the appropriate nomenclature and scope for the article. Please consider helping out in this collaboration. A sandbox and talkpage have been created. On a separate note, here's wishing all of you a merry Christmas. - SpLoT (*C*+u+g) 05:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess you already know by now, but there's already an article 2006 Malaysian floods. However it's not suitably named Nil Einne 18:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 18:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather/General_meteorology_task_force/Archive_4&oldid=1137358262"