Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/General meteorology task force/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather | General meteorology task force
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 07:57, 19 February 2010 (Archiving 4 thread(s) from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 12

IRC channel

Like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, I have created an IRC channel for all to use. Go to this site put your wikiname as your nickname. Put irc.freenode.net in the next box as the server, and put #wiki-weather as the channel. Hope to see you there! It is a chatroom to discuss the WikiProject Meteorology and it's articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliancolton (talk • contribs)

Active members

We have close to 70 members in this project, but very few actually contribute from what I can tell, and I see several members that have retired. Should we do as the WP:WPTC did and send a message to every member, and ask them to sign up somewhere to show they are still activly contributing, and then whoever doesn't respond within two weeks is moved to a Inactive member section? Juliancolton (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Gopher backer (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Good. I think we should get the opinion of a few other members first. Other than that, we will have everybody sign up and notify us that they are still active here:

List of Active Members

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  1. Juliancolton (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Gopher backer (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 21:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Hello32020 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. IrfanFaiz —Preceding comment was added at 22:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Trvsdrlng (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Jamie|C 23:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. --JForget 23:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Theonlysilentbob (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Evolauxia (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. Andreas Willow (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Mbrstooge (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  17. bob rulz (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  18. Senorpepr (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  19. WindRunner (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  20. The Canadian Roadgeek (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  21. Ks0stm (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  22. -WxHalo(T/C) 00:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  23. --Μ79_Šp€çíá∫횆tell me about it 20:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  24. Deditos (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  25. RunningOnBrains 00:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  26. Coredesat 13:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA review of Station model

I got some odd comments during the first GA review for this article, including shortening sections, when sections within the article aren't very long. There was also a recommendation to add bullet points, though previous articles I've placed for GA or FA have shunned bullet points. I've been editing the copy, which seems to be its biggest flaw. I definitely need a second opinion here, since it seems more than half their points used for preventing GA by the initial reviewer seem invalid. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to the two people who have commented so far (one from within the project, and one outside the project). Thegreatdr (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing meteorology articles

I am not sure if it is in the scope of the Severe Weather project or the General Met project but here it goes... (this is also posted on the SVR Proj Page)

We definitely need a stub discussing a hydrolapse while keeping it separate from lapse rates. Can provide a See Also section or whatever linking to lapse rate. Hydrolapse and lapse rate go hand in hand since they are part of the same thermodynamic processes but I would argue for keeping them separate so as to allow specificity in articles which may link directly to hydrolapse or readers who are just interested in that particular term.

Secondly, we need an article dealing with dynamic instability specifically related to meteorology, right now an article exists but it deals with some biochemistry cellular stuff. At the same time we also need something which is related to dynamic lifting, either in a separate article or as part of the article dealing with dynamic instability.

These are two atmospheric conditions/processes which are critical to severe weather at both a storm/mesoscale level and synoptic level. Theonlysilentbob (talk) 04:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My first comment is to say {{be bold}} and create them. Whether you have knowledge on the topics or not, do some research. It's a great way to gain knowledge concerning a topic. Related to this comment, someone has created a page for articles not covered within wikipedia yet within meteorology, which is located here. They made not all require articles...I took some off the list and merely created redirects to the articles which already covered the topic. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Diffluence

I've begun a page on a topic that has been requested for a while now, diffluence. It actually redirects to a larger subject that had yet to have an article about it, Deformation (meteorology). Any help in researching/expanding this topic would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! ~ Triberocker (talk) 04:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Tornadocane/Landcane/Landphoon

We recently had a similar article to tornadocane called landphoon removed from wikipedia because the term was not in the glossary of meteorology. What's interesting is that landphoon had about seven unique sources, while tornadocane has exactly one source using the term. I'm going to propose the article's removal, for consistency's sake. For reference, I was the creator of landphoon last August. This posting is also in BWER, tornadocane, and Severe Weather wikiproject and will also be in the tropical cyclone project talk page to get the largest possible response. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Marion, Illinois tornado outbreak

I brought this up at WikiProject Severe weather, but only one person responded. I thought that by bringing it up here, it would hopefully get a larger response.

I have been working on the above article since early January. The article appeared on the front page under DYK at one point. I would like to improve the aricle further, but could not think of to do myself. Any suggestions? Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

List of meteorology topics

List of meteorology topics needs expert attention. It went though an afd and consensus was to keep. I have cleaned out a large number of unrelated terms but the article needs more work. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 08:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Why?? Why do cold fronts move west to east?

~~Reader —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.247.157 (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Because cold fronts are steered by the upper level winds, which normally flor from west-to-east in the mid-latitudes, such as the United States, Europe, Asia, southern Australia, southern Africa, and southern South America. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Rainfall patterns in the United States

This article has been in bad shape for quite some time. I've almost completely rewritten the article, which also means it could be a while before I'm able to bring it up for GAC, even when it finally becomes filled out with references. Let me know what you think of the improvements, and what might be missing from the new article. Thegreatdr (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Second opinion on BWER

One of the contributors to the severe weather project reviewed the article in response to GAC, and made a comment about expanding the article, but isn't sure how it can be expanded. I'm looking for a second opinion, to see if there are any additional avenues for expansion of this article. Thank you for whatever help any of you can provide. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Added picture of stratocumulus lenticularis

I added a picture on the stratocumulus page but I messed up the formatting. I hope someone can fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djclimber (talk • contribs) 23:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

North American ice storm of 1998 GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed North American ice storm of 1998 and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues concerning sourcing that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

{{current disaster}}

A TFD discussion I started for the {{HurricaneWarning}} and {{StormWatch}} template (which tells people specifically to get information from other sites, complete with a big bold ATTENTION, which I think violates WP:NDA) has led to major improvements into a new similar template I created called {{Current disaster}}. But we could use some more input on this. Some improvements I've done include being able to specifiy what disaster or weather event the template is for, and other options. If you have any comments about implementing this in place of the 2 other templates, think we could discuss it here and on {{current disaster}}'s talk page? I was asked to discuss this with the Meteorology and Tropical Cyclone WikiProjects. ViperSnake151 17:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


DISPUTE (AND POTENTIAL EDIT WAR)IN NEED OF ATTENTION AND EXPERT INPUT

I would like to call the attention of the general WikiProject: Meteorology community to an ongoing dispute within our section that requires additional attention and expert input. There is a very heated and ongoing debate over the definition of the words 'Hail' and 'Sleet,' and the differences between their uses amongst experts and laymen, as well as regional differences. I am very surprised that there is not more expert interest in the topic, as misuse of these words has long been a pet peeve not just for me, but for every other meteorologist that I have ever met. Very few meteorologists have been giving their input leading to disputes between the lay and expert definitions. What's more is that those few meteorologists paying attention to these pages (myself included) are almost all either American or Canadian, leading to many accusations of Amerocentric bias. WE DESPERATELY NEED INPUT FROM METEOROLOGISTS FROM OUTSIDE THE U.S. AND CANADA--PARTICULARLY THE U.K. AND AUSTRALIA to confirm regional differences and to properly define the terms as they are used outside the U.S. - user:dayjes 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I replied here. Gopher backer (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

METAR

METAR is being moved around because of a town in Israel called Meitar. 70.51.9.57 (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Identifying clouds

Is it possible to identify the cloud type seen in this picture? Carcharoth (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Those look like cumulus clouds with cirrus clouds above them. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Numerical model template

We have some handy templates for environmental observing systems. I've been building a new template which includes the major numerical weather and climate models. I'd appreciate project members' input; particularly Thegreatdr, given his experience at HPC with various models.

Although the listing is not meant to be exhaustive -- that's left to the respective categories and article pages (perhaps some list articles could be made, too) -- there is a bias for weather models.

  • Although climate model is in the name, it does concentrate on NWP. I'm undecided on how much (if any?) climate models to include with this.
    • If yes, should they receive their own section (and how are GCMs subdivided from RCMs); if no, should a separate template be made for climate models?
  • Along the lines of not including climate models (yet?), I've not included oceanographic or coupled models.
  • There's also a potential bias towards North American models, although I'm not remembering many other widely used operational models.
  • To keep the template trim, I've also not included various models like the QLM.
  • I've not included the various "flavors" of models such that the WRF and MM5 have. This includes the specialty models such as those for TCs/hurricanes. Some of the major ones could be included (if the respective model has an article)?
  • I've not included ensemble models; mostly because of the lack of articles and the multitudinous runs out there. Ensembles are very important to weather forecasting, however.
  • I've concentrated on popular operational models and mostly not included experimental models; although some are included, particularly hybrids like the WRF and those widely used by operational meteorologists like the MM5 (which has its own article).
    • Re-analyses aren't included.

Basically, I'm thinking of including a few other weather models, but haven't yet due to lack of articles for these. The articles for various models need improving and in some cases articles still need to be created. Being an encyclopedia we won't have to get too detailed, but most of the articles are deficient at the moment. It's one of many projects on my To Do list.

I included a section on major discontinued and supplanted models, none of which have articles. This could be removed (the above concerns more or less apply here as does notability) or articles created. Another possibility is a single summary article with subsections linked from the template. In the example of the NGM, I included it because it is still run as a control for comparison purposes, even if not operationally per se. There's also the issue that some models are the same basic architecture with updates and a new name. For example, the AVN/MRF becoming the GFS and the Eta the WRF-NMM/NAM.

Aesthetically, is it better to only include acronyms? Are there any other comments? Thanks for any contributions. Evolauxia (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

If a model is mainly known by its acronym, then yes, it would be best that its name be the acronym. The first line of the article could be used to define what NGM, LFM, RUC, etcetera, mean. If computers are being used to simulate the atmosphere, which does include climate models, it would be considered an atmospheric model. One needs to be careful in the case of the NAM, where WRF is the name of its physics package, not the name of a model per se. Of course, WRF itself could have its own mention if editors aren't sure. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

New SVG images

I am going through and manually drawing SVGs for any good weather images I find. So far these are the ones I have done, and I will be converting these soon: (Image:Meso-1.PNG, Image:Meso-2.PNG, Image:Meso-3.PNG). Does anyone have any comments or see anything they would like fixed/improved? How about suggestions for other images to convert?

Good article icon

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up

Wikimedia Vancouver Meetup

Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.

This box: view • talk • edit

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Atmospheric convection article

Hi all, I thought I would try and become an active member of this group (finally!) by reworking the atmospheric convection page since it seems to be on the to-do list. I'm brand new to editing articles on here so any help would be much appreciated. Right now I've put something together on my sandbox page user:Atscgeek07/Sandbox to see how it goes. So again, anyone interested in helping is welcome! Atscgeek07 (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Climate is up for GA

...and has been on and off since April 15. Any reviews would be helpful here as the article was in a state of neglect for 2 years before it was improved late this winter and early this spring. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also posted at WT:SEVERE

I'm going to nominate Portal:Weather for Featured Portal status, and I was looking for some feedback from other members of the WikiProject. Sooo.....take a look, let me know what you think, thanks! -RunningOnBrains 07:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hurricanes

Could someone take a look at Political effects of Hurricane Katrina and Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina. These two sources appear to present the idea that global warming has contributed to an increase in the number and intensity of hurricanes in recent years as fringe theories. Yet from Effects of global warming (also Kevin E. Trenberth) from what I can tell this is not the case, global warming having a contributing effect on the intensity is definitely accepted as a possibility by current science (although it's far from settled) and there was even more acceptance of the idea at the time, in particular from Kerry Emanuel et al's research (although he has now done further research which has lead to a rethink, this was not the case at the time of Hurricane Katrina which is what the article's above are presenting) Nil Einne (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Red rain in Kerala GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I have reviewed Red rain in Kerala and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article along with other WikiProjects. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Weather forecasting up for GA

It has taken a while for another one of our core articles to be ready for GA. Weather forecasting should now have enough information and inline references to fulfill the qualifications. If you haven't edited the article significantly over the years, feel free to review it. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

C-Class cometh!

For those of you who haven't been following the discussion, a new C-class will be created shortly (see incredibly long discussion here). I will soon be adding it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology/Assessment (and for that matter, personalizing it to our project). I feel that we need to clarify exactly what articles will be let in to B-class, which seems exceedingly overpopulated with bad articles these days. Discussion here or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology/Assessment would be appreciated.-RunningOnBrains 05:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Since WPTC's scale feeds directly into here, this discussion is probably of relevance here too. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
It's official. I was (and still am) strongly opposed to making the assessment scale more confusing, but I guess I (and a few dozen others) were overruled. Since this isn't the place for me to rant about my preference, I have found some C-Class examples:

Weather up for GA

Another of our core articles is up for GA. Feedback is always appreciated. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unknown cloud formations

Hi!
I was hoping that someone from this project will be able to identify the clouds in this dramatic formation. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Fir0002 (talk) 07:01, July 2 2008 (UTC), comment signed by IRP ☎ 19:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it's a roll cloud, but it looks just like a Morning Glory cloud, except dark, with dark clouds behind it. -- IRP ☎ 19:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
You may also be interested in this, and some of its related videos. -- IRP ☎ 19:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, I think it's probably actually a shelf cloud from the Arcus cloud article as it has a turbulent underside. Thanks again, --Fir0002 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Unknown cloud formation

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist    10:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Template

I deleted Template:Average and record temperatures per TfD consensus. Can an editor who knows how to use {{Infobox Weather}} replace Special:Whatlinkshere/Average and record temperatures? Thanks, Maxim(talk) 02:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed the last few. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies at AfD

FYI this article is at AfD, discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies. Banjeboi 08:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 450 articles are assigned to this project, of which 120, or 26.7%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=WikiProject Meteorology}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


"Standard height" in List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes??

List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes contains an odd and confusing reference to "standard height" when measuring windspeeds. I think that this phrase belongs in the sentence following the one where it appears, but am not sure. Can somebody please take a look? Thanks. -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

This might be more appropriate on the article in question's talk page, as it does not concern the whole WikiProject. Cheers, IceUnshattered [ t ] 19:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Reassessesment of Gulf Stream

Just a note to let the project know that Gulf Stream has been placed on hold following its GA Sweeps Review, which can be found here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Monsoon needs additional cites

Monsoon looks pretty good (as far as I can tell), but contains some statements that need cites. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an understatement. I've been occasionally adding to the citations, but it's unrewarding work. Anyone else who wishes to help out, feel free. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Meteorology

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Extremes

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection before December 2008, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 16:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Storm train

User: Bongomatic, has tagged the article I created, storm train, for deletion twice. The first time it was tagged, User: Runningonbrains said that the deletion tag was not appropriate for that article, and removed it. So Bongomatic decides to make an attempt to start an edit war by re-adding the deletion tag. Could someone help me with this? Should it really be deleted? Should I revise it? Please also look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Storm_train -- IRP ☎ 19:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to reply to this message, please reply here, and leave a notice on my talk page. -- IRP ☎ 19:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

looking for an image

Do you have an image of the earth (not flattened down on a map), where some wind velocities are shown? It does not matter whether it is a schematic map or a real photo. For example something like the one at the right, but for the whole earth (or at least one half that you see from one side). Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Noctilucent cloud up for GA

Hi everyone,

over the last few days I have done a lot of work on the Noctilucent cloud article, greatly expanding it and taking it from a Start class article to one that I think is at least a B. I think it can be made even better, although I've reached the limit of what I can do on my own.

I would appreciate opinions on what further improvements can be made, hopefully to bring it up to GA standard.

Thanks, Reyk YO! 01:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Upper tropospheric cyclonic vortex

Hi all. Could somebody expand this and improve it to give it a balanced encyclopedic account. P.S> I started an article on James C. Sadler. Perhaps someone has some reference material to expand it too. Thanks Count Blofeld 22:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Diurnal temperature variation

Hi, I tagged Diurnal temperature variation with {{Meteorology|class=Stub|importance=high}}. I was surprised to find it so stubbish, and then even more surprised to see it wasn't part of the Meteorology wikiproject. It should be. I've been bold and tagged it as high-importance; but I don't know if this is in correspondence with guidelines at this wikiproject, maybe it's Mid-Importance. When I find the time I will write some more on this article, it could at least be Start-class. --Gerrit CUTEDH 08:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Another North American Storm Complex

The current storm appears to be article-worthy at first blush. More than a dozen tornadoes, as well as an extremely unusual southern snow and a possible historic ice storm in the northeast. Following convention, I think a name similar to 2008 North American storm complex should be used, unless some agency comes up with another name for it. I'm going to start gathering sources, but I want to see if anyone else had any input.-RunningOnBrains 15:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking for ideas: rainbands

This article was upgraded from a short stub into a C class article over the last few days. A significant effort has been made to make the article understandable to non-scientists...but I'm beginning to wonder if I need to be more technical. What do you all think is needed to improve the article prior to submitting it for GA? Thegreatdr (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to make tropical rain belt a redirect to monsoon trough

It appears the article tries to tackle the topic in a less developed way than the monsoon trough article, which is a GA. I propose this article be cleaned out and made into a redirect for monsoon trough. Opinions? I'll wait either a month, or for 5-10 responses (whichever occurs first), for feedback before doing anything with the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Gulf stream

Gulf Stream has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Richerman (talk) 14:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Plea for wet season review

It's about to make the list of longest lived articles on GAN without a review (it was nominated in December). Any help would be appreciated, even if it were an informal review on its talk page. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.
Click here for more information or to sign your project up.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Deniers

I am not really able to devote much time to climate change topics, but I note that edits are being made to the article on The Deniers, by Lawrence Solomon, that appear to be to be broadly promotional in nature. The status of critical and favorable reviewers alike is being obfuscated, and one entire section read like a book blurb, consisting solely of a large block quote from the author. The article would benefit from a little attention that I myself cannot afford to devote to it. --TS 18:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring of the project page

I was bold and reorganized the names (including moving Hurricanehink to inactive) and removed the comments we all originally placed on the main project page. If there is a swell of disapproval, it can be reverted to its former state easy enough. The new look is cleaner, similar to the TC project, and this change shortened the page. Thegreatdr (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A-Class assessment

While the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment seems to be going nowhere fast, I figured I'd bring it up here. I've always really wanted an A-Class assessment for our project, but I was never convinced (and still am not) that we have enough manpower to maintain a functioning WikiProject assessment. It was mentioned here that projects could team up to make it work, with ours used as an example in fact.

In my view, we could make a functional Assessment system (A-class, or A and B class) here—to serve the needs of the Meteorology, Severe weather, and Non-tropical storms—with the current combined number of editors we have now. However, an easier way to make this work would be to drop a line over at WikiProject Tropical cyclones, who have been doing this successfully for a while (see their Assessment page), and ask if we can piggy-back on their assessment for a while, at least until we get our bearings (I would of course help out there in turn, as I'm sure some of you would).

What does everyone think?-RunningOnBrains 08:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It might actually help contributions to this general project. I like the idea. User:Thegreatdr 17:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
By the way, we already have an assessment page set up, but it has never been active. I have posted a draft proposal there, but it is almost completely based on the tropical cyclones project, and I'd like our assessment page to reflect our needs as a project. So fire away with the comments! -RunningOnBrains 02:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me. All three projects are pretty quiet nowadays, so it'd be good to have a collaborative assessment system. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I also think it's a good idea to bring together the three projects into one. Mbrstooge (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Me three (or four). It would be nice to set up an ACR (or ACA) for the projects. Cyclonebiskit 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I say it is a great idea! Even though I am not good at assessment (I tend to focus on keeping things current). CrazyC83 (talk) 03:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea as well. I haven't been very active lately, but I feel that I'm pretty good at assessment and I can try to see what I can do. Combining the projects seems like a great idea. That would help a lot with organization. bob rulz (talk) 05:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Whatever you think is best, you should do. I'll back ya and help you with whatever you decide upon. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 06:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
seems like a great idea!--Bhockey10 (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Good move. These fields are in fact quite outdated. I have quite a lot of interest in these subjects and can help with facts and figures, including wiki-formatting. But unfortunately, i am quite busy in real life till i finish a certain work. But do feel free to ask me if you need any sort of help. I'll be popping in and out at times to see what i can do... Have a nice day. Rehman (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't we include the Tropical Cyclones one as well??? User:Itfc+canes=me Talk Sign me! Its good to be back! 18:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea. I'd be willing to participate, though I'd need a little coaching/guidance in article assessment; it's not really something I've done before. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 17:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any issues on grouping the three together (perhaps also the Tropical systems part as well). As for myself as doing assessment - maybe only for lower ranks but not higher then that since I risk of giving higher grades that suppose and also I'm not the greatest in terms of WP:MOS and grammar.JForget 02:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Further explanation

I think a few people misunderstand what I'm trying to start up here (granted, I really didn't explain myself very well).

Some WikiProjects, especially larger ones like WikiProject Tropical cyclones, have a system where articles can be rated Start-Stub-C-B by anyone, but in order for an article to become A-class (and before it can go on to featured article candidacy), it must be checked by members of the project to ensure that it satisfies project standards such as depth, format, infoboxes, and accuracy (among others). I'm proposing that we either start our own (created but not active yet here) or piggyback on the Tropical Cyclone project's assessment page (here). From what I gather above though, there is enough interest that we should be able to strike out on our own.-RunningOnBrains 18:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the editorial team is weak and doesn't do anything. It is time we make our own functional assessments and decide for ourselves! Showtime2009 (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, it's settled

It seems clear to me that there is definite interest in this system. I will be changing around stuff at our assessment page to set up the stuff I'd like us to do, I invite everyone to comment there as they please. Here is a basic outline of what I will be setting up:

  1. A-class review
  2. Assessment requests
  3. Re-assessment requests

"A-class review" would be a Wikiproject review to make sure an article is ready for featured article candidacy. An A-class review would involve ideally 3 or more editors coming to consensus whether an article should be passed on to FAC, and thus given an A-class rating or not.

"Assessment requests" would be for articles which have a Wikiproject banner but are missing a class and/or importance assessment, or where an editor wants a second opinion on his assessment. "Re-assessment requests" would be akin to Good article reassessment or Featured article review, where we would try to improve GA-, A-, and FA-class articles which have slipped in quality, or, if they are too far gone to easily fix, demote them.

I will not be able to start this up for about two weeks; I have mid-terms and I will be visiting a graduate school. After then, however, I plan on throwing my full weight behind this.-RunningOnBrains 21:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds mostly okay, but we at WP:WPTC/A have noticed that what you're trying to solve with the re-assessment requests section is best done informally, as it doesn't need the full bureaucracy of ACR.
That said, what's the plan with respect to WP:WPTC/A? Is it being sent here as well? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A dyke is not limited to uses that are associated with metereology. There are dykes to ensure that a certain water level is maintained while this is not to be associated with protecting land on the other side of the dyke. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 11:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Therefore, it can be in multiple projects. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It's great how progressive society has gotten that dykes can have important jobs such as water level maintenance and land protection :-D -RunningOnBrains 19:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It's funny, that's the first thing that came to mind... but why is this discussion on this talk page? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

1998 Comfrey – St. Peter tornado outbreak

This is up for FAC if anyone feels the need to comment. Thanks! WxGopher (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wind and Westerlies up for GAN

In a continuing effort to improve basic articles within the meteorology project, wind is undergoing a significant upgrade in content, format, and inline reference inclusion. Check it out and, if you see any significant omissions, comment either here or on the main talk page for wind. Thanks for whatever comments you can provide. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wind is now up for GA. In a related note, Westerlies is now undergoing a significant upgrade. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Westerlies is close to becoming one of the oldest non-reviewed GAN candidates, since it was nominated 5 weeks ago. Help here would be appricated. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review and FAC

Wind has been submitted for peer review in preparation for FAC. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wind has been submitted for FAC. Oy. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Wind is now an FA. Thanks for your help. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Weather Stick

Dampness causes wood to twist or warp. The wood used to construct a weather stick is from a tree whose branches differ in density between the top and bottom of the branch. Wood, as the product of a living organism, is made of cells. In green wood, these cells are filled with liquid. In dry wood, however, the cells have lost their moisture, shrunk, and left air pockets between them, the reason why a dry piece of wood is much lighter than a green or a waterlogged piece. Differential swelling is what causes the branch to bend - under certain conditions, such as a change in relative humidity, the top of the branch will swell to a different degree than the bottom, forcing the branch to bend in an arc with the less swollen part of the branch on the inside of the arc.

Excuse my french, but that is the biggest load of shit that I have ever heard. One thing that the article fails to mention is that the fir trees branches move up and down with the weather while it is living as well. AKA before it has dried out AKA 100% humidity. The earlier part about the branches reacting to humidity is fine. Its a controlled study, where it was in fact reacting to humidity. I just hate this hearsay stuff where it claims humidity as the main factor. The study mentioned above the article did not equate the way the stick moved to humidity levels. It said "Don Ross, a New England researcher, has found that, in a controlled environment test, weather sticks show a strong response to relative humidity."This does not even mean that 50% of the reaction could be humidity. For all we know the humidity just allows it to react to something else, as far as this study is concerned. & that does not really say a lot. I don't see the study doing a comparative analysis where the living branch is subjected to more humidity..... wait..... 100% is the highest. Oah yea. For got that.

Ok. I know I was ranting a bit, but really guys.

Knightt (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, that was written in 2004, a full two years before this project got started. </excuses> Honestly, traditional weather instrumentation is a little out of my realm of interest, but I'll take a crack at it.-RunningOnBrains 01:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Convective available potential energy / Convective instability

Hello

Two articles in WikiProject Meteorology—Convective instability and Convective available potential energy were merged. Now there is a discussion as to whether it is appropriate to have the merged article recreated to describe the phenomenon in less technical specificity and in a manner appropriate to at least one class of interested readers. If you care, could you please review Talk:Convective instability#Fork?

Thanks, Bongomatic 00:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate

I noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate appears dead. Perhaps it should be merged here, and the purview of this project be expanded? 76.66.202.139 (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree to that. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange controversy

At talk:List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, user:KimDabelsteinPetersen is insisting that the minute a person dies, he or she must be removed from this list, since dead people have no opinions. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

New cloud formation

"Bid to classify cloud formation". Is asperatus worthy of an article? Jolly Ω Janner 15:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Not unless some official organization recognizes it. Why is BBC covering this? Some guy said he wants to classify a new type of cloud...seems kind of weird. To me, a different shape does not a different cloud make. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 19:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Micheal Fisher was commenting on it. That's probably why the BBC were intested. If the Met Office were to give their support and apply for it, would it be notable enough? It said it'll take years before it would be recognised anyway... Jolly Ω Janner 19:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is an official process for approving new cloud names. I suppose if Met Office (or any other official agency like WMO) recognizes it, or even officially says something like "We're considering it", it could get an article. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 19:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Sweeeet. I'll keep tabs on the story. Cheers, Jolly Ω Janner 19:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
That might be an interesting story for Wikinews, though. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
It appears someone has been WP:BOLD and created the article. I have no problem with letting it stay for now, as it appears well-sourced. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 20:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It lacks any scientific information. E.g. how it was formed. I'm sure there are few reliable sources around giving various theories for its information, rather than waiting for the official data to be released, which could take ages. Jolly Ω Janner 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For over a century there has been an international clouds committee that deals with this sort of thing. See Cloud atlas. --Una Smith (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Tornado myths

Would someone be willing to write a comprehensive lead section for Tornado myths? I've put it up for its second GAN, and one concern at its first GAN was the short lead section, but I'm just way too burnt out from staring at this article for a couple years to make it. Thanks in advance. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 07:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews weather

There is a discussion on the wikinews mailing list about setting up bots or other software agents to track weather conditions. The intent is to have quite a high level of detail to present weather conditions as news. Obviously, if you maintain a historical record of the data there are other uses for the data - some of which may benefit Wikipedia.

We'd welcome any and all input on this, particularly on the presentation of the data and what should be stored. --Brian McNeil /talk 13:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Geomagnetic storm → Geomagnetic solar storm

A WP:RM requested move has been filed to rename Geomagnetic storm → Geomagnetic solar storm

70.29.208.69 (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cloud Atlas

An article is needed about cloud atlases. See Cloud Atlas and Talk:Cloud Atlas (novel). --Una Smith (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. All that is needed to describe a cloud atlas is a dictionary definition, like the one already at Cloud atlas. Specific cloud atlases with their own articles can also be mentioned at that page; that's what a disambiguation page is for. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 05:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the history of this type of atlas merits an encyclopedia article. --Una Smith (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
See International Cloud Atlas; an article about cloud atlases in general is in the works. However, on Talk:Cloud Atlas (novel) is an open request to move an article about a novel to Cloud AtlasCloud Atlas, leaving Cloud atlas occupied by a disambiguation page. I think the disambiguation page should be at Cloud AtlasCloud Atlas. --Una Smith (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a good compromise, provided Cloud atlas is a decently sourced article. I have no objections. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The cloud atlas article is at User:Una Smith/sandbox, pending closure of the requested move. Please weigh in on Talk:Cloud Atlas (novel). --Una Smith (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The requested move has been closed, with no move. The requested move of the dab page is at Talk:Cloud atlas. --Una Smith (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Earthquake weather

I've just completed a long-proposed merge of earthquake cloud, earthquake light, and earthquake weather. This was by no means elegant, but more the work of a rather thoughtful bull in a china shop. I've removed plenty of Youtube refs, and basically shuffled the text into somewhat-congruent sections, but I'm starting to lose focus. Would anyone care to help edit? It's almost impossible to make an edit that does not improve the article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

My above merger has led to a Request for Comment. If you are so inclined, I request your comments. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Yellowknife tornado

Yellowknife tornado is up for deletion, as I believe it to be a hoax and/or non-notable. Please weigh in at the discussion; if there are any sources at all showing notability I would love to have them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runningonbrains (talk • contribs)

I don't think the tornado is a hoax, as one of the refs supports that one did occur. However, I think there is a bigger question here that needs to be discussed. Does having just a regular old tornado in a region that does not normally see them warrant an article? That's the only thing that would keep this around. It's not in the current notability criteria for them, but it seems like these pop up every once in a while. The 2008 Vancouver tornado article is another one like this. WxGopher (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Precipitation (meteorology) Peer Review

After recent updates to the snow article, it was discovered that the precipitation article had little mention of snow, which has since been rectified. To prepare for a possible FAC run, I've submitted the article to peer review, in case anything else is missing from, or at issue within, the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hydrometeor is a redirect to Precipitation (meteorology), but the 1975 International Cloud Atlas defines hydrometeor among several other types of meteors. Please expand Precipitation (meteorology) to explain the origin and history of the term hydrometeor, and distinguish it from these other "meteors". (Meteor and MeteorsMeteors are redirects to Meteoroid, and there are separate Meteor (disambiguation) and Meteors (disambiguation); maybe that should be changed.) --Una Smith (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have just included a section explaining what a hydrometeor is, which is now fixed within the hydrometeor redirect. I'm looking for a good book-related source for a meteor definition, which should be easy to find. Thanks for the feedback. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

New template for tagging NWS images

This has also been posted at WT:SEVERE

I'm not sure how often others have run into this problem, but images we upload from NWS damage surveys which state "Courtesy of" some party tend to get deleted as copyright violations. However, as this discussion at Commons confirmed for me, these images are in fact in Public Domain, and so can be used at Wikipedia. I have created {{PD-NWS}} to use on National Weather Service photos; we should use this to prevent confusion in the future. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Severe weather

This article is in need of some help. I have nominated it for the WP:ACID collaboration, but it needs support to make it through the nomination process. Also, despite it being the core article of a descendant wikiproject, I was somewhat surprised to find that the Severe weather article isn't even included in WP:METEO. --Ks0stm (T•C) 19:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently this article requires a copyedit. The coverage of the article is almost complete; this is perhaps one of the only major problems left that is needed to be solved. Would anyone be able, or know of anyone that is able to assist? KnowledgeRequire (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Freezing rain vs. supercooled rain

I would like to discuss here about these terms. Thanks.--Carnby (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thunderstorm up for GA

Thunderstorm has been improved enough to be submitted once again for GA consideration. It was once a good article, but was delisted in October 2006. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowflake up for GA

It appears the snowflake article is complete enough, and referenced enough, for a GAN attempt. Feel free to review it if you have the interest and the time. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Article requests

Is our article requests page still active? I seem to be the only one to have edited it since early 2008...Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Air mass and Trade wind up for GA

As part of the series of wind articles I've been upgrading, both air mass and trade wind are on GAN. FYI. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion needed at List of weather records

There is a difference of opinion at Talk:List of weather records about what constitutes an "official" record, I would appreciate any input. Thanks! -RunningOnBrains(talk) 10:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  1. get the source. If all they do is play like they are cooperating, and just post tidbits and not the site source, then they know what they have is false, period.
  2. get an admin to restrict the page to registered users, disallow anonymous posting, the page itself attracts cretonous behavior.
  3. ... that's all... —Will research for food (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

{{Climate}}

Template:Climate has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know it existed. Thanks for the heads up. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone with a strong background in dynamic meteorology needed with the met articles

It was come up within the Wind talk page, and elsewhere, that the meteorology articles are lacking in depth concerning atmospheric dynamics. While I have some understanding concerning the topic, it is not my strong suit. Synoptic meteorology is, which is noticeable when you look at my contributions over the years within the project. If someone with a strong background in dynamics is within the project, please help out. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I perused quickly...where (or how) do you mean in the Wind article? I find possible fault in the cause of wind, is that what you are talking about? Otherwise the article is very good. —Will research for food (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
It's good to have a second opinion. There was some editing a couple days ago when it was featured on the main page, and at least one obvious error was found. Otherwise, the edits made are mainly to the article's wording. Maybe it's the prose itself that needed the help. Thegreatdr (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, it would take some time to pick through and verify anything, that is before I would make a definite suggestion at changing anything. —Will research for food (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Heat lightning should be deleted

I am thinking this article should be deleted, as most of this article's contents should be discussed in Lightning, under another section like atmospheric audio effects. There is not enough factual supportive information for there to be a Wiki-article...it would just be a stub. —Will research for food (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather/General_meteorology_task_force/Archive_8&oldid=344981348"