Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Requested move 20 March 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Gosh, even after the requester recognized this as a train wreck, and asked to withdraw it on 20 March, and again on 22 March, it's been left hanging for well over two months?! Reading from the top, I felt tempted to close this as malformed even before I got to the requester's own withdrawal request. Where have all the competent administrators gone? It's one thing to not allow withdrawal of an RM when consensus is clearly trending for a move against the requester's preference, quite a different thing to not allow withdrawal when they clearly see the writing on the wall that their request is doomed to no move, or no consensus. Two points of advice to help these discussions go better, moving forward: One. Multi-move requests are not designed for, nor intended to be used for making, case-by-case decisions. It's not clear what the dates a 2013 outbreak began and ended have to do with the beginning and ending dates of a 2024 outbreak. If you're relying on reliable sources to state beginning and ending dates of outbreaks, you'll need to look at what the sources say about each outbreak on a case-by-case basis. Two. Article content dictates article titles. Each tornado outbreak article should specifically state, probably in their lead paragraph, when the outbreak started and ended. This is a content decision, first and foremost. Once the content is settled, the article title follows. Should be a lot easier than this. The requester says that the official NCEI database has outbreak dates, if I'm understanding correctly. Well, these dates could be stated in our articles, citing NCEI as the reliable source. I don't see this information in these articles. That would be the first step: stating the "official" dates of the outbreak in the articles. Requested moves should not be used to settle article content disputes, only for deciding article titles. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

– MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 05:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit: Removing the sequence splits from the RM template as they’re setting the bots off with the different names each time. Gonna put a split notice there and link to discussion instead. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to try and settle this once and for all seeing how much back and forth there is going on lately, specifically on Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025. A major issue that has come up is the issue of date ranges in tornado outbreaks, and whether we should be labeling them on our accord or following what the NCEI has defined the outbreak as. This came to me after @Wxtrackercody: on the aforementioned talk page mentioned that:

"Debate about the meteorology aside, we need to also keep in mind the time element. There's no official definition of a tornado outbreak, which makes titling these articles very subjective. Most modern definitions of a tornado outbreak require at least 6 tornadoes with a gap no longer than 6-9 hours between them. If we apply that definition, the CA tornado should not be included. Generally speaking, I'd be inclined to lean toward a stricter definition of what we define as a tornado outbreak on Wikipedia. It would help cut down on the continuous tornado outbreak sequence titles we have to deal with in May/June (for instance, last year we have an outbreak sequence of May 19-27, whereas NCEI defines two different outbreaks on May 18-22 and May 25-26)."

Specifically, some of the outbreak pages include dates that are included almost on WP:SYNTH grounds, based on the flimsy aspect of one tornado occurring on that date well separated from the rest of the outbreak (seen with the most recent outbreak). Meanwhile, on the NCEI database, some of the dates are different, and in some cases, split up with regards to sequences (2019 and 2024 most prominently). As such, I propose that the listed articles be moved to correct their dates to the official NCEI database to adhere to a more strict definition, as well as reducing the amount of sequence pages we have when NOAA themselves consider them seperate outbreaks with only flimsy weak tornadoes in between. For the last case of the most recent outbreak, since it is not on NCEI yet, March 14-16 is the most common name (and what I'm suspecting will eventually be on the list later this year but we'll cross that bridge when we get there), seeing as how both social media and many different sources have referred to the event as starting on Friday the 14th and March 14-16, with no mention of the California tornado on the 13th (which falls under the previous rationale above and has hardly been mentioned, despite being part of the same system. So let's discuss this once and for all and settle out all our differences, seeing as how this recent outbreak has seemed to bring up quite a bit of them. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Note: one proposal, Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 → Tornado outbreak of March 14–16, 2025, had to be removed because it conflicts with a move request on that article's talk page. Only one requested move can be open for an article's title at a time. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

You couldn't have waited a week till the discussion was over? Procedural close as clear but indirect bludgeoning of the March 13-16 discussion, which has been noted by several editors. Even if this isn't PRO-C'd, strong oppose per Departure. — E_F⁵ 18:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

It was obviously clear this was more than just that discussion on March 14-16, and encompassed a broader view which Cody brought up. This is not WP:BLUDGEON at all but an attempt to fix the underlying issue at large. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

March 14-16 is the most common name isn't BLUDGEONING of another discussion, defined as "where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own ... this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions"? It's clear to me that you are attempting to push the March 13 issue, even if under the guise of a project-space RM. Two of the three paragraphs in this RM talk mostly about the March 13-16 issue, although eight requests are listed. I'm not participating any further, although I do suggest we stop having constant RMs and everything that tore the project apart in 2024. — E_F⁵ 19:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong oppose all, for now - this is jumping the gun a bit and I think a lot of these need to be evaluated on a more case-by-case basis. As it stands, we should really be coming to a project-wide consensus about tornado outbreaks, coverage in RS, etc. @EF5, I strongly disagree that this RM is bludgeoning, but either way I hope we can come to a more diplomatic solution than just tossing accusations that may or may not be true. I perceive this as a strong step in the right direction, even if off-point in its execution - as I said, consensus and deliberation about the definition of the outbreaks themselves should come first, and RMs should be made last. Also, procedural close as the 13-16 article already has a requested move on it. Departure– (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging the admin that procedurally closed the last RM @User: Paine Ellsworth - another has been opened here. Departure– (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose at least Tornado outbreak of May 6–10, 2024, as the tornadoes involved with it in Florida were on the 10th. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Support with a tweak - I do think it makes complete sense to adopt the NCEI dates for tornado outbreaks (at least, the ones on the list because they caused >1B in damage), and I'd probably go even farther to say it's malpractice we have not been. The process of delineating dates has been very subjective for over a decade. Beyond that, it's also important that we establish a project-wide definition of what a tornado outbreak is for a) events that cause less than $1B and thus aren't on the list and/or b) events that just occurred and have not yet been added to the list. That is worthy of a separate, major discussion. For the sake of these proposed moves, I support them with a minor tweak. NCEI lists the May 2019 outbreak as May 26-29 (not 30). By the way, here's the list for those unfamiliar. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 20:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Support for March 14-16 The California EF0 literally has nothing to do with the outbreaks that occur the next day and the day after. The same low that spawned the tornadoes from the 14th-16th didn't produce the Cali EF0, so it makes no sense to include it. From what I see, the only reason it's even include is because it just so happen to occur the day before the big outbreaks Hoguert (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

In fact it did, as the system did not fully form until it reached around texas and oklahoma, but there was still small areas of storms that coalesced into the 13-17 outbreak. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment - seeing as how I botched the process here yet again, I hereby withdrawthis RM and request a procedural closure. I thought I was doing this the right way but I may have messed up in the process. Instead, once this is closed, we’ll start an RfC instead to settle this once and for all, without running afoul of RM processes. Pinging @Paine Ellsworth: to close as they closed the last one via admin closure and am requesting so here as well. Double ping request I know, but as the author I guess this holds a bit more weight to do so. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

To editor MarioProtIV: this proposal has received some support, so withdrawal is no longer an option. I've removed the March proposal from this RM, so it can be continued to see if it garners consensus in this form. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, saves me some effort, and whatever comes off this RM we can eventually use to complete the March one. Thank you! MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Happy to help! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

You folks need to hold ONE RM discussion at a time in ONE place and not spread out a discussion among several talk pages in article talk and project talk space. Why is there this rush? Wait until things settle down to make decisions like moving articles or you're likely to have the same discussion day after day after day. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose any date range per myself and others on the other page. Per WP:OVERPRECISION and WP:CONCISE, I support something like "May". I express weak support for one more word if necessary like "mid-May", "early May" or "late May". Having numbered dates is way too subjective and leads to endless disagreement, as seen by the 5 RMs we had this week. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

This is far too general. There's more than one outbreak in a month (especially April-June), and there's more than one outbreak in particular segments of a month (early/mid/late). Take the outbreaks in the list above, for instance, with the NCEI defining separate outbreaks in late May 2019. The dates will be easy to establish if we decide on a project-wide definition of a tornado outbreak. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose on procedural grounds, support generic names / names per month, and for those cases where some sources split the sequences, name it Tornado outbreak sequence"S" of May 2019 or whatever period is given. And in general, if you propose to name pages after source X or Y, at least provide a link to that source confirming your position. E.g. the May 2019 sequence is treated as one here, while the NCEI doesn't describe it as two sequences, but as three "multi-day events" with gaps inbetween[1]. So I have no way to judge what you base these proposed moves/splits on, and easily find countering sources. Fram (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
NCEI is NOAA themselves, which definitely carries more weight than a research paper, IMO. Also, as Cody said, generic names are far too general seeing we have multiple outbreaks per month. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
You are making proposals supposedly because you want to follow NCEI, but you don't link to where NCEI supports your proposals, and when I look it turns out that NCEI has a different breakdown of these outbreaks. At the March 2025 outbreak RM, it is clear that the proponents of the "exact dates" names can't agree on a name even after the previous moves, so the system doesn't work. More generic names avoid all these issues, and there is no reason why we can have only one such name per month when more are needed. Fram (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Generic month-based outbreak titles without date ranges were phased out long ago following extensive discussion. Not an option based on consensus and over a decade of precedent.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Ok since nobody has broken this issue down in a logical manner that factors in synoptic meteorology, I will do that now. We have two options: 13th to the 17th, or 14th to the 17th. Why? Because while the same storm system produced tornadoes on all five days, the California tornado was geographically and convectively separate from the rest of the tornadoes, not to mention the time gap. It also occurred outside of the open warm sector in which the main outbreak occurred. The final North Carolina tornado on the 17th was not geographically removed from the others, and was spawned by the same convective complex that produced the tornadoes on the 16th, and occurred in the same warm sector. So that leaves us with two logical choices: Include all five days, or get rid of the barely-linked Cali tornado. I don’t care which option we go with, as long as we stick to formatting standards and establish consistency between both articles. What isn’t an option is getting rid of a date range altogether, because that practice was done away with more than a decade ago, and for good reason and following much discussion and consensus. We can’t go back to that, so we have to pick either the four-day or five-day date range including the 17th. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

@TornadoInformation12: I advise to leave the recent outbreak to its own page as that’s where the current RM for that is. Trying to discuss it here would just result in a PC because two RMs on the same topic cannot be ongoing at the same time. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 04:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know what you mean. Where is the main discussion taking place? I was told to bring it here.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I believe Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025/Archive 2#Requested move 20 March 2025 (/gen); it had to be left out of this RM on procedural close grounds. — E_F⁵ 04:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Why is it that We can’t go back to that? WP:Consensus can change. It being more than a decade ago makes this all the more likely.

Based on the current status of other RM, everyone except two editors wants to remove data ranges to ensure stable titles. Furthermore, when challenged, links to the much discussion and consensus failed to appear. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

There has been no discussion of this problem up until this outbreak. I’ve been with the project long enough to see that date ranges were always the most stable option. Also, WP:NORUSH on the other RM as given enough time more input will be put in so assuming the consensus is coming to do away with days ranges is clearly WP:CRYSTAL. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Additional comment – Seeing as how an RfC was opened further down the page dealing with this exact subject, I’m requesting a withdrawl of this RM to focus discussion there, if that’s possible. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Just fyi... since there has been support for these proposals, withdrawal is not an option per the guide for closing instructions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 19:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

So then, as the one who started the discussion, if I want to consolidate discussion to the RfC, then what’s the next option? I realize talking there would be better then this RM. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

In accord with the closing instructions, under these circumstances where there has been both opposition and support, this formal move request should be open a minimum of seven days from the date and time you opened it. That would be 27 March. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

You can (1) Ask for the RM to be suspended, but I don't know that obscure procedure, or (2) Simply let this RM run for 7 days and the RfC for ~30 days. Then start another RM, where the RfC can be cited. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Honestly, that just sounds like a major headache. There are specific instances where it's better to have them grouped together rather than splitting them, and all of the ones suggested fit that category. ChessEric 17:47, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

When NCEI/NOAA lists them (specifically the 2024 ones) as separate, that would warrant a discussion to split. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:02, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether we should split articles. We don't have to always go by what NOAA/the NCEI says you know. ChessEric 17:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose the 4th idea, May 10 saw 2 EF2 tornadoes in Tallahassee, Florida, and one of the tornadoes caused 2 deaths. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 00:22, 21 April 2025 (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.

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Remote sensing, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:05, 2 June 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team}

Good article reassessment for Rain

Rain 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) 15:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:List of largest single-location tornado casualty counts

I don't know how to make this not seem like obvious cruft, but this right here is, in my opinion, a very important list that should be made, and honestly isn't as crufty as a lot of the other tornado-related and etc lists in general this project has. I've started it with four entries. Departure– (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Good start, but perhaps this should be called List of the deadliest tornadoes? I’m not sure the significance of the single location casualty count, is that a well known metric in tornadoes? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Surprisingly, yes. ^EF⁵ 13:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

We could have another "list of deadliest tornadoes" or expand List of deadliest tornadoes in the Americas to worldwide. But, this article, in my opinion, highlights advancement in tornado warning and safety procedures, so we don't have 16 people with no information dying in a single Chicago intersection every few years. Departure– (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Tornado outbreak sequence and floods of April 30-May 4, 2024

I am making a draft for the tornadoes and floods that occured from April 30-May 4, 2024. I need help with the meteorological synopsis, so if someone wants to help write it, feel free to do so! Weathereditor123 (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Featured article review for Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America

I have nominated Effects of Hurricane Ivan in the Lesser Antilles and South America for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2025 Somerset–London tornado#Requested move 5 June 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2025 Somerset–London tornado#Requested move 5 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Draft:June 2025 North Dakota tornado outbreak and derecho

I'd like everyone here to get this draft up to article standards ASAP. I have some reasons and sources laid out on Talk:List of derecho events. Thank you. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:25, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

RfC on date ranges in meteorological event titles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Expressed preferences were complicated, but it seems when a date range is needed, it should be broad (B not A). There is a slight preference for using a whole month name over making up a name for a part of a month (D not C). There was a preference for "B or A" over "D or C" but a preference for B over D, so there is no clear consensus there and I just summarized the pros and cons. Editors pointed out the month is useful if the date range is disputed, and the date range is useful for disambiguation.

The instructions in existing guideline for geographical disambiguation did not make sense to me, but I needed to harmonize them with this update. The previous instructions resulted in titles like "Tornado outbreak Oklahoma 1999". I have changed the guideline to match how those disambiguators are used in practice, which is more like "1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak". If the existing de facto format is undesirable, feel free to start a new discussion about a mass rename, or to change the guideline if there has already been a discussion about this which I'm not aware of. Since consensus is unclear in many ways, I have left it open for editors to decide which of the common formats to use based on the various competing concerns that might come up for any given article.

After my update, the guideline now reads:

>>

4. If there is no accepted name, the name is typically formatted: #tornado, tornado outbreak, or tornado outbreak #sequence, followed by "of MONTH DAY, YEAR". Example: Tornado outbreak of April 14–16, 2011

A broader date range is preferred if certain tornadoes are omitted by some sources and not others (but not if they assert they are unrelated).
Using only the month is acceptable if sources disagree or indicate a dispute about which tornadoes are included and thus the date range is disputed.
Adding the geographic location can also be used for disambiguation; this is typically done "YEAR PLACE tornado FOO". Examples: 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak, 2022 Russia–Ukraine tornado outbreak. A month can be added for further disambiguation.

<<

-- Beland (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Part 4 of WP:DISASTER reads: If there is no accepted name, the name should be formatted as follows: tornado, tornado outbreak, or tornado outbreak sequence, followed by Geographic location (only if necessary: City, State, Country, Continent, or any combination of these), followed by Year (or Month/year, or day/month/year if need be). Example: Tornado outbreak of April 14–16, 2011

Please rank these title options from most to least preferred for a non-year article:

Narrow date range
Tornado outbreak of January 2–3, 1234 when January 2–3 covers ~60% of sources
Broad date range
Tornado outbreak of January 1–4, 1234 when January 1–4 covers ~90% of sources
Part of month
Tornado outbreak of Early January, 1234, Tornado outbreak of mid-January, 1234, Tornado outbreak of Late January, 1234

Each part is 10 days, moved forward or back 3 days for flexibility and discretion
Month
Tornado outbreak of January 1234

The next preferred option is used to disambiguate two events in the same (part of the) month. Year ranges can be used for December–January events. This RfC does not change the WP:COMMONNAME name/location parts 1–3 of WP:DISASTER. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Option D > C > B > A as nom. Simpler titles avoid the conflicting definitions and endless disagreement about date ranges that are causing title instability. I prefer something that is WP:CONCISE and avoids WP:OVERPRECISION. The 3-day flexibility would continue allowing existing articles like Late-March on March 19 to simply and naturally contrast with a mid-March event 5 days earlier.

When questioned, Option A/B supporters repeatedly failed to link the previous discussions they claimed as consensus. The real status quo of both the guideline and WikiProject advice but not articlespace supports my position. For inclusion criteria, I'd say to look at not the title but at whether reliable sources consistently mention the events together. Again, none of the options override WP:COMMONNAME for non-date titles like 1974 Super Outbreak. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Case-by-case basis - I think the issue here is that we're trying to apply the disagreements on one page to the entire scope, which wouldn't be helpful as some outbreaks do have common names (April 3, 1974, April 27, 2011, etc.) — E_F⁵ 14:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

But in the case where this wouldn't apply, C > B > A > D. I also really hope this can clear up relatively soon in the best interest of the project. I'd hate to have a repeat of last year where new editors enter to project-wide chaos, wouldn't everyone else? I'm also having trouble believing that there has ever been "consensus" on the issue, not a single editor has been able to pull up a discussion link when asked.. — E_F⁵ 14:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@EF5: What chaos were you referring to? Noah, BSBA^Talk 23:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

T h i s chaos. Coming from a then-new editor, seeing the state of this WikiProject last year was incredibly discouraging. The bickering and constant RfCs were insane; I try to make new editors feel welcome here and fighting, as has recently been done on this issue (good to see we're sorting it out, though), is the exact opposite of welcoming. — E_F⁵ 00:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Option A, oppose everything else. C and D are out of the question as it can create confusion, and OP citing CONCISE and OVERPRECISION cancels out each other, as the date ranges themselves fall under CONCISE. Option C is WP:SYNTH given the fact close events to the outbreak may get lumped in despite not even being part of the same outbreak. Many media sources and NCEI (an official NOAA branch, which holds the most weight over everything else IMO) refer to them by date range as well, and we should follow that instead of being broad and unnecessarily confusing. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

C can be considered if AND ONLY IF there are no other notable outbreaks in the month. Never use D IMO. A > B when those options are open. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

D > C, no preference for an order of A vs. B because it might just as well be that A is more common in the sources than B. Perhaps nom meant "of tornadoes" instead of "of sources"? Fram (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
D doesn’t work when you have multiple separate outbreaks during the month. As such you run into problems immediately. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
And A sometimes doesn´t work in reality either, as seen by the multiple discussions we have here. Still, I didn´t feel the need to tell you that yoyr !vote was somehow wrong. Obviously,in those cases where D gives problems, C should be used, duh... Fram (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:DISASTER and this RfC clearly say earliest applicable style to allow disambiguation.
"Of sources" is supposed to capture the general idea in the other RM. I'm not confident about the percentages, by which I meant "simple majority" (51%) by 60% and "overwhelming majority" by 90%. It is related to the idea of "only if most sources mention them together" (Option A) vs "if even a few sources mention them together" (Option B). 216.58.25.209 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
I think common name applies here, so if majority of a sources give a certain date, then that's what we should go with. As for the other tornadoes associated with the same system, they can be mentioned in yearly tornadoes, in the "List of [location] tornadoes" if in the US the "List of tornadoes in the United States (month(s))", whatnot. It would be one thing if it was an outbreak associated with a certain weather event, but those wouldn't have the date range, it would be "List of tornadoes spawned by Y cyclone". Ultimately that means option A. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Option B > A > D > C.

• A & B seem more consonant with the usual way of citing such events, or events in general, to me; they're specific enough to help anyone looking for something in particular, but broad enough that they'll still pop up for someone who searches for "tornado outbreak January 1234" (& will be informative on a quick glance for anyone who knows the latter information but needs to find the exact date, as sometimes happens to me).

• I particularly disfavor C, as being clumsy & "worst of both worlds" (we barely gain in specificity—and I feel like no one is going to use "mid-January tornado outbreak" as a search term for either 'Net searching or visual scanning; it's too unlikely to be cited that way in official sources, IME—and we also don't even buy any concision for the sacrifice).

• B is ranked above A as I think that communicating the broader common date-range might be more informative & helpful in ensuring fewer cases of "mistaken rejection" (y'know, e.g. "oh, I was reading about a tornado on Jan. 2—but Wikipedia says it wasn't part of this outbreak; better keep looking").

...or so things seem to me, anyway!

Himaldrmann (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2025 (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.

Requesting Assistance

I apologize in advance if this does not fit the talk page criteria for this WikiProject. However, I have created an article relating to weather — Hebert-Poteat technique — and it is currently unrated. It would be greatly appreciated if a user who obtains the permission to rate articles relating to weather to classify a rating to it.

On the other hand, it had been mentioned in many articles standing as a red link since 2006 and discussions were made in the talk page of Hebert-Poteat technique before it was created. This resulted in the deletion of any lasting subjects in the talk page per WP:CSD#G8. Therefore, I do not know if it was allowed for the article to be created due to the extended time of the article not being created despite the occurrences in other articles. Please assist me in this matter if you are able to. Thank you. BoppySillyMcGoof (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Featured article review for Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C.

I have nominated Effects of Hurricane Isabel in Maryland and Washington, D.C. for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Floods of 2025

Just a note, I'm trying something new here, hopefully this can become a yearly occurence. — ^EF⁵ 14:51, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2021 Tri-State tornado#Requested move 21 May 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2021 Tri-State tornado#Requested move 21 May 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 1981 Pacific typhoon season

1981 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) 19:55, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Draft related to Gulf Coast

Not quite sure where this would go but I have started Draft:July 2025 Gulf Coast floods. Meteorological history is currently empty and the lead needs improvement. I am also unsure of the title (unless it morphs into a tropical system). Based on Florida's impacts, it might be able to hold its own in the mainspace. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado#Requested move 10 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado#Requested move 10 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 07:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2016 Jiangsu tornado#Requested move 16 July 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2016 Jiangsu tornado#Requested move 16 July 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 12:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Station model

Station model 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) 19:09, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Featured article review

I have nominated Meteorological history of Hurricane Ivan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Flow-following, finite-volume Icosahedral Model

This article has many links, which indicates that it might be important, but no references. Please add reliable sources. I'd do it myself but it's not my expertise. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

2025 Milwaukee flood

I've started the above article. I would appreciate if any project members could have a quick look to make sure it's up to the project's standards. (And is the article title correct?) Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:08, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

As far as objective quality, it matches all the criteria for a B-Class article. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Saffir–Simpson scale needs an overhaul

The page has a notice on its talk recommending a GAR. Anyone interested in saving it? 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 18:08, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

New ACE calculations from NHC

It looks like the NHC just updated their Reports page to include an entire table for each year's statistics, including ACE. Given that this is directly from the RSMC themselves, I strongly support we follow their numbers from now on, at least all the way back to 1991, which is the earliest. 1990 and earlier can still use CSU information given it doesn’t go that far back. Thoughts? I’ve already begun converting some of them (2023, 2024, and 2025) to this source. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I’ve long been leery about doing the ACE calculations by ourselves, given the varying totals that often happen, and that it’s not exactly a routine calculation. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Im a bit late but are the NHC calculations different from CSU? ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

If they are, then NHC's calculations should take precedence. CSU's aren't always updated with best track decisions. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

It’s by the RSMC of the area so I say yes. I have to wonder if NHC did this partially because they were aware of the discrepancies in ACE calcs between CSU, Ryan Maue, or even our own, and decided to go ahead and publish their official record. I believe they are updated with regards to best track decisions, although I’d have to double check when we have that situation again (Erin didn’t really provide an opportunity given most best track estimates ended up as the following estimate at advisory time). MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:17, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

I think we should really MfD all ACE calculation pages. I've attempted to in the past but now that we have a solid official source, such pages are quickly running afoul of WP:NOT. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Thank you for adding the ACE parameter on the template! I’ve always wondered if there’d be a time where we’d be able to display that on the infobox. Glad it’s here :) MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

AFD of FA

Just a note: if there should again be an AFD of a Featured article, please try to remember to leave a note at WT:FAR so we can avoid a lot of manual work to get the pieces in the right place: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hurricane Hector (2018)/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Climate of North Carolina

Climate of North Carolina 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) 13:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Cyclone

Cyclone 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) 05:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

F-scale era tornadoes rated on the EF scale

What do we do about tornadoes like the 1967 Belvidere tornado, where the National Weather Service surveyed the tornado in the EF-scale era, and applying it an EF rating as a result? The 1974 DePauw F5, Brandenburg F5 and numerous F3s and F4s from the 1990s are also affected by this, and this really only applies to the DAT, which for some reason has random tornadoes from the 1920s to 90s on it. ^EF⁵ 14:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Notable tornadoes prior to 2007 assigned an EF rating by the NWS on the DAT

1928 Rockford F3 (directly rated "EF3+" in 2023)
1933 Nashville F3 (rated "EF3" in 2024)
1967 Belvidere-Woodstock F4 (rated "EF4" in 2023)
1974 Brandenburg F5 (rated "EF5" in 2018)
1974 Depauw F5 (rated "EF5" in 2018)
1974 Hanover-Madison F4 (rated "EF4" in 2018)
1990 Plainfield F5 (rated "EF5" in 2020)
1998 Nashville F3 (rated "EF3" in 2021)

All of these need a look as to whether they should be classified on the F or EF scale. ^EF⁵ 14:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, this is an overall question that has come up a few times over the years, and it often is just pushed under-the-rug and overall ignored. Actually, just a few months ago, the 2005 Birmingham tornado was rated on F, EF, TORRO, and IF scale, which caused an edit war over the rating, and eventually triggered an RFC to end the edit war. The result was the IF rating, as it was the most recent rating. But, as mentioned above, this overall rating dispute is not a single isolated tornado. Disagreements on the intensity of tornadoes is a whole article to summarize some of these academic disagreements as well. The rating disputes have even been apart of GANs; in my memory with the GAN for Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945.

Going strictly based on Wikipedia policy (WP:RS, specifically the WP:OLDSOURCES part of WP:RS]]), the most recent information is preferred..."Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed"..."Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely that new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years".

Fun Fact, Template:Infobox weather event/Tornado actually has a built-in parameter to add Fujita-scale & Torro-scale ratings into the infobox together. The template currently does not allow for F, EF, and IF to be in the infobox together. Only F/EF/IF + TORRO. For these disputes/new ratings, should we alter the infobox code to allow it to display both F and EF? Either that, or I would just go with the most recent source, like was done on the 2005 Birmingham tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: It is possible; I'm currently working something up at User:EF5/Testing chamber. ^EF⁵ 17:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

So I've implemented my "final design" at Draft:1928 Rockford tornado and I actually think it looks really good, feedback is welcome. ^EF⁵ 17:44, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Greensburg tornado has been nominated at FAC

Greensburg tornado has been nominated as a featured article candidate; the nomination can be found here. Since the article falls under this WikiProject's scope, I am posting this notice here. It currently needs more comments, so if you've got time, please comment on the nomination page. Thanks in advance! Note that this is the fifth FAC, so reviews are greatly appreciated — ^EF⁵ 14:44, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that this FAC needs only one more prose review and one source review/spotcheck to pass, so any review of those types would be great. ^EF⁵ 22:41, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Note that this FAC only needs only a spotcheck to pass. ^EF⁵ 17:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Seeking out interest for a project-wide newsletter

As some people might know, there has been a newsletter for the hurricane/tropical cyclone project on/off for many years. I think a single newsletter for the entire weather project would be useful. Maybe call it...

The Monthly Wiki-Weather Review

The name is play on "Monthly Weather Review", which is a journal that has been documenting storms for centuries. Is anyone interested in a newsletter, either editing it, or receiving it? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I know I'm getting to this 20 days late, but @Hurricanehink: this seems like a decent idea. I'd love to help edit it aswell. ^EF⁵ 17:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey this is Wikipedia, there is no deadline! One of the problems with the original Hurricane Herald was that it was tough to fill out sometimes. I don't think the newsletter needs to cover all of the active weather articles, but mentioning new articles would be useful, and maybe if they occurred during the month they could be in bold? There could be a "Event of the Month" section too. Just spitballing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

How about four-or-so sections:

Featured content (articles brought to GA or FA status during the month)
Monthly updates (policy changes, new essays, WT:W discussions, etc.)
Events of the month (IRL tornado, hurricane and geological events that month)
Did You Know/selected picture/article of the month (self-explanatory)

Thoughts? ^EF⁵ 18:14, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

That works. What about selected new articles too? Lists often get published in incomplete states, but are good to highlight. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Yes, that world work. ^EF⁵ 18:37, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the policy related content as I feel like the project's rules can be rather cryptic for people and hard to access. As for new articles, I worry that it might be a bit unwieldy of a list. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

True, and a lot of new articles are made for routine weather events. Maybe just "selected new articles" to feature DYK-style some of the new articles? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I also don't actually know how many articles the WikiProject makes per month. If it is under 20 articles made (unlikely in my opinion) then a paragraph for each would be fine. Up to around 50, I think a blurb could be manageable. Too much more than that, I believe selection would be required. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Eesh, even 20 seems like a lot - you might be right about the new articles becoming unwieldly. Maybe just "New article of the month"? It sounds like there could be some interest, so I made a basic layout for the newsletter, based on what the old Hurricane Herald used to look like. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

If we want to cut down on new articles, I propose ignoring event articles made during that month. For example, not listing Erin for August's newsletter. Instead, we focus on old events getting articles and more scientific articles getting more publicity.

As for the layout, it looks good. I don't really know how one could make it better or worse, formatting-wise. The background colour seems fine and it doesn't strain my eyes to read the text. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Yea I agree. Glad the format works well - I always liked how the Hurricane Herald looked, so that was easy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

RFC regarding adding relations to climate change on specific severe meteorological event articles

This RFC is a pseudo-continuation of a discussion at the Central Texas floods article. Points were brought up about the inclusion of sections relating to climate change in severe weather articles in general. However, the RFC did not find consensus for that. As a result, I am opening this RFC. Articles affected include those on specific hurricanes, flood events, tornadoes, et cetera. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Pinging editors involved at previous discussion: @WeatherWriter, @Dave souza, @Blythwood, @Buffs, @EF5, @Ixgauth, @Geogene, @Drdpw, @Hurricanehink, @SMcCandlish, @Valereee, @ViridianPenguin, @Staberinde

Options

Option 1 – If generally reliable sources are available, climate change should nearly always be discussed.
Option 2 – Climate change should only be discussed if subject matter experts connect the climate change with the specific event.
Option 3 – Similar to option 2, but with additional significant scientific discussion also being required.
Option 4 – Generally do not include except under extreme circumstances.
Option 5 – Climate change links in severe weather articles should only be added when cited directly by meteorological organizations (ex. National Weather Service, NOAA, WMO, IPCC, ect...) or an academic study directly on the specific disaster.
Option 6 – Where reliable sources, including news reports, show that climate change is relevant to the specific topic of the article, due weight must be given to the majority expert scientific view. Fringe views dismissing its significance should be clearly described as fringe, with an explanation of how subject matter experts have reacted to such views.

Discussion

Oppose Option 1, other than option 1, I am okay with any result. I am assuming that generally reliable sources will include news sources like AP or CNN. News stations may not have highly qualified meteorologists on hand. They are also encouraged to make flashy headlines to grab and keep attention. Combined with climate change becoming primed language, news stations use it very frequently where the climate change connection has become so WP:RUNOFTHEMILL where it is about as notable as a fish storm in the East Pacific. ✶Qux yz ✶ 22:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Strong Oppose 6, the exact opposite direction I want it to go. Adding the mention of fringe views would add more to sections I want cut down. They deserve their own article, if notable, and should not be on the individual storms' articles. ✶Qux yz ✶ 00:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The article currently presents fringe views without response; "Chief Nim Kidd criticized the forecasts from the National Weather Service stating that "the amount of rain that fell in this specific location was never in any of those forecasts. ... It did not predict the amount of rain that we saw".[15][156][157] Trump told reporters that the funding cuts had not left key NWS posts vacant, and it had been "a hundred year catastrophe". Asked if meteorologists should be rehired, Trump said, "I would think not. This was the thing that happened in seconds. Nobody expected it. Nobody saw it." One of the references has the NWS rebuttal pointing out the timing of their forecasts, and the scientific view is that with current technology it's mo more possible to give more notice of the "exact location" and specific amount than it is to give a day's notice of exactly where a tornado will land. A fringe friendly statement, needs to show majority view reception. . .dave souza, talk 01:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

That's more politicians not understanding how meteorology works. And anyways, I dont believe it would be included in this RFC as it does not necessarily pertain to climate change. ✶Qux yz ✶ 03:18, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

The issue there is politiciahs misrepresenting meteorology after firing a lot of meteorologists, and 100-year floods actually meaning places "considered to have a high risk. Those areas have at least a one-in-four chance of flooding during a 30-year mortgage." Climate change is widening these areas. . . dave souza, talk 07:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Option 2 and strong oppose 4/5 - while discussing climate change everywhere we can is editorial, not mentioning it anywhere is borderline conspiratorial. ^EF⁵ 22:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
I do not necessarily disagree with you, but I also would not be opposed to further restrictions to keep articles focused. These mentions could instead go into articles like Climate of the United States, Tropical cyclones and climate change, and so on instead of being on specific articles. Though, once again, I do not care beyond opposing option 1. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Proposed Option 5 – Climate change links in severe weather articles should only be added when cited directly by meteorological organizations (ex. National Weather Service, NOAA, WMO, IPCC, ect...) or an academic study directly on the specific disaster. This feels like more in line anyway with the general consensus from the RFC discussion at the Central Texas floods article, which removed an article from CNN when CNN themselves linked a pre-Texas flood climate change study to the floods. This option would mean climate change is still linked to specific weather events, but it would be clear experts linking to it, meaning the risk of a random news article being used WP:UNDUEly would be non-existent. The Texas floods article still has climate change links, more specifically because there is already an academic-published article directly linking these specific floods to climate change. Not a violation of WP:UNDUE and leaves it to the experts, not a random news article from CNN, The New York Times, or even some random local meteorologist who does an interview with a news outlet. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Courtesy pings for people who have already done an !vote, since this is a proposed new option: @EF5:, Quxyz. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I don’t believe our government is trustworthy with anything climate change-related, given our current administration. ^EF⁵ 23:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I would accept that as an outcome, it pretty much follows what I outlined in my !vote. Also, @EF5, I don't think climate change would even be brought up with how many restrictions there are and how gutted NOAA is. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I think it does overlap with my intentions with what I wrote with Option 2, but more precise wording is better. ✶Qux yz ✶ 23:48, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I have added Option 5 to the list since it is being considered as if it was a real option. ✶Qux yz ✶ 20:40, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Option 4 - when weird events happen, it’s better to describe why it’s weird, and provide context. Record-breaking events happen every year, depending how long the record period is. We’re in an era where extreme weather is the norm, unlike years past when it took a long time to hear the news, we often hear about tragedies unfolding in real time, all over the world. It sucks how common it is, but the severity and rarity should be put into context, and not joined as part of some umbrella term for severe weather events. I remember this debate since Hurricane Sandy, if not earlier. I think it bloats articles when there are other better ways of describing everything. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Option 5 > Option 3 >= Option 2 > Option 4 > Option 1 - In my opinion, a news source saying something along the lines of "This study says that hurricanes on average are 10 mph more intense than before, therefore Beryl was assisted by climate change" should not be notable for inclusion. Thus, I feel that WeatherWriter's proposal avoids inclusion of those cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildfireupdateman (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 - per it connects the climate change with the specific event. Strong oppose Option 5, as it includes a couple of U.S. government agencies, NWS and NOAA. The current administration has gone to great lengths to downplay climate science and questioning the validity of climate change research and reducing government efforts to track climate data. So I don't think we should trust those particular agencies for any analysis of a weather event and it's potential connection to climate change. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway: — You should specify 2025–Present for your opposition of Option 5, unless you fully believe pre-2025 National Weather Service publications on climate change, including things from the Climate Prediction Center (organization in existence essentially since 1890) is entirely unreliable as well. Just as a reminder for everyone, this is not tied to a specific weather event or year. This discussion is for all weather events, i.e. things like Hurricane Katrina or the Dust Bowl would be affected from this discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:41, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Nope, because the current administration has also been criticized for trying to redefine the national historical narrative, so there is no guarantee they won't try to redefine past weather events to suit their narrative, so my oppose stands as is. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment For some technical reason, I did *not* receive the ping for this discussion. Others may not have as well. It may be because too many were pinged in one post, but it's hard to say why; the ping mechanism has always been squirrelly. I don't even watch this page, I'm only here because I was tipped off at that other RFC that there might related activity here in upcoming days. More importantly, I have concerns about the intended scope of this RFC. Per WP:PROJECT, WikiProjects are not rule-making organizations, nor can they assert ownership of articles within a specific topic area. WikiProjects have no special rights or privileges compared to other editors and may not impose their preferences on articles. And per WP:ADVICEPAGE, which is a guideline, ....in a few cases, projects have wrongly used these pages as a means of asserting ownership over articles within their scope, such as insisting that all articles that interest the project must contain a criticism section or must not contain an infobox, or that a specific type of article can't be linked in navigation templates, and that other editors of the article get no say in this because of a "consensus" within the project. An advice page written by several participants of a project is a "local consensus" that is no more binding on editors than material written by any single individual editor. Whatever the result, this RFC will produce a local consensus that may be useful as advice but won't be "legally binding" (enforceable) on every severe weather article now, much less every one that will ever be written in the future. For that you would need to follow some kind of Village Pump process like the one Project Medicine went through to have MEDRS elevated to a guideline. Geogene (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Geogene: You are incorrect on the statement you made regarding consensus. You are indeed correct that WikiProjects have no special rights and that a discussion only on a WikiProject will produce a local consensus. However, if you were to read the levels of consensus policy, you will note that it leads to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which specifically discussion the creation of a Request for Comment (RFC).

This discussion is headed as an RFC, which means it will produce a non-local consensus, as an RFC notifies people who opt-in for RFCs, no matter what topic/area they typically edit. A local consensus on WikiProject Weather could be see here, which discussed the usage of a single source. That discussion was not a formal RFC. So you are correct that WikiProjects do not produce formal consensus, but as this is an RFC, it will indeed produce a non-local consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The RFC at the Texas Floods only involved 15 editors. That is also a local consensus. You will need a lot more than that to impose a new enforceable content guideline on all weather event articles in English Wikipedia. Geogene (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, even if to went through sufficient process to become a guideline, it's would still not be a policy. Relevant policies are linked at option 6. Options 1–5 look like recipes for a WP:POVFORK so are toast. I can sympathise with wanting articles to stay on-topic snf trying to improve source quality, but skewing that to exclude mainstream views isn't on. . .dave souza, talk 23:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I've asked about it (as a policy question) at AN [2]. Should probably get an opinion there, but if that gets declined out as the wrong venue, I'll take it to another high profile page like Village Pump or Jimbo Talk. Geogene (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

And an administrator has answered and closed your question, confirming RFCs can have a "wide scope". As I mentioned above, RFCs is the definition/required process to get a non-local consensus. But, I am glad an administrator has confirmed it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:31, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

As I noted, administrators have no special power over RfCs, or any other consensus-building mechanisms, for that matter. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:03, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response, it struck me that a heads-up at WP:NPOVN#Mention of climate change in severe weather articles might be more appropriate. No doubt we'll see. . .dave souza, talk 00:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Option 6 to be clear that, where climate change is relevant, good quality sources are needed both to show the majority scientific view, and to show how minority fringe views such as climate change denial are received by subject experts. Option 2 would work only as long as non-experts denying the scientific majority view are excluded. "Nobody expected it" is obviously false, and needs due context. p.s. the ping didn't work for me either. . . dave souza, talk 23:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Support Option 2>3>1, strongly oppose option 4/5/6 summoned from NPOVN. Current administration has destroyed much of the reporting about climate change, and there are strong possibilities government organizations under current admin are not liable to provide proper context for weather events. [3][4] Agree with EF5 that removal of climate change in lede is borderline conspiratorial. It is very due to include that extreme weather events are related to climate change. Fringe view should not even be in article as option 6 describes it, that is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

reading through args suggesting its a bad RFC, I think I somewhat agree. At best, a closer should find options which we can all agree are bad, but otherwise I'm not sure there is a binding option for all weather events we will all congregate on. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, unfortunately fringe views that "Nobody expected it. Nobody saw it", are already in the article, as I've noted above, and insistence that we only use sources published after the event will mean that for future weather events we'd be unable to cite pre-event definitions or data. O brave new world. . . dave souza, talk 01:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Update – that was me being confused by a truncated edit summary while I was editing in the Wee Wee Hours, and I'm glad to say it has since been resolved in discussion. In future I'll try to sleep on it, and discuss points before responding. . . dave souza, talk 07:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Option 4: An article about a specific weather event must be about that specific weather event, not about the larger topic of climate change (that already has an article and related sub-articles). Regardless of fringe or mainstream, moving into such info would turn it into a coatrack article and lose the focus of the article. If the whole climate change discussion takes place within the reactions to the weather event (such as politicians pointing fingers at others), then report the news story just like sources do, without going off-topic. --Cambalachero (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Option 3 then Option 5. Strong Oppose Option 1. I'd be happy if Option 5 was tightened up a bit to make it more clear that we're not limiting it to only US government sources, which would be a bit of a problem given the current environment. On a philosophical level, I think 3 and 5 are the most consistent with our mission, even if 5 can present some hopefully short-term difficulties. Perhaps I'm guilty of being a bit naïve, but I do want to be avoiding WP:CRYSTALBALL about how government coverage will be, and deal with it when it actually happens, even if I'm not optimistic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Pointless RfC. NPOV is a non-negotiable policy, so whatever this RfC's outcome is, is irrelevant. If a certain weight of high-quality reliable sources discuss a topic then that is reflected in Wikipedia articles. If they don't, it isn't. and that applies for climate/weather topics as for any other. Bon courage (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
We don't need to mention or describe a POV dispute at all articles, as long as academic consensus is not contradicted and the dispute is already explained elsewhere. We don't describe the evolution vs. creationism at every article about a species, or refute the flat earth theory at every article about astronomy. Cambalachero (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
The point is some of the options here would short-circuit NPOV. We don't need to mention WP:FRINGE things pertaining to topics no. But we are required to put WP:FRINGESUBJECTS in context. Follow WP:NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Bad RFC - Too many poorly distinguished options and with too broad reach. This cannot be binding on all such articles - that would be over-reach - although I note that option 2 (and perhaps 1 and 3) are broadly in line with existing policy. Oppose options 4, 5 and 6. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Option 6 is best. To discuss a major event while not covering reports as to whether human action had likely made it more likely or more intense would be a disservice to our readers. Our readers reasonably expect our articles to answer "Who What When Why" questions if we can find that covered in reliable sources. We also have an obligation to tag fringe views as fringe if we cover them at all. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment – If the source connecting a weather event to climate change is partnered with the organisation “Covering Climate Now”, a higher quality source should probably be used. Covering Climate Nows guidelines/style guide state that journalists and news outlets should ensure that they are making the climate change connection in all reporting of abnormal weather events. https://coveringclimatenow.org/resource/your-guide-to-making-the-climate-connection/ 49.185.135.98 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Here’s a list of CCN partnered news organisations, there’s a fair few major ones. https://coveringclimatenow.org/partners/partner-directory/

FYI, This is not meant to throw any shade at CCN. They are obviously an extremely important organisation, and it’s just fact that in some way, all current and future weather events are, and will be impacted by anthropogenic climate change. All newspapers with any sense of social responsibility should make this known. However, I do think it muddys the water with regards to DUEness in wikipedias coverage of weather events. 49.185.135.98 (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Given that the American Geophysical Union, or more specifically their Eos (magazine), is listed as one of their partnered organizations, I don't think that that should be considered a negative thing. That should be a fairly highly reliable source for climate change, at least among news organizations. Geogene (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Not sure the options are well thought-through. On one hand, the climate change increases the probability of extreme weather events, and therefore usually it doesn't make sense to mention it for articles about specific events (it definitely should be mentioned in articles such as Atlantic hurricane or Climate of Florida). On the other hand, if scientific sources for some reason make this connection for a specific event - it would be good to see examples - then there is no reason not to mention it, so I guess I'd choose Option 5 or 3, I'm not sure I understand the difference. Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
The first four were made before 5 and 6, so are formatted differently. I meant them as a sliding scale (id est 1 being the most liberal and 4 being the most locked down) based on what I saw at the previous RFC. I do not like the options that I made, particularly 2 and 3, as they have significant overlap and are very vague. I initially made them vague to prevent my own biases from morphing the options and from drawing lines that many would disagree with (like seen with Option 5). Depending on the circumstances of how this RFC is closed, I am assuming consensus will be derived from a mixture of the options based on the rationale that those involved put down, which is mostly how I intended it when creating the four options. ✶Qux yz ✶ 21:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
I believe this RfC is trying to solve the problem of many news organizations using boilerplate text on all extreme weather-related articles to the effect of "climate change makes extreme weather events like this one more likely, but whether this specific event was caused by climate change will take some time to analyze". I agree that we shouldn't treat such boilerplate disclaimers as evidence that mentioning climate change in specific event articles is DUE. However, I also don't think we should ban all news sources, as they occasionally do publish in-depth science journalism on the relationship between climate change and specific weather events. I hope the closer can interpret this comment accordingly. Toadspike [Talk] 09:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
Personally I feel that @Toadspike: has hit the nail on the head here. I remember being told by @Femke: when I met her earlier in the year that the science behind attributing weather events to climate change has come on leaps and bounds over the last few years to a point where it can be trusted. As a result, I am happy to include information about climate change within articles about weather events, assuming news sources suggest that its relevant and it flows within the article.Jason Rees (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)
- - Yes, indeed. It's gone from something only done in papers, to something that is operationalised (like weather forecasts). Even without the simulation, it's usually possible to say something immediately like "The hurricane intensified rapidly, something that is more likely due to climate change". Was pinged, so won't !vote, but I will leave a neutral notification in the more relevant Wikiproject Climate Change. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
Option 1 or 2 we are far past the point where there is scientific doubt that the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is exacerbated by climate change. A dispassionate document of the anthroposcene should contain that information and how reliable sources tie it to climate change. Simonm223 (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
I should also note a strong opposition to Option 5 as there is too much risk of political interference with US government weather agencies and climate protection bodies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Option 5 is absurdly restrictive, the notion that the US Government would interfere with climate science isn't new, but more insidious is depicting climate as politically incorrect and spreading cancel culture. As the very reputable Science observed, the administration’s plan would “eliminate all funding for climate, weather, and ocean laboratories and cooperative institutes," so don't think keeping quiet about climate does any favours to meteorology. . . dave souza, talk 16:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Bad RfC agree with Sirfurboy - there are too many poorly distinguished options, some of which (Options 4 and 5) contradict core content inclusion policies NPOV, DUE, and RS. I don't understand Option 6 at all. There could be a good RfC here per Toadspike, but that would be between Option 1 and a (potentially merged) Option 2/3. I would like to see that RfC NicheSports (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
To the best of my understanding, Options 2 is essentially our existing policy. If reliable sources are making the connection, we include that. I don't understand the need for an RfC to determine whether we follow the policy on this particular topic. Option 1 seems to be encouraging OR, and the remaining options seem to be trying to put a higher bar on climate change than we use for other topics. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:24, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

This RFC essentially was an editor trying to determine a new policy-style consensus based on a previous RFC, which removed (with fairly solid 2/3 consensus) an article by CNN, connecting climate change to the July 2025 Central Texas floods. The RFC opener is the closer of that RFC, who suggested a more centralized discussion should take place, since part of that RFC led to whether a generic meteorologist at CNN is a reliable-enough source for climate-change analysis. @MjolnirPants: I also think this is a badly-worded/executed RFC, even suggesting to the RFC opener to close and retry, but I digress. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:41, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for laying that out for me. Given the specificity of that RfC, this one seems like a wild leap. I mean, one possible (if unlikely) outcome of this RfC is the alteration of existing policy so that these high-quality sources ([5], [6], [7],[8], [9]) would need to be excluded, all in the service of [checks notes] refusing to acknowledge a truth that is [checks notes again] inconvenient to a particular political demographic.

Maybe I'm a bit of a weirdo, but that feels to me more like something Conservapedia would do. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

It is not necessarily to object the existence of climate change, I am more interested in the topic because I feel like mentioning climate change with every single specific weather event is excessive, particularly when only news sources are making vague connections like "X storm is an example of how climate change is making Y type systems more Z" without specific studies. I have also been wanting this discussion for some time, the previous RFC was just the catalyst for this one. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I think expecting specific studies to show a correlation is a misguided approach for two reasons.

1. All weather is affected by climate change. We know for a fact that the connection is there already (some may deny it, but the denial of climate change is at odds with reality).

2. Simply because climate change is the subject of scientific study does not make it a subject where we need to rely exclusively on scientific sources. The reasons for policies like WP:MEDRS is because making medical claims based on lay sources about the subject can actually cause harm to people who don't know better than to seek their medical advice on WP. There's no comparable harm to be had by including lay perspectives on climate change.

I can understand pushback against editors engaged in WP:SYNTH or using dubious sources to mention climate change in various weather-related articles, but for any weather-related topic where there are reliable sources making the connection (and such sources are generally trivial to find for any notable topic), there's no policy-based reason to exclude mention.

What I cannot understand is what creating stricter standards for mentioning climate change would accomplish, beyond reducing the comprehensiveness and accuracy of this project. And it absolutely would reduce our comprehensiveness and accuracy if we were not permitted to mention climate change in an article like July 2025 Central Texas floods. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter:, the previous RFC raised a reasonable question about a specific source, but over-egged the case for excluding the "four-sentence CNN analysis". That short CNN piece isn't the best of sources, but it links "how rainfall events have intensified over time" to a useful article from 2024.[10] Saying "The study did not involve these floods, as it came out before the floods" is too restrictive for a background source which is clearly about the same topic. Fortunately, source 24 (already in the article) links to the 2024 source, so using it isn't OR. The "CNN analysis" was by "CNN meteorologist Mary Gilbert, who ... has also never published anything academically regarding climate change." She is a writer and meteorologist on CNN’s climate and weather team, with a BS in Meteorology from Millersville University of Pennsylvania. While I'm aware of at least one prominent unqualified weather presenter, Gilbert is well qualified as an expert, whether or not she publishes academically. . . dave souza, talk 09:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@Dave souza: I guess we shall have to agree to disagree on that fact. As a weather presenter myself (and someone currently cited on several Wikipedia articles), I do not see a degree in meteorology as being sufficient enough to make someone “well qualified as an expert”. She is an expert at reporting meteorology and the news. Climatology is not Meteorology; they are both under the term Atmospheric science…just like how Nuclear physics is not Atomic physics, but both are under Physics. Being a meteorologist does not make one an expert automatically on climatology. In fact, colleges often distinguish them; for example Iowa State University, they have a Climate Science BS and a Meteorology BS. Two different degrees; two different careers of study. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter:, I'm glad we can agree that Mary Gilbert is an expert at reporting meteorology and the news, which is a reasonable standard for the wide-ranging topics raised by the July 2025 Central Texas floods. You'll appreciate that Pennsylvania isn't part of Iowa, so the BS course she attended looks different. On climate, she's part of CNN’s climate and weather team. She co-authored source 24 with Molly Yan who has covered a relevant topic. . . dave souza, talk 07:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, no. Stop trying to create a climate expert from the juxtaposition of topics/connections. Source 24 was a breaking-news live updating article which ended posting on July 5. WP:RSBREAKING even tells us to be cautious of breaking news. But that specific CNN article is almost certainly a reliable source. Mary Yan’s relevant-topic article you linked above does not even mention “climate” a single time. Just because someone took a class or two that covered the climate, that does not make them an expert. Reporting the news and meteorology is perfectly fine. Analysing a climate change connection in four sentences is not ok, and the community agreed it was WP:UNDUE to include it at all, since actual climate experts were saying the same thing. At this point, we are both in agreement (i.e. she can make news articles on the weather and news) and this is now rehashing the same thing the community already voted for (i.e. that Mary Gilbert’s article on climate change was UNDUE to include at all when climate experts are already in chiming in). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: . I've tried to be clear that brief article wasn't a great source, so am glad to see it replaced. CNN is a reliable source, and Mary Gilbert looks educated enough in the physics to be a competent journalist, working as part of the CNN team. She's citing or quoting topic experts rather than necessarily being one herself. . . dave souza, talk 20:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Just follow the core content policies. Core content policies say that each article must give due weight to all aspects of the topic that have been reported in reliable sources, regardless of what we say on the talk page of WikiProject Weather. I find the options generally confusing, but I'll specifically oppose options 4 and 5 because they seem to be putting a higher bar for inclusion for climate change than would normally be used (otherwise what would be the point of having these options?). If reliable sources are talking about climate change a lot, I don't think it is a reasonable interpretation of policy for our articles to do the opposite. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
None of the above. There's no problme to fix - if reliable sources attribute a severe weather event to climate change, then so can we. If they don't, we can't. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Well said! @Quxyz:, folks may feel it's climate change becoming primed language, but that results from climate change denial becoming run of the mill. When a source shows Trump's fringe views and a rebuttal, editors must check the whole source and make sure mainstream views get due weight. . . dave souza, talk 13:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
While that is part of it, it is also primed language for the same reason that murder is becoming a primed language. It makes the viewer feel doomed yet guilty, thereby increasing attention. Part of it likely comes from the fear of denialists (understandable), but I feel like the news has partly turned it into primed language to make the viewers feel a certain way. I also do not know how conservative news primes it; I am sure it is, likely to make a mockery of the "radical left" in the same way that gender ideology is considered a hippie delusion. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
@Quxyz: – "DEI" was also made primed language for the same reason, as discussed earlier. Unfortunately, atmospheric physics takes no notice of ~~tendet~~ tender feelings, but nevertheless we must show the majority scientific view (worldwide view, notwithstanding current administration efforts to redefine endangerment) . . dave souza, talk 04:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "tendet" corrected to "tender" 10:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
While in conservative sources, DEI and climate change may be primed for a similar reason, not in centrist or progressive sources, which are the ones Wikipedia cites more frequently (at least in the United States). To connect a storm to climate change can mean writing an extra story which means greater attention, generating more ad revenue. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
@Quxyz: - Interesting point about the economics but if, for example, an authoritarian were to sue the source and demand a bung to his flying library, that would be a strong disincentive to mentioning climate change.
Your contrast of "conservative sources" with "centrist" or "progressive sources" reminds me that I'd expect Kerrville folk to be lefties, or corrie-fisted [11], but ,more significantly, that brings us back to the origins of this RfC which I'll discuss below. . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
And the correct scientific term for sources that deny or minimise climate change is not "conservative sources", it's liars. They are lying. They know they are lying. We know they know they are lying.

The number of actual True Believers in climate change denial is tiny. People like Ken Ham genuinely believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, but even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists admits that burning fossil fuels is warming the planet.

The idea that "conservative" views are being suppressed when the world accepts climate change, evolution, a round earth, the efficacy of vaccines, and so on, depends on defining conservatism as a quasi-religious commitment to bullshit. I think that is incorrect. It's undoubtedly true that conservative media has fantastic messaging discipline and rarely strays from the message it's paid to present, but there are plenty of conservatives who accept reality as science finds it - their voices are the ones being silenced, and not by the left. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:54, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The difference with climate change is that we are guilty - not just those of us who have voted for politicians in hock to Big Oil, all of us, to some extent. I drive a car with an internal combustion engine. I keep my house at a comfortable temperature. Those are choices. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 with the addition that a meteorologist is not a subject matter expert, as per User:WeatherWriter's distinction between meteorologists and climatologists. Strongly oppose Option 4. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 then Option 3, with the understanding that simply having a bachelor's degree doesn't make someone a subject matter expert. Oppose Option 1: generic language regarding climate change should not be enough for inclusion. TropicalCyclone (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
@TropicalCyclone:, as discussed above @WeatherWriter:, I'm glad we can agree that Mary Gilbert is an expert at reporting meteorology and the news, which is a reasonable standard for the wide-ranging topics raised by the July 2025 Central Texas floods. Sorry if my wording seemed to imply academic publishing. . . dave souza, talk 11:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
@Dave souza: I don't want to dwell on this, but I don't agree that being a weather reporter for two years (and before that, a weather forecaster) makes someone an expert on climate science. TropicalCyclone (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
TropicalCyclone, heck, James Spann has been doing weather since the late 1970s and isn't remotely reliable for anything climate change-related. — ^EF⁵ 18:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Bad RfC– @JzG: "There's no problme to fix". @Quxyz: - This RfC is a spin–off from an article RfC which originated early in this discussion where @Buffs: argued against a source, adding "Lastly, I'll leave you with this point. Mary Gilbert, in particular, is a leftist activist who actively pushes Global Warming hysteria. She routinely uses sensationalized language in her articles and I find her to be significantly less than credible." This has evolved into a proposal to disallow news reports as a source for climate change if their author, though an expert at reporting meteorology and the news, lacks academic publications or a degree in climatology. [strike offtopic comment, not aimed at anyone here ~~Concerns that mention of climate upsets conservative snowflakes have no weight in core content policies.~~ . . dave souza, talk 11:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
This RFC is not because of politics. The previous RFC decided extremely little about the type of section in general, which I oppose as they are excessive when only citing non-scientific news sources. Also, you are cherrypicking by framing Buffs as the only dissenting opinion. There were eight other editors who opposed the inclusion for various reasons, including that individual storm articles may be incompatible with describing climate change. Also, do be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Quxyz: Fair points, I thought Buffs played a leading role, generating reaction both for and against. Was feeling rather bludgeoned myself, and thought you did well in summarising a complicated debate. . dave souza, talk 21:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I too would concur with Quxyz. You're cherrypicking one statement of many made on the subject at hand (which, for everyone's awareness, decided by consensus to exclude the source). Pretending that was the locus of the discussion is horribly misleading. Insults calling me a "conservative snowflake", ignoring consensus, and misframing the arguments which were made are inappropriate. If you're going to sling insults, at least have the decency to link me. apology and striking accepted Buffs (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

@Buffs: Didn't mean you, so have struck my unnecessary diversion.The mystery of the missing links is explained by Template:Reply to needing "to" so will try to correctly alert you to this, hope it works! . . dave souza, talk 21:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. In the interests of detente, I will strike my remarks as well. Buffs (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Option 4/2/5, Strong oppose 1 There's no need to frame literally every major weather event with "Global warming made this worse because..." except to push a political narrative. Buffs (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Option 2 because it leaves the most room for discussion and consensus while squarely zeroing in on scientific reliable sources. But I wonder if this project page is the best place for this discussion. Please consider [[12]] for the official place this policy could live. Penguino35 (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment the stated objective of this RfC is to question the inclusion of sections relating to climate change in severe weather articles in general.@Quxyz: opened discussion, expressing concern that news sources like AP or CNN. News stations may not have highly qualified meteorologists on hand, and discussed escalating restrictions on use of news sources. It had already been agreed quite subtly that the Texas event had good sourcing for a significant climate context (as a newcomer to the topic I missed that), so not an issue there. As @Jason Rees: said above. I am happy to include information about climate change within articles about weather events, assuming news sources suggest that it's relevant and it flows within the article, and @Femke: agreed that it's usually possible to say something immediately like "The hurricane intensified rapidly, something that is more likely due to climate change". In the hypothetical case of a severe weather event lacking academic sources for a notable climate connection, WP:MNA policy applies, and it suggests the principle that "there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page if that assumption is best discussed in depth on some other page. However, a brief, unobtrusive pointer or wikilink might be appropriate." . . dave souza, talk 07:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

TL;DR version; "every weather event we see now carries some influence from climate change", WP:MNA doesn't require section, brief pointer may suffice. . . dave souza, talk 07:41, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

And one way to cover it is to include an infobox or navbox for extreme weather events and link that to articles that describe the scientific consensus that it's driven by climate change.

I am 100% on board with letting the reader know that, yes, this is caused by climate change. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:57, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that such an event wasn't "caused" by climate change. Even the scientists agree on that. Their contention is that the weather event was intensified by climate change. While the Texas floods have done some direct analysis with these conclusions, there are generic statements like "The 2021 IPCC report on The Physical Science Basis stated that climate change was increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme heavy rainfall events and flash floods, with the rarer extreme events becoming more frequent." This literally applies to every weather event that happens. I'm not saying CC shouldn't be included in articles, but that they should only be included where there is scientifically relevant linkage; shouldn't be every weather event. Buffs (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Buffs:, the Texas incident is shown by reliable source to involve climate change, so sufficient explanation is needed to make that clear. We also have good sourcing re all weather after about 1880; in this case, "We have added a lot of carbon to the atmosphere, and that extra carbon traps energy in the climate system," said Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University. "Because of this extra energy, every weather event we see now carries some influence from climate change. The only question is how big that influence is." Wherever reliable sources show that influence has any relevance, NPOV requires that we make that clear, as well as showing how any denial reported is regarded by the majority scienfitc view. And it's no good trying to attack reliable sources on the basis of editor's original research; disparaging then requires very good sourcing, or risks violation of WP:BLP policy. . . dave souza, talk 17:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Dave souza Err I think you need to look at that statement again as we dont have good sourcing for "all weather" since about 1880, even 1980 might be a push for some countries... Jason Rees (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jason Rees: Climate change#Warming since the Industrial Revolution shows "Around 1850 thermometer records began to provide global coverage.[55] Between the 18th century and 1970 there was little net warming, as the warming impact of greenhouse gas emissions was offset by cooling from sulfur dioxide emissions" – so human caused changes balancing out: haven't checked over the sources, obviously we can refine the wording. Also note Extreme event attribution was developed in the early decades of the 21st century, that may be a consideration.[13] . . dave souza, talk 19:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

I'll echo the previous remark with a different tack: I think you need to look at that statement again. You're tilting at windmills... I'm saying that such inclusion in some form with the Texas floods is appropriate. The problem is that this statement/proposal is too broad. Just because it "involves climate change" doesn't mean it warrants inclusion. Soem of these proposals go too far and, by their logic, literally every weather event article or event involving weather will have a notice that it "involves climate change" which is WP:UNDUE weight. That's my point.

You are WP:Bludgeoning this page with your replies. Please stop Buffs (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Personally I feel we would be going to far by saying that every single weather event on Wiki should have a nod to climate change as that would be OTT, just like including a nod to the current state of the ENSO (Netural leaning La Nina ATM) would be too much to include for every single weather event.Jason Rees (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Jason Rees:, a helpful suggestion is made above by @JzG:, with the proviso that extreme weather events are influenced by climate change, rather than caused by it. A navbox could do this discreetly, provided it's visible and not hidden away under "Glossaries". My suggestion is a visible link to a new article such as weather and climate change, providing a detailed explanation on another page, so that any mention in the article text is focussed on how scientists have responded to the specific event. . . dave souza, talk 17:23, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't weather and climate change just be climate change as climate change is the change in the patterns of weather over a long period of time? ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

@Quxyz:, my idea was to have a brief caption directing the reader to a focussed explanation. For much discussed reasons, climate variability and change includes natural causes and patterns of climate varying over time, while the climate change article reflects modern common usage of the term, and focusses on present-day human-induced net rise in global temperatures, as well as human caused factors such as increased pollution contributing cooling. . . dave souza, talk 20:12, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Option 1 and strong oppose any option or interpretation that would allow us to ignore news sources connecting events to climate change; but also bad RFC. We follow the sources, period. The issue with this RFC is that option 1 is incredibly unclearly worded ("reliable sources" about what?) and includes strangely strident language ("always included" but only when reliable sources exist?) which has lead to a wildly different interpretations. Option 2 is also confusingly worded and seems to use an idiosyncratic definition of "subject-matter expert", as well as being vague about what we should do with secondary news sources that summarize or reflect subject-matter experts (as the vast majority of them do.) Discussion above suggests that what Quxyz is actually seeking is a consensus to avoid mentioning climate change when reliable news sources connect to a meteorological event, regardless of the level of coverage, on the argument that they are not subject-matter experts, a position that is incompatible with WP:NPOV / WP:V / WP:DUE and which I oppose in strongest possible terms... but usually it is clear from the wording that most of the people responding do not interpret it the same way. Option 2 would set a bizarre standard (we don't require that all sourcing be directly from subject matter experts, especially in situations, like this, where their coverage generally summarizes or reflects the opinions of experts.) We must accurately summarize the sources; if high-quality WP:RSes connect something to climate change, we must reflect that. --Aquillion (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree with "Clayoquot" -- the existing policies cover this kind of problem very well, and the current options don't solve a problem that you have clearly demonstrated. Sourcing of information about extreme weather is complicated by the fact that news coverage about whether and depth of source material is radically different in different parts of the world, Sadads (talk) 18:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: require coordinates when uploading DAT-sourced images

Pings: @Jcgaylor:, @WeatherWriter:, @Tails Wx:, @Hoguert:, @Timcigar12:, @Wildfireupdateman:

Obviously we use DAT (officially the "Damage Assessment Toolkit") a lot, which can partially be seen at User:EF5/Articles that use DAT images. Earlier today Jcgaylor and I had a discussion at File talk:EF2 damage from Westmoreland, Kansas EF3 tornado.jpg where I proposed that coordinates be required when uploading images from specific DIs to lessen the workload of image reviewers, which they brought up as a valid concern. Given how complicated using the website is and finding specific DIs, I proposed we require coordinates when uploading DAT screenshots and damage images from specific DIs so that reviewers don't have to spend more time then they need combing through the site to confirm that the image did indeed come from DAT.

Thoughts? ^EF⁵ 23:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Nah, since not every photo has camera-attached coordinates in the metadata and some points can be off-set from where they were taken. I looked back at the history and what should be required is linking the actual photo URL, rather than base DAT url. For example, when that photo was uploaded, it had the base DAT url, and only a generic {{PD-USGov}} copyright template. Every image on the DAT has a unique URL (found by opening the image in a new tab), and they should all have the {{PD-USGov-DAT}} copyright template, which specifies much more detailed information for the DAT. Editors can use File:A Large Hardwood Tree Snapped by the 2025 Plantersville Tornado.jpg as a good example, since in the history, you can one of the bots automatically pull the metadata coordinates out of the photo. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean putting {{cite DAT}} in the source parameter so they locate the DI used. Using the image URL isn’t allowed; base URLs mean the reviewer can’t verify the actual source of the image. ^EF⁵ 22:01, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Economics of climate change mitigation, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by — MusikBot ^talk 00:11, 15 September 2025 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team}

I’m very surprised this was picked; it isn’t remotely important in the field of weather. ^EF⁵ 00:15, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1925 tri-state tornado#Requested move 14 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1925 tri-state tornado#Requested move 14 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Help with page

Hello, I’m not great at synopses, would somebody mind taking a look at 1931 Birmingham tornado/helping with synopsis? There’s decent information in the MetMag source for it. Any pointers for improvement for this page in general would be appreciated :) PicturesOfTrickery (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Sandwiching issues with track maps

I discovered this issue on another article and wanted to get some input here. On many tropical cyclone articles, especially those where the lead isn't the same or longer than the infobox, a pretty ugly sandwich occurs between the track map and the infobox. An example is Tropical Depression Ten (2007), which is a featured article. One of the solutions another editor suggested is moving the track map image to the right, as in [14]. Placing a {{clear}} template below the lead results in lots of whitespace which isn't very aesthetically pleasing ([15]). What are some ideas to fix this, or is it better to let it be? HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 16:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@HurricaneZeta: Sometimes I have put __TOC__ before a clear, which reduces the white space.Jason Rees (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Are you talking about {{clear2}}? ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Nope - just a hack I've found over the years.Jason Rees (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sneed Tornado#Requested move 21 September 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sneed Tornado#Requested move 21 September 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 11:41, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Weather and autism study

Given a decent portion of the Wikipedian population is neurodivergent, people might be interested in this 2020 study, which documents the correlation between Autism (ASD) and restricted interests in weather. ^EF⁵ 15:45, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

List of Iowa tornadoes listed at Featured List Removal Candidates

I have nominated List of Iowa tornadoes for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Departure– (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hurricane Bonnie (1992)

Hurricane Bonnie (1992) 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) 15:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Merge discussion at Talk:Enhanced Fujita scale

I've started a merge proposal of interest to this WikiProject at Talk:Enhanced Fujita scale, concerning merging the pages EF5 drought and Disagreements on the intensity of tornadoes into Enhanced Fujita scale. Feel free to participate in this discussion. Thank you. Departure– (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

RM proposal - move EF5 drought to 2013–2025 EF5 drought

I am proposing the moving/renaming of the page EF5 drought to 2013–2025 EF5 drought, as the drought is now a historical time period and the name of the page should reflect as such. This change would match the format of other historic droughts, such as 2011–2017 California drought, 2014–2017 Brazilian drought, 1988–1990 North American drought, 2010–2013 Southern United States and Mexico drought, 2012–2013 North American drought, and many others.

I would like to apologize to @EF5: for previously moving the page without proper discussion on this forum. Realjospence (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)