Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/General meteorology task force/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Other thing to add to the list to do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A fair point :) lol Crimsone 03:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Pierre cb's point is very valid and something I've noticed for a long time. There are a few good articles, but Wikipedia is very noticably lacking in theory (science of, and forecasting) of meteorology. Climate is better, but that has the climate science interest from global warming, which the sexy stuff does for meteorology (i.e. specific events and a few phenomena). The difference is it also has some climatologists as active contributors whereas few meteorologists have been too active as yet here. In my case, I've just been too busy, writing those would be very involved to do it right. Though, it'll be fun too, working stuff out like that for my benefit as much as others is a chief reason I'm a Wikipedia editor. Evolauxia 11:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tornado lists

Something just occurred to me as I was looking at articles like the Super Outbreak, April 6-8, 2006 Tornado Outbreak, Late-November 2005 Tornado Outbreak, etc. For articles on outbreaks with, say more than 20 tornadoes, there should be a separate article for the tablature listing of tornadoes, which currently appears on the main page. IMO, the tables are very encyclopaedic and informative, but are also very disruptive to the flow of the page. I put an example of the new format I would suggest in my userspace, see main article and list of tornadoes to see what I mean. Good or bad idea? -Runningonbrains 18:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad idea. In many outbreaks (those without one or more really, really significant tornado - i.e. the Gallatin tornado on April 7 - that have their own sections), that would reduce the article to a stub. IMO, it takes the heart of the page out. It would be like moving the Impact section of hurricane pages off onto separate pages (which has only been done once - for Katrina - due to length). Maybe if the Super Outbreak happened today and we had so much information, that would work, but otherwise, I'd leave it as is. CrazyC83 23:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

What I'm pushing for is not to replace the impact section. In my opinion, if there is nothing but a stub when you take that list out, then the outbreak probably doesn't deserve an article. And when speaking about the Super Outbreak, there are a dozen or more tornadoes in there that could have their own article, so i doubt making that a Featured Article would be that hard. On the contrary, I doubt it could qualify as an FA with such a long list disrupting the flow of the article. -Runningonbrains 00:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

That is true. The Super Outbreak would be filled with sections on individual tornadoes if we get the information. CrazyC83 00:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it may be better to put the description of some of the tornadoes texts in the parent article and that would also put a greater chance for the Super Outbreak article to be considered as a feature as it would not have the problem of conflict/disputed (NOAA VS the April 3 1974 page) data of the list. The only thing maybe to add on the table is just direct link to the individual tornado sub-section. Meanwhile, we can continue to add sub-sections for other tornadoes like Windsor, Frankfort, Juno, GA, Roanoke, and some of the Tennessee tornadoes (Cumberland, Moodyville, Etowah, etc) in which info is quite hard to find and conflicting (and confusing too).--JForget 13:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Runningonbrains's proposal looks good. It should of course only be used where the main article can be expanded to more than a stub. —Mike 23:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Classifying importance for storm events

Here is how, in my opinion, the importance for storm events should be done:

Top - None that currently exists. If there is a far-reaching, flagship article (like Katrina was to hurricanes), then that would go there, but that would have to be something that is long-remembered on a global basis and in every history book.

High - Leading events of each type, i.e. Super Outbreak, Palm Sunday Tornado Outbreak, 1993 North American Storm Complex, Great Flood of 1993, Dust Bowl. Those events are long-remembered on a national basis and set the standards for those event types.

Mid - Other events that would be equivalent to a retired hurricane due to high damage and loss of life. They are remembered on a regional basis but generally not in normal conversations or really thought of much beyond the regions affected.

Low - Everything else.

Any other thoughts? CrazyC83 00:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

For top, what about Ice age? Currently, it's not in the meterology project, but it is a far-reaching, flagship article that is long-remembered on a global basis, and probably in some history books. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I think those are good criteria. I can't really think of any specific weather events aside from Hurricane Katrina that would fit top-importance. bob rulz 01:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

A comparable example (hypothetically) would be the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake for an Earthquakes or Seismic activity project (which AFAIK does not exist). CrazyC83 19:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviews

I have recommended a peer review take place on two articles, for completely different reasons:

• Red rain in Kerala - Currently one of two event GA's and a long-lasting one that I think is closest to becoming our first FA
• Meteorology - Considerable work needed, and I think a review is needed to identify the spots in the central article.

CrazyC83 19:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Billion-dollar disasters (USA 1980-2005)

The following weather events that are listed at the NCDC site do NOT have articles (at least from my analysis):

• Florida Freeze of 1983 ($4 billion/0 deaths)
• Gulf Coast El Nino storms of 1983 ($2.2 billion/50 deaths)
• Western US El Nino storms of 1983 ($2.2 billion/45 deaths)
• Florida Freeze of 1985 ($2.2 billion/0 deaths)
• Southern US Heat Wave of 1986 ($2.4 billion/~100 deaths)
• North American Heat Wave of 1988 ($62 billion/~5,000 deaths)
• Midwest Drought of 1989 ($1.5 billion/0 deaths)
• South Central US Flood of 1990 ($1.4 billion/13 deaths)
• East Coast Nor'easter of 1992 ($2.2 billion/19 deaths)
• Southern US Heat Wave of 1993 ($1.3 billion/16 deaths)
• California Wildfires of 1993 ($1.3 billion/4 deaths)
• Southern US Ice Storm of 1994 ($3.7 billion/9 deaths)
• Texas Flood of 1994 ($1.2 billion/19 deaths)
• Western US Wildfires of 1994 ($1.2 billion/unknown deaths)
• California Flood of 1995 ($3.6 billion/27 deaths)
• Texas-Oklahoma Drought of 1996 ($6 billion/0 deaths)
• Western US Flood of 1997 ($3.4 billion/36 deaths)
• March 1997 Flooding and Tornado Outbreak ($1.1 billion/67 deaths)
• Southern US Heat Wave of 1998 ($8-10 billion/200 deaths)
• Texas Flood of 1998 ($1.1 billion/31 deaths)
• Arkansas Tornado Outbreak of January 1999 ($1.4 billion/17 deaths)
• North American Heat Wave of 1999 ($1 billion/502 deaths)
• Western US Wildfires of 2000 ($2.1 billion/0 deaths)
• April 2001 Tornado Outbreak ($1.9 billion/3 deaths)
• Western US Wildfires of 2002 ($2 billion/21 deaths)
• North American Drought of 2002 ($10 billion/0 deaths)

The freezes and droughts are probably the least likely to have good information for an article. Other than that, I think articles should be created for most or all of those if the information is found. I may start some myself. CrazyC83 23:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the heat wave of 88 isnt an article???? Isn't that the second costliest weather disaster in US history (behind Katrina)? And in the top-10 deadliest? -Runningonbrains 06:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That surprised me too, but I couldn't find one. Heat waves, freezes and droughts tend to be quite overlooked and aren't exactly memorable for articles like hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and blizzards are. However, I agree it should be a high priority. CrazyC83 00:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As an addition to this, should there be an article for billion-dollar U.S. natural disasters, or perhaps a category for billion-dollar disasters? Hurricanehink (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That may not be a bad idea. An article could be created for a heat or cold wave. It would require some work, of course. More work than is usually necessary for a storm. In some cases, it could be attached to the preceding storm, if such a storm exists. Thegreatdr 05:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Extratropical cyclone article needs to be graded

I think the article has improved enough to move from start status to a grade, but figure it's unrealisted to grade it myself since I was one of two people involved in making the change to its current form. We have resolved the "two" article problem, by moving a significantly improved Mid-Latitude cyclone article to Cyclogenesis, because that appeared to be the article's main focus anyway. Thegreatdr 15:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job, it was cleaned up nicely! Moved it up to B, but still we all need to do a fair bit of work to go up to GA (a Peer Review may help?) CrazyC83 01:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

A peer review may indeed help :)

Is there anything specific you could think of that needs to be worked on in the mean time :)? - it would be useful for purposes of getting it that bit closer to at least GA. --Crimsone 12:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Some geographical details, some external links, a more worldwide view and perhaps some grammatical touch-ups (which I am not very good at). CrazyC83 16:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It is now at WP:GAC and may indeed pass and reach GA status. Should we do a peer review immediately and try to push it to A (and perhaps FA) if it passes? (I will not grade above B personally without any such reviews or discussions) CrazyC83 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A standard peer review has already been requested. A lot of helpful suggestions were given by Tutmosis which were taken on board. Nobody else seems to have answered.

Given the rapid rise of this article, with a complete re-write bringing it from a stub to 'B' class, and now GA nominated, It would seem a shame not to push it to FA status pending the GA review :) I'm game if anybody else is! lol.

What might be useful though is a fresh peer review (if it passes GA), or perhaps an informal review of that sort from the members here - just to make sure the article says all that it should say :). --Crimsone 21:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If it passes the GA, should it immediately be moved to A-class? This should be a good target for FA status. CrazyC83 23:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I'm being honest, I can't see too many reasons that it shouldnt be 'A' class but there may be one or two (maybe a few sources could be better or a little more info added in places - the section I started below this one might help there though). Perhaps a breif review for missing info or factual inaccuracy by a member of this project qualified/experienced in meteorology? Otherwise, I don't see why not :) --Crimsone 23:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it is now A-class. CrazyC83 02:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Atmospheric levels (and other terms)

By far one of the most commonly used terms in meteorology appears to be of the grouping Low level, mid level, or upper level. I've just done some searching for either these atmospheric levels, or for an article that contains a definition/description of them and/or why these particular hights were chosen, and the role they play etc, and I can find nothing.

Does such an article exist? It seems to me that it might be somewhat useful if only for wikilinking. It's great being able to call something an upper level low, or a mid level trough, but I would imagine that readers might want to know of what significance the "level" is?

If no such page exists at the moment, perhaps one can be created that describes the atmosphere in meteorological terms (or as relevant to meteorology), and so could include such things as a description of it's flow (zonal and meridonial - some more commonly used terms without definition), and anything else of that sort? --Crimsone 10:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Seems there are a few I can't find or aren't defined. Perhaps a list would be better, which of course anybody can add to or subtract from. It's not so important for those that have an understanding of these terms, but the layman wouldn't otherwise have a clue :)... --Crimsone 11:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

1. zonal flow
2. meridonial flow
3. upper level
4. mid level
5. low level
6. shortwave (as per shortwave trough for example)
7. longwave
8. forcing

All of these look like they would need a separate article; at worst, several of these covered by a single article. Seems like a list of needed articles might be in order. I've actually come across several other articles I'd like to have created. Unfortunately I'm in the middle of exams here at school so my wiki time is severely limited, I'll try to see what I can do at the end of this week. -Runningonbrains 15:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.

As it happens, I've just been having a go at creating an article. I must admit to trying to get them all in while writing the summary of the following, but I realised that it couldn't be done. I have however created what may be a skeleton for atmospheric descriptions (levels and structure at least) using a description of zonal and meridonial flow by User:Thegreatdr from another article, and minimal research to give me the upper level height (I badly guessed the mid level hight I mentioned, just as I wrote on the section. lol). It can be seen, clearly marked as not being an article, in my userspace - User:Crimsone/Earth's atmosphere (Meteorology). If anybody feels that the basic structure is there and wants to expand it, please feel free to move or subst it. Otherwise, no harm done :) --Crimsone 15:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad Start-class article at this point. Still needs substantial work, but so did the Extratropical cyclone article barely 2 weeks ago, and now it is on the verge of passing GA. CrazyC83 22:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Much appreciated.

The extratropical cyclone article is really at GA through the work of both myself and Thegreatdr (and you also, obviously) as much as anybody, but I'll be the first to admit that most of my contributions were somewhat stylistic, NPOVing and grammatical - most of the real knowledge came from Thegreatdr.

Still, I guess from nothing at all to a start class article on my own being the non-expert type that I am is pretty good going. I guess at the very least it plugs a few gaps even in it's current state. Would you agree to it being moved into articlespace (hopefully attracting another editor or two), or would it be better to get it double checked first? --Crimsone 22:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. After a brief addition of a mention of the Three-cell model (for which an article does not yet exist), I've moved it into userspace at Earth's atmosphere (Meteorology). Please review (start class seems appropriate considering it's legth, though sections are stubby), and edit if you want to (I hope someone wants to! lol.) --Crimsone 11:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice wikified start, but I'm not clear, what is the intent of Earth's atmosphere (Meteorology) that will distinguish it from Earth's atmosphere or atmospheric circulation? (Note that the three cell model for Earth's atmosphere is described in atmospheric circulation.) If the intent is to define the (often vague) terms used by meteorologists, then perhaps a better name for it would be Terminology used in atmospheric sciences, as most of the terms listed above are used to describe atmospheric motion on planets other than Earth. Deditos 12:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a working title. I guess the intention wasn't really a glossary of terms, but instead a flowing aricle. It seemed a natural title for it. Clearly, Wiki is an encyclopedia rather than a glossary of terms, and it seemed that much of what needed to be said couldn't be fitted into the atmosphere article, which seems (rightly) biased to a macro scale, whereas the terms in the article created here are most usually used in a comparatively micro scale - that is, zonal flow in the lower troposphere is a subject unto itself when trying to forecast or explain weather events, particularly in comparison to the troposphere as a whole.

Of course, to explain and define all that needs definition in the earth's atmosphere (meteorology) article in the context of the current earth's atmosphere article would require a masterpiece of pen work, but also unbalance the article in favour of a particular field/part of the atmosphere. Crimsone 20:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still not entirely clear, but I think I'll take my discussion over to Talk:Earth's_atmosphere_(Meteorology). Deditos 13:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

The good news...

In the last 3 weeks or so, we have had four new GA's: Evansville Tornado of November 2005, Extratropical cyclone, North American ice storm of 1998 and Thunderstorm. There are several more articles I am targetting for GA soon, and at least two - Extratropical cyclone and Red Rain in Kerala - that may be getting close to a run at FA (almost A-class). Hopefully more Stubs will become Starts, Starts to B's, etc. CrazyC83 00:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The bad news...

Ok, not so bad, but a little perplexing. An IP (192.160.158.113) has been moving lots of articles out of the meteorology category, and into other categories. (as opposed of course to simply adding other categories). Does anybody know anything about this and why it's being done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimsone (talk • contribs)

As a general rule, its better to have articles in subcategories than just in general Category:Meteorology because the meteorology would become rediculously overpopulated if every meteorological article was placed there. They seem like some pretty good edits...it actually feels quite refreshing to see an anon IP being constructive. -Runningonbrains 00:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair comment. :) Crimsone 13:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Meteorology would have to get populated first before overpopulation becomes a problem. Do a quick search for articles under the meteorology heading and the hurricane heading. Thegreatdr 10:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I had thought that thats the way things were done, but maybe I was mistaken. I would think that putting sub-categories as opposed to Category:Meteorology would be desirable, but i suppose using both would be possible... -Runningonbrains 14:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, with your explanation, Runningonbrains, I'm more comfortable with it this way. Categories could be seen alomost as this encyclopedias "index", or table of contents. Any article relating directly to Meteorology as a whole should undoubtedly be in the meteorology category. However, articles pertaining to a specific area or field of Meteorology should be in one or more sub-categories. The meteorology category is thus populated with each sub-category, plus articles relating directly to the subject as a whole. Of course, there's no reason that a given article couldn't be in more than one subcategory, or both a subcategoty and its parent depending on the subject of the article. --Crimsone 15:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the problem I'm running into with tropical cyclones such as Allison (1989 and 2001), Floyd (1999), Alberto (1994), Camille (1969), etc. I don't see why they can't have a flood tag as well, since they were significant flood events. Thegreatdr 18:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Crimsone, articles should be placed in respective subcategories unless there is some important mutual content for cross categorical inclusion. This is how things are done on Wikipedia in general and there are a lot of articles related to meteorlogy so it's warranted here. As for the Meteorology WikiProject, that could be more inclusive, obviously. In the case of some events, like tropical cyclones that create great flooding, a flood tag is appropriate IMO. Including a tag for every little thing that every article tacitly covers, however is different; as is tagging everything under a parent category when a more specific one is appropriate (a la Crimsone's comments). Evolauxia 11:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A category format should be decided upon. -- Hard Raspy Sci 02:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Weather

I've been trying to get this Portal back up and running, and I think it's about ready to go. Anyone see anything that can be improved there? -Runningonbrains 08:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking pretty good :) CrazyC83 01:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Question....

Use the sub-project templates or no? GO! -Runningonbrains 14:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sticking my head in here, if they feed into the parent WikiProject category, there's not much of a problem. See {{WPMILHIST}} for an example of what they're doing... they all link to their project, which is the primary purpose of WikiProject banners: to bring more editors in. Also, if the project ever splits further, it means modifying just one page, instead of retagging all of them. Titoxd^(?!?) 16:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned pages now part of meteorology project

A surprising number of wind and cloud related articles were not included in meteorology, for whatever reason. One was a featured article candidate at one point. I included my best guess as to their grade and importance. You can feel free to edit, as ever. Thegreatdr 21:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, if they are former FAC candidates and still almost there, that would be A-class. Otherwise, they would be B-class at the most. (Not GA unless they previously passed that) CrazyC83 01:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There were very few references, so I made the article B, which might still be a little high. Apparently the FAC attempt occurred before references were required a year or so ago. Thegreatdr 13:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense. I go with B if there is near-GA detail and can pass on that but short on references. I tend to go Start if it cannot pass GA on most criteria, and B if it can pass on at least three of the six from my view. CrazyC83 05:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can try and go hunting for meteorology related articles that aren't included in the project yet, but have several other things in the project to do first. Evolauxia 11:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Relevant discussion between this project and WPTC

Well, there's quite a long discussion at WikiProject Tropical cyclones' talk page about merging some aspects of the projects to several degrees... and it would be nice if someone would comment about it. Ideally, it would be nice to keep discussion centralized, so if possible, let's keep all the talk there. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost ready for FAC: Evansville Tornado of November 2005

I am almost ready to put it up for an FAC. It just received a Peer Review and I am just trying to get consent on whether to put it up now or not. CrazyC83 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You need some more citations. The damage pics section in the bottom should probably be put in the article (like one at the right of the tornado table). The November 15 tornado mention should probably go in the aftermath, as well. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

November 15 was a separate event, in a separate article, and different people were affected. (That one is barely at B-class; although the reassessment is complete to allow it to get there, it still needs reorganization and more information) CrazyC83 02:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I mean currently the November 15 outbreak is mentioned in the meteorological effects. Either it should be removed or put in the aftermath. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Definately should ditch the images section...I am very against having galleries in articles...thats what Commons is for. I'll merge the images into the article. -Runningonbrains 02:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Now on FAC. CrazyC83 02:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor Milestone

We now have more than 500 assessed articles for the project, less than 2 months after we started assessing. (minor applause) We should all pat ourselves on the back a little bit. -Runningonbrains 10:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also quite a few have been moving up in assessment... CrazyC83 17:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Request assessment

Further to Thegreatdr's assessment as start class earlier today, I have just performent a substantial copyedi and re-write of the article Cyclone and added some relevant sources (one of which took an hour and a half to find - Darn that Wizard of Oz. lol).

I would still say some work is possible (I somehow doubt it's FAC material! lol), but it's a long way from where it was this morning. Could somebody please give it a new assessment? --Crimsone 16:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pages needing attention

The pages needing attention section on the project page needs, erm, attention!

Many sections are noted "updated by bot", but having looked through them for pages relating to cyclogenesis, mid-lattitude cyclone, and extratropical cyclone, it appears that there's no bot updating them. Crimsone 16:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have also been wondering about that. Anyone know about this mythical bot? I'm going to remove the non-meteorology/outdated ones for now until we get it sorted out.-Runningonbrains 19:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking for input for the cyclogenesis article. I've been trying to improve the mid to high importance articles (especially if they are stubs or starts), and with this article, I'd like someone else to check it out. It would be nice to get the article to GA/A like extratropical cyclone. Thegreatdr 19:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Bob Johnson (weatherman) (which was in a poor state) was nominated for AFD, but I've given it an overhaul. You may like to contribute to its AFD. The JPS^{talk to me} 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

List of new articles

We should have one on the main page there, like at WP:TC. I'll put a blank section...if you make a new article, add it there. It'll help with the Portal's DYK.-Runningonbrains 03:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. The list of billion-dollar disasters is somewhere good to start. Also for an assessment tracker in calendar format, I created User:CrazyC83/Assessment (from 1980-2007, it will be decadal and event-focused rather than calendar-focused before 1980). CrazyC83 05:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The thing is, there haven't been any fresh new articles lately, at least from my end. I've been busy trying to find previously untagged meteorology articles and tag them, as well as adding information into cyclogenesis, tropical cyclogenesis, extratropical cyclone, and stub/start articles relating to those topics. Comma head may be fertile ground for a new article. Thegreatdr 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 00:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

==References==

The following is transcribed from Talk:Great_Lakes_Blizzard_of_1977#References:

Does anybody know why some of the references have been changed to a footnote style instead of the (Author Year) style this article previously had? The Wikipedia "Citing Sources" page indicates that one should "follow the established practice for the appropriate profession or discipline that the article is concerning". It would seem that the American Meterological Society standard for their journals would be the relevant style and that was the former style of referencing in this article (and still for some of the article). Snincr 19:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe what they are referring to is citing sources at the end of the article. To improve the flow of pages on wikipedia it is recommended that pages be written with footnotes instead of actual inline citation (i.e. author year). It just seems to be convention. However, you do bring up a good point...I will mention it at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, as the way it is worded now is very confusing. -Runningonbrains 16:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is decidedly not recommended that pages be written with footnotes instead of Harvard referencing. Both systems are perfectly acceptable. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, it looks like consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#How_to_cite... is that we should go back to (Author Year). Apparently they are trying to work on getting a form of (Author Year) that would actually link to the main reference, which I think would be awesome. As that's not ready yet, however, i guess we should just change em back. I'm going to transcribe this debate to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology to find out what to do about other articles. -Runningonbrains 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So what do we want to do for other articles? Should we do this only when there are a substantial amount of book sources, or for every book source?-Runningonbrains 12:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Meteorology/Collaboration

Per the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/WikiProject template, I have just created this collaboration page. Aside from the main project page, it would add further specificity on the subject of whats currently going on in the project. (Hope I wasn't out of line? lol) --Crimsone 13:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. bob rulz 14:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

Also with a veiw to the project council directory template, should be be using Wikipedia:WikiProject_Meteorology/Assessment for assessments? I note the page after looking at the talkpage banner template. I was lookin at the coding of said template (no changes - just looking)) after noting that we apparently have 27 unassesed articles listed, which have actually been assessed, but are still in the unassessed category for some reason. Crimsone 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

That comes from a quirk in the Mathbot coding making it case sensitive...if you put something in as "class=start" instead of "class=Start", the Template will read correctly, but mathbot will not read the assessment, and it will remain in Category:Unassessed meteorology articles. -Runningonbrains 16:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've just been through the category and corrected the banners, and rated a couple of them. What's left there now is what truly should be there with two exceptions...

1. Crazy's assessment page and
2. Tornadoes of 2007 (future rated).

It needs a "no class" entry in the template for Crazy's page, and I'll add the "future" class to the template presently to deal with the 'nado page..

OK - I've added the futureclass to the meteorology template, but I'm having trouble with the tornado template -the article isn't being added to the categories, the categories are being listed on the page, but the meteorology one is red (it does exist, and the link edits it!), while the tornado one just isn't happening at all. Could somebody please help and take a look? Crimsone 17:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Tornadoes_of_2007 Now seems to be ok and in the appropriate cat. I don't know what or who fixed it, but it's fixed. Crimsone 14:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just found an article that appears to have suffered a bad merge somehow. Snow drift points to snowdrift (fine), but going to talk it goes to talk:snowdrift (assessed). Add the space in the address bar and arrive at talk:Snow drift (a seperate page not assessed and needing a (minor) history merge). It's all the same article. For this reason, the article is displaying in the unassessed category, but it has actually been assessed.

Anyhoo - only Vertical draft now needs an assessment. With the issue of whether Thermal should be merged into it, and the only comment saying vehemently that it shouldn't, I'm not sure how to rate it.

In summary, Fix snowdrift, add the "no class"/"no importance" assessment to Crazy's assessment page (done, until Crazy either decides otherwise or implements a better solution), and assess vertical draft, and the unassessed category will be entirely empty whith everybody giving themselves a huge pat on the back :) Crimsone 14:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The assessment page is nowhere near complete; it only goes back to 1980 at this point and is (primarily) only for weather events. It was modelled after the hurricane assessment tables, but using calendar form. It does not (at this point) distinguish specific weather types. CrazyC83 03:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem I guess. :) Thanks.

Incidentally, I just redirected that orphaned talk page to the article talk, and so there are now no articles in the unassessed category (Don't you just love housekeeping :) ) lol Crimsone 18:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)