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)

Concern regarding the inclusion of fire tornadoes in “Tornadoes of YYYY” articles

It has recently been brought to my attention by @ChessEric that there is a dispute whether or not to include fire tornadoes in “Tornadoes of YYYY” articles. They have been included before in articles such as Tornadoes of 2020 and were included in Tornadoes of 2018 before the dispute was raised by ChessEric. The dispute raised is that since most fire tornadoes do not form in the exact manner as supercell tornadoes they should not be included. The article fire tornado itself barely offers descriptions of notable fire tornadoes. Should fire tornadoes be included in “Tornadoes of YYYY” articles/split into their own section on these articles similar to the “Tornado Research” section recently added, or should an article split be made to Fire tornado such as “List of fire tornadoes”?IrishSurfer21 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That was not even a fire tornado; it is a fire whirl, which is essentially a dust devil of fire. It doesn't go in there. ChessEric 02:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This issue has been a while coming. Fire tornadoes are not particularly well understood, which means they defy easy classification. Some fire tornadoes have been filmed and reported on, but never surveyed; some have been surveyed and rated, but never given an NCDC entry; still others have been entered as "fire" or "wind" events instead of tornadoes. I have the beginnings of an article, including a list of confirmed fire tornadoes, at User:Penitentes/Fire tornado (draft) if that's at all helpful.

But as Eric says, many phenomena that the media calls "fire tornadoes" are just fire whirls. Fires contain rotating components at pretty much every scale, only the largest (the ones that are connected to the pyro-convective plume a wildfire generates) are actual fire tornadoes as the science understands them. — Penitentes (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I personally included fire tornadoes in the List of California tornadoes, so I think they could be included in the yearly weather article provided it was as noteworthy as other events; that is, it was deadly or particularly destructive. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:List of Illinois tornadoes

I am currently working on developing Draft:List of Illinois tornadoes, any help is appreciated. I have already reached out to WikiProject Illinois on the matter as well.  :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 1982 Pacific typhoon season

1982 Pacific typhoon season 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. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

PD-NWS Violations Update #1

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

For starters, no "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred. All that means is the template is not formally deprecated and is still in use. However, Rlandmann, an administrator on English Wikipedia, has begun an undertaking of reviewing and assessing all images (~1,400) that use the PD-NWS copyright template.

What we know:

• Following email communications, the National Weather Service of Sioux Falls has removed their disclaimer, which has been used for the PD-NWS template for decades. This means, as far as the National Weather Service is concerned, the following statement is no longer valid: By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others. Currently, the PD-NWS template links to an archived version of the disclaimer. However, the live version of the disclaimer no longer contains that phrase.
• See this deletion discussion for this point's information. NWS Paducah (1) failed to give attribution to a photographer of a tornado photograph, (2) placed the photo into the public domain without the photographer explicitly giving them permission to do so (i.e. the photo is not actually in the public domain), (3) and told users to acknowledge NWS as the source for information on the webpage. Oh, to note, this photographer is a magistrate (i.e. a judge). So, the idea of automatically trusting images without clear attribution on weather.gov are free-to-use is in question.
• The Wikimedia Commons has a process known as precautionary principle, where if their is significant doubt that an image is free-to-use, it will be deleted. Note, one PD-NWS file has been deleted under the precautionary principle. The closing administrator remarks for the deletion discussion were: "Per the precautionary principle, there is "significant doubt" about the public domain status of this file (4x keep + nominator, 5x delete), so I will delete it."
• Several photographs/images using the PD-NWS are currently mid-deletion discussion, all for various reasonings.
• As of this message, 250 PD-NWS images have been checked out of the ~1,400.
• The photograph of the 1974 Xenia tornado (File:Xenia tornado.jpg) was found to not be in the public domain. It is still free-to-use, but under a CC 2.0 license, which requires attribution. From April 2009 to August 2024, Wikipedia/Wikimedia was incorrectly (and by definition, illegally) using the photograph, as it was marked incorrectly as a public domain photograph.

Solutions:
As stated earlier, there is no "formal" rulings, so no "formal" changes have been made. However, there is a general consensus between editors on things which are safe to do:

• Images made directly by NWS employees can be uploaded and used under the new PD-USGov-NWS-employee template (Usage: {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} ). This is what a large number of PD-NWS templated images are being switched to.
• Images from the NOAA Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT) can be uploaded and used under the PD-DAT template (Usage: {{PD-DAT}} ). A large number of images are also being switched to this template.

For now, you are still welcome to upload images under the PD-NWS template. However, if possible it is recommended using the two templates above. I will send out another update when new information is found or new "rulings" have been made. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ll add that PD-UsGov-NOAA and PD-NEXRAD are also safe to use. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

(For images that meet the criteria) West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

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)