Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

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

Colour Discussions[edit]

For previous discussions on this topic, please see WT:WPWX/Colour Discussions

New Weather Infobox[edit]

42.8% Infobox weather event adoption (1270/2970) as of 00:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


Phase 1: Introduction & Development I[edit]

What's this about?[edit]

Many of our infoboxes have existed for quite a while without undergoing any serious changes. This has led to infoboxes becoming outdated coding-wise since some features are now obsolete while there are also new ones. Infoboxes such as Tropical Cyclone, Floods, and Storm are a mess of coding which makes it difficult to modify them without causing errors and thus limits any additional functionality we desire. This is in large part a result of having so many different scales that are used within our infoboxes. We have several infoboxes for various events while it is possible to use the same infobox and have everything centralized by using a modular style. Storm colors and images have already been modulized for quite some time. The benefit of using modular infoboxes is that you can only include the parts that you need within an article. This means we can more easily edit our infoboxes to add new features as we desire. The other issue we have is that some topics lack proper infoboxes, such as space weather, droughts, cold waves, and heat waves. I propose that we start with these topics in order to get a baseline established for what we want to include in the general infobox and we can develop specifics for the sub-infoboxes for each of these events. NoahTalk 14:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Palmer Index[edit]
Proposed colors
Category Color
Extreme Drought
Severe Drought
Moderate Drought
Moderately Moist
Very Moist
Extremely Moist
U.S. Drought Monitor Scale[edit]
Proposed colors
Category Color
D0 Abnormally Dry Cat 1 Color
D1 Drought - Moderate Cat 2 Color
D2 Drought - Severe Cat 3 Color
D3 Drought - Extreme Cat 4 Color
D4 Drought - Exceptional Cat 5 Color

Heat waves and cold waves[edit]

Actual Temperature[edit]
Proposed colors
Category Color
< -70 C
≥ -70 C
≥ -65 C
≥ -60 C
≥ -55 C
≥ -50 C
≥ -45 C
≥ -40 C
≥ -35 C
≥ -30 C
≥ -25 C
≥ -20 C
≥ -15 C
≥ -10 C
≥ -5 C
≥ 0 C
≥ 5 C
≥ 10 C
≥ 15 C
≥ 20 C
≥ 25 C
≥ 30 C
≥ 35 C
≥ 40 C
≥ 45 C
≥ 50 C
≥ 55 C
Minimum Wind Chill[edit]
Proposed colors
Category Color
< -73.33 C (-100 F)
≥ -73.33 C (-100 F)
≥ -67.78 C (-90 F)
≥ -62.22 C (-80 F)
≥ -56.67 C (-70 F)
≥ -51.11 C (-60 F)
≥ -45.56 C (-50 F)
≥ -40 C (-40 F)
≥ -34.44 C (-30 F)
≥ -28.89 C (-20 F)
≥ -23.33 C (-10 F)
≥ -17.78 C (0 F)
≥ -12.22 C (10 F)
≥ -6.67 C (20 F)
≥ -1.11 C (30 F)
≥ 4.44 C (40 F)
≥ 10 C (50 F)
≥ 15.56 C (60 F)
Maximum Apparent Temperature (heat index)[edit]
Proposed colors
Category Color
< -1.11 C (30 F)
≥ -1.11 C (30 F)
≥ 4.44 C (40 F)
≥ 10 C (50 F)
≥ 15.56 C (60 F)
≥ 21.11 C (70 F)
≥ 26.67 C (80 F)
≥ 32.22 C (90 F)
≥ 37.78 C (100 F)
≥ 43.33 C (110 F)
≥ 48.89 C (120 F)
≥ 54.44 C (130 F)
≥ 60 C (140 F)
≥ 65.56 C (150 F)
≥ 71.11 C (160 F)

Space Weather[edit]


Scales explained here. NoahTalk 15:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Radio Blackouts[edit]
Proposed colors
Category Color
R1 Minor Cat 1 Color
R2 Moderate Cat 2 Color
R3 Strong Cat 3 Color
R4 Severe Cat 4 Color
R5 Extreme Cat 5 Color
Solar Radiation Storms[edit]
Proposed colors
Category Color
S1 Minor Cat 1 Color
S2 Moderate Cat 2 Color
S3 Strong Cat 3 Color
S4 Severe Cat 4 Color
S5 Extreme Cat 5 Color
Geomagnetic Storms[edit]
Proposed colors
Category Color
G1 Minor Cat 1 Color
G2 Moderate Cat 2 Color
G3 Strong Cat 3 Color
G4 Severe Cat 4 Color
G5 Extreme Cat 5 Color

Development discussion[edit]

Please discuss ideas for these topics here. NoahTalk 14:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thoughts on parameters specific to these events? Scales used in other countries? Keep in mind these scales currently here would ONLY be used within infoboxes and are designed to match up with the maps produced by the National Weather Service. Additionally, this is not optional. We have to at a minimum develop and implement the infoboxes for these events above that do not have infoboxes. We already have the basics created such as met history and effects. NoahTalk 15:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly, with the minimal participation on this project for the past year, I don't expect there to be much comments on this. Might as well just implement these scales boldly and see who screams. I do have one comment though: please avoid using high-saturation colors. This isn't an image or graphic map; the colors need to properly contrast with text. Blindly following the colors that the NWS uses without considering how it would actually  look in front of text  would be a mistake. Chlod (say hi!) 01:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chlod: It's likely we would just use white text in these cases like other projects do. Earthquakes, for example, switches between white and black text depending on which is more accessible.  This does work NoahTalk 03:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very Moist (Palmer)
Other text here...
@Hurricane Noah: Yeah, but this (even if it's AAA) looks... bad... I'm sure other editors would carry the same sentiment. Most infobox templates only use desaturated or pastel colors because it's easier on the eyes. The only exception I can find that's in wide use is {{Infobox YouTube personality}} (but even then, the background is dark enough that white can comfortably fit on top of it). It gets worse if you add links into the mix. Chlod (say hi!) 02:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We unanimously agreed (at least a small group did during the colors debate; you did support said proposal) not to include any links within the colored portions of infoboxes due to that being issue with colors already in use as well as potential new colors. Nearly all the infoboxes you linked would not compare since they aren't trying to convey information with the colors. The colors are solely aesthetic in nature rather than trying to provide information. Considering it's only a number or a few words at most someone would need to read, it shouldn't cause that much eye strain. It would be much different if it was the infobox background or a page background. You run into problems with temperature scales where you have nearly two dozen colors or in the case of climate tables, it needs to adjust for any value put in. The climate tables use colors like this, such as at Death Valley#Climate. The issue people take up with pastel or desaturated is they think it looks bad. If there is a feasible solution that keeps the differentiated colors in tact, that would be good. It likely could be taken to the climate box temperatures as well. Anyways, I am going to sleep since I have to get up early to log onto my computer to do class work. Having covid is a big pain in the ass. NoahTalk 02:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will work on redoing the colors this week NoahTalk 21:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chlod: Are the colors better now? They should all be okay for black text. NoahTalk 01:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much better. Chlod (say hi!) 02:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the excellent work Chlod has done thus far on {{infobox weather event}} (and its docs; alone deserving of a hearty pat on the back), I'm more than happy to see them taking this all the way. It's not a controversial change to update inline with de facto standards; as long as the appropriate tests are run beforehand and everything works when it's switched over, there'll be no screaming worth a damn. Let me know if I can be helpful. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My comment is that we need to figure which paramaters we really need to present in the final implimentation of these boxes. For example: Do we really need to present the hghest level of warning for every island/country or every single meteorological agencies take on a system, when they are generally speaking the same. (Bar in the WPAC). I also note that the Aus scale as presented needs a bit of work, Cat 5 on the Aus Scale starts at 110 knots (Scientifically 107 kts?) not 111/115 and that 3 of the main warning centres are missing (MetService, Jackarta, PNG).Jason Rees (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jason Rees: Regarding the presentation, the documentation already answers this question.

While the use of the JTWC subbox is generally allowed on all basins besides those which use the Saffir–Simpson scale (North Atlantic/Eastern Pacific/Central Pacific), other agency subboxes [...] should generally be used only when the storm is not recognized by the basin's RSMC.

Regarding the Aus scale, I did not implement this, but Noah did. It's been fixed, and it was a two byte change; no need to mess with many different parts of the template to get it fixed (unlike {{Infobox tropical cyclone}} :P). As for the three other warning centers you mentioned, provide a link to their scales so they can get added. It won't take more than an hour of work. I started off with just those in Tropical cyclone scales, since those are the ones most likely notable. Chlod (say hi!) 01:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As mentioned in Tropical cyclone scales MetService, PNG NWS and TCWC Jakarta all use the Australian scale, but we need them adding since there are times when systems are monitored by the warning centers at peak rather than Nadi/BoM. As an example, MetService named Eva last year.Jason Rees (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done, see Template:Infobox weather event/doc § Australian scale for the full list. Face-smile.svg Chlod (say hi!) 02:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sweet. I wonder if we could tweak MFR to just MF, as it would be good to present Meteo France French Polynesia's intensity estimate for Cyclone Nisha-Orama in the infobox alongside Nadi's/NPMOC's. In fact thinking about it, I wonder if its worth adding in the Naval Pacific Meteorology and Oceanography Center to the infobox even if their nickname was Never Push Me On Cyclones, as it is their estimates that are used in the SEPAC between 1980 and 2000 rather than the JTWC.Jason Rees (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jason Rees and Chlod: I reconfigured the TC watches/warnings to have the link on the warning type (ie Tropical Cyclone at this point, but others will get it later) rather than on the warning itself since it would violate MOS:ACCESS to have the link on certain colors. The plan was to have the highest warning level in the infobox for each event type (TC, flood, cold wave, winter weather, etc). Not sure whether or not we want to continue to use this on events that have ended, but it certainly gives perspective to the land impact a tropical cyclone had since not all storms hit at peak intensity for their winds or a snow storm that had widespread, yet severe impacts that didn't register that high on RSI. Thoughts? NoahTalk 00:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be much more beneficial to instead have icons that link to the proper warning system (if an article is available for it) and/or have appropriate alt text, much like how we currently have the NFPA 704 (fire diamond) and GHS pictograms for chemboxes (see Hydroflouric acid). Colored text scattered all over that area is a nightmare, and an easy way to get smacked with {{overcoloured}}. Chlod (say hi!) 00:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Icons are used where they exist. The issue is most do not have icons. NoahTalk 00:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with having the highest warning level in the infobox for stuff like TC's is the widespread nature of them. For example: are we really wanting to add the highest warning for Micronesia, Palau, The Phillippines/Taiwan, Eastern or Southern China, The Malay Archipeligo or Japan/Korea. Personally it seems very OTT and unneeded.Jason Rees (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This might be something that should be !voted on by the project. In my view, it's a good way to quickly categorize the actual damages (compared to storm intensity, which isn't a good indicator for damages) within the infobox, aside from the monetary damages (since inflation and costs of living can skew perception on that figure) or deaths. Whether this is useful for the reader, it depends. Chlod (say hi!) 01:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Icons didn't exist for storm categories, yet they exist anyway. Chlod (say hi!) 01:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chlod: What would you suggest? Colored text icons, B/W icons, ? NoahTalk 19:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Overall effects (option 1)
PAGASA TCWS 5.svg Red typhoon alert - China.svg Aspecto do sinal nº 9 de tempestade tropical de Macau na dia.png
Overall effects (option 2)
US-NationalWeatherService-Logo.svg HW Emblem of the Government of the Republic of Korea.svg CW Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) logo.svg 5
Two ways I can think of to go about this: create icons for each agency (or use existing ones), or include the agency logo and the relevant warning as text. The latter encounters issues with contextualizing the warning though, since we can't link to other pages lest we risk contrast issues. Chlod (say hi!) 04:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MFR box moved to MF, acronym can be changed with |agency=. As for the NPMOC, could definitely make that a box too. There's no limit to what scales we can add in, even if it's historical. If we do plan on adding it in, did they also use SSWHS or a different scale? Chlod (say hi!) 02:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The NPMOC would use the same scale as the JTWC.Jason Rees (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jason Rees: Template:Infobox weather event/NPMOC made! Let me know if we need to add more scales. Face-smile.svg Chlod (say hi!) 03:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fred Gandt: w/r/t the footer, there's some points you raised in Template talk:Infobox tropical cyclone that also apply here. Luckily, I can make it so that the "related" sections appear as if they're in a different box when transcluded, since it always goes at the end of the infobox set anyway. Let me know what you think should be done here. Chlod (say hi!) 02:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dunno how you're thinking of handling the switchover, but at the end of the day I think it best if the related stuff isn't even remotely part of the infobox; it simply shouldn't be. If you're thinking of a temporary visual separation; consider how temporary can very often unintentionally turn into permanent. As was already said (wherever the hell it was said...) by Gonnym at Template talk:Infobox tropical cyclone; related equates to "see also", and as such, belongs in some kind of related series box as can be seen on many other related article series; something like "This article is part of a series of articles about PAGENAME" kinda thing. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arbitrary subsection[edit]

It's pretty damn weird that this entire page has no explicit link to {{infobox weather event}}. Let's try to remember that WP:PERFECTION is not required; perfect is the enemy of good and better will be good. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am waiting to see why @Jasper Deng: does not like the new infobox, when it makes more sense to use it and is more accessible, easier to edit etc.Jason Rees (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth here, but I see a lot of editors just rejecting change because it's change, rather than taking stuff on its own merits. The funny thing is the result of disabling the new template there is so obviously horrible; the only change in data I can see is the completely reasonable rounding of damage costs, but the presentation is rendered, because of that edit, gawd-dammed fugly 🤦‍♀️ Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fred Gandt: There tends to be a lot of resistance to change, especially when things have been the same for so long. This infobox has been largely untouched since 2006. I can attest that it is a huge pain in the ass to attempt to edit it because of the complex and outdated nature of the coding. I tried to make a simple edit last year (removing a link) and ended up breaking something as a result. There tends to be a lot of resistance to any changes. I remember a university prof telling me how professors protested the changeover from quarters to semesters. That went through anyways despite the opposition. NoahTalk 02:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't beat yourself up; pre lua template code can be enough to drive an editor crosseyed. So many braces @_@ But yeah; change. The weird thing is; if things didn't change the universe would...n't be. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have yet to see how the above discussion constitutes "consensus" for moving the infobox's color strip below the image. We can and should use multiple agencies' data but the top of the infobox looks quite bare without the color.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The facts are that our infobox is outdated both coding and style-wise and is cumbersome to edit by nature. We need to bring our infoboxes into line with other infoboxes. Quite frankly, having the color strip above the image is an inconsistency between our infobox and others. Other infoboxes have section headers, which is what the color strip would be in this case. The section header needs to be right above the data that is displayed below it. Our infobox currently does not have section headers period, which is inconsistent. This new infobox also introduces padding, which the lack of is another inconsistency we have. The infobox is outdated coding-wise since it has been largely unchanged since its inception around 2006. Having jumbles of code all in one basket makes it hard to fix issues and add functionality. Using a modular infobox makes it much easier to include new items that we want to showcase in the infobox and eliminates the need to have several infoboxes. While I had started this discussion initially to deal with the topics that didn't have infoboxes, editors outside our project independently brought up issues with the TC template. We are obligated to fix these since our infobox must be consistent with the other ones. NoahTalk 22:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I think it makes more sense to have the colour strip above the intensity information rather than at the top of the infobox away from the various Met stats especially when the met stats directly control the colour stip.Jason Rees (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The strip being put above metrics also contextualizes information, so that we have the proper data for varying observation intervals (10-minute or 1-minute) or agencies. Chlod (say hi!) 02:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shouldn't any color acting as a code have an accessible key/legend to give it context? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 02:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text put on top of the category (e.g.  Tropical depression ) acts as the label for that header. The color is for presentation. We could do away with it entirely, but it's a very quick and easy way to know how severe a storm was without needing to read the text. Chlod (say hi!) 02:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With a legend it's quick and easy; without it's just a color. Perhaps a collapsed legend could be included? Too much clutter? If the label terms are linked to an article, then the color legend can be on each article perhaps? No series of articles? That would be odd; perhaps an explanatory page on a suitable WikiProject? Surely there has to be a reader friendly way to provide context for this color; us knowing what it means isn't really very useful. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fred Gandt: Each scale should link to a relevant agency, with the scale detailed in the article and containing all the colors. If the relevant agency doesn't have the scale in its article yet, we could consider adding in its relevant scale in summary style and link to Tropical cyclone scales as the main page. We could also link to the scale itself on Tropical cyclone scales (or its respective page, if one exists). Which of these would be better (or should we look for other options)? Chlod (say hi!) 03:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relevant: my brain is being scrambled by lua right now so... How about a note?[a] Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This could work, although I feel like there are some who would be opposed to this as it means having to put a 'Notes' section in all existing typhoon articles (or else it will fall to the bottom of the page). Chlod (say hi!) 04:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not that I see what's wrong with adding a notes section for notes, an collapsed legend right there in the infobox seems preferable to having readers navigating here and there to simply know what the color represents if a notes section is horrifying. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 05:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could be done as an AWB job if needed. NoahTalk 05:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chlod: Personally I feel that the articles for the warning centers should not contain any major information on the TC scale that they use bar a sentence or two as it isnt relevant to the agency itself.Jason Rees (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we go with this route, perhaps we can link to Tropical cyclone scales or a relevant article in the link below a scale (e.g. instead of linking to PAGASA in Template:Infobox weather event/PAGASA, we link to Tropical Cyclone Wind Signals) instead? Chlod (say hi!) 04:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ignoring the fact that I am not a fan of having the Watches and Warnings in the infobox on a pernament basis, i feel that links to cleaned up versions of Tropical cyclone warnings and watches, Tropical cyclone scales, Tropical Cyclone Wind Signals & Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale would work.Jason Rees (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
w/r/t the infobox change, it probably shouldn't have been done until after this discussion has been finished. For the most part, we haven't actually decided that the infobox is ready for use. I think it's worth providing a copy of the box in that revision here though, for example purposes. Chlod (say hi!) 02:26, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
w/r/t the top of the infobox looking devoid of color... that's just how every infobox on Wikipedia looks. The 11(?) years of having that same infobox just makes it feel like it's "normal". Chlod (say hi!) 02:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. ^ These are what colors look like:  sails   onions   monday 
@Chlod: Have you had time to work on creating the subinfoboxes to handle the storm infobox? NoahTalk 16:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Not yet; it is currently exam week and I'm only able to do small bursts of wiki work. I will be (temporarily) free from the clutches of the academic cycle of suffering next week (starting February 6); I might be able to work on it then. Chlod (say hi!) 16:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand... I'm in six classes (4 of which have exams in the next two weeks) and have my Graduate Management Admission Test (GMAT) in 2 weeks. NoahTalk 16:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Highest winds370 km/h (230 mph)
@Hurricane Noah: I've finished {{infobox storm}}. The following templates have been made as a result:
Nor'easters, and any other storm which does not need special treatment, should use {{Infobox weather event/Storm}} and supply a valid |type=. I'll work on documenting all these after a few hours; as I have some personal matters to attend to. Chlod (say hi!) 02:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done with documentation. I particularly enjoyed writing Template:Infobox weather event/doc § Generic storms. Chlod (say hi!) 00:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few things I noticed looking through the documentation for Infobox weather event:

  • {{Infobox weather event/MF}} is missing the lowest classification for Zone of Disturbed Weather/Tropical Disturbance.
  • Are the colours for typhoon and severe typhoon in {{Infobox weather event/HKO}} supposed to be the same? Would think it should mimic the JMA scale's progression.
  • Should there be a parameter for references somewhere in {{Infobox weather event/Effects}}, or maybe at the end of the whole infobox? Though this technically wouldn't needed if all effects are cited in the body, but just to be safe. In the same line of thought, maybe a ref to IBTrACS would be needed to support all agencies' intensity estimates.
  • Damage conversions to USD in {{Infobox weather event/Effects}} should be rounded to avoid giving the sense of false precision. A source should also be provided for the USD conversion (perhaps a note copying the refs at {{To USD}} would suffice), as that'll likely be brought up at FAC (personal experience here).

Great changes overall and I'm looking forward to getting used to these – I actually prefer the new aesthetic and don't mind the coloured bars in the middle at all. Just want to see some details ironed out before I'm comfortable with supporting implementation. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Requesting {{Infobox weather event/CMA}}, since IBTrACS consistently features their estimates for WPAC (scale here).
  • A function similar to |damagespost= in {{Infobox tropical cyclone}} would be really useful where the figure is not clear cut and a footnote is needed.

Couple more requests after spending a while fiddling with the box. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It seems Noah missed the disturbance and ZODW categories for MF.  Fixed in Special:Diff/1141487995.
  • The colors are currently incorrect due to a faulty edit request following the color change earlier today. This issue is tracked here.
  •  |refs= and |IBTrACS= added to {{Infobox weather event/Effects}} with Special:Diff/1141489888.
  •  Damages and losses conversions now bear the same significant figures as its original input with Special:Diff/1141492604. I'm unsure how to implement the reference thing, however. It seems you solved it on Cyclone Berguitta by using a footnote within prose, which seems like the best approach here. Since the data may not always come from the IMF (e.g. see Template:To USD/data/2021 § References, which uses the World Bank and the IRS), it's hard to generate a catch-all parameter to automatically build that reference.
  •  Done with Special:Diff/1141494256. You can also create new boxes using the form at Template:Infobox weather event/scale. I've tried to make the process as guided as possible so that any interested editor can make new scale boxes.
  • This  exists as |damages-suffix= and |losses-suffix=. Documentation has been updated to promote those parameters.
@KN2731: Thank you for your suggestions! Feel free to mention anything else you want with the boxes. Face-smile.svg Chlod (say hi!) 10:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That looks great Chlod, thanks a lot! The placement of the IBTrACS link and references at the bottom of the effects box looks especially inspired. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chlod: Would this be able to be implemented by bot? NoahTalk 00:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Definitely; just need to finish cleaning up and adding TemplateData, and I'll work on a bot for this. Don't mind the signature. It's 4-01. click on my userpage haha please (say hi!) 00:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chlod: I am working on doing the color part of this. I have the Drought and Space Weather colors added to the sandbox for the module. NoahTalk 01:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phase 2: RfCs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
For the general RFC: considered broadly, there is a consensus to replace the infoboxes with the new template. There is only one major objection stated, which relates to the location of the colour bar, which will be more towards the middle of the infobox. Most of these arguments boil down to some form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with the one exception being that it increases scroll time to get to the relevant information. I did not find this argument very convincing, given that on most platforms, either the majority of the box will be visible (PC and tablet), or users will be forced to scroll past it anyway(mobile). Either way, there is a clear support for the majority of new features implemented. This obviously does not prohibit a future discussion about the placement of the disputed element.

For the event colours: there is a clear consensus that the colours for the yet-to be agreed upon infoboxes will be implemented. --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

----Licks-rocks (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has been brought to our attention that our infoboxes do not follow the standard practices of Wikipedia and thus a replacement has been devised that addresses the concerns raised. The current infoboxes lack padding and have multiple colored bars at the top, which is inconsistent with how other infoboxes are displayed. Another issue is that our infoboxes involve a complex coding array that makes it difficult to edit and add new features. Some features within these infoboxes are outdated and should be replaced by newer ones. Additionally, we had to remove links to scales within the colored bars on the tropical cyclone infobox because they violated WP:ACCESS due to lack of contrast with the background; the lack of a link to the scales is a disservice to our readers. The proposed infobox, Template:Infobox weather event, includes the addition of padding, has the colored bars (Category of a storm/event) with their respective data (consistency with other infoboxes), contains new features and some existing ones have been updated, and is much easier to edit since it's modular (each scale has its own subtemplate) rather than several different scales and events lumped into one template with if statements. Please see that template for its usage and display. Please see Template:Infobox storm, Template:Infobox tropical cyclone, and Template:Infobox flood for their displays and usages. NoahTalk 20:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox to replace Infobox tropical cyclone, Infobox storm, and Infobox flood[edit]

Should the proposed infobox replace the infoboxes for tropical cyclones, storms, and floods? NoahTalk 20:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC general discussion[edit]

Please discuss here. NoahTalk 20:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

—¿philoserf? (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support As nominator. NoahTalk 21:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per Fred Gandt, obvious support. Chlod (say hi!) 22:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - I support the changes to padding, to code, all the new features, etc., but strongly oppose moving the color bar to the middle of the infobox. I understand the argument that it's better located with the intensity information and more consistent with other infoboxes across Wikipedia, but it is a jarring change, particularly since it's a brightly colored bar surrounded by two otherwise gray bars. Even though inconsistency is reduced, I don't think anything is functionally gained from that change, and so I oppose on aesthetic grounds. Like I said, I would support all other changes. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 00:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There wouldn't be any way to distinguish data in the infoboxes if that's the case. You'd have two different scales next to each other without indication. It's also redundant in templating, since there's no way to "store variables" to make the bar pop up at the top of the page using a template that appeared later on in the page. WPWX (and WPTC, by proxy), owing to its age, is currently the only project to put intensities of an event at the top of the page, contrary to literally every other event infobox in existence. Earthquakes don't have a wide bar, and instead have colored text (see 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, 1923 Great Kantō earthquake). Volcano eruptions are similar, but they don't even color text at all (see 2021–22 Hunga Tonga–Hunga Haʻapai eruption and tsunami, 2009 Tonga undersea volcanic eruption). WPWX/WPTC has been hilariously behind in modernizing its style to comply with the rest of the wiki; holding it back on "aesthetic grounds" is contrary to the aesthetic style of every other event infobox which has intensities on Wikipedia. Chlod (say hi!) 00:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unless I misread your comment, I'm a little confused by you linking to the volcano articles, both of which have the colored bars at the top (which I below is the correct move). Hurricanes are singularly categorized by their intensity, and I think having that information at the top/the first thing that catches the reader's eye is important. I'm no coder, but I think a better design would be to have the color bar at the top and to also make the agencies into gray bars. Maybe change the names to something like "RSMC Assessment" and "Non-RSMC Assessment" or something similar. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nevermind, I see the difference. The headers are colored orange regardless of intensity (which is quite strange). wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Wxtrackercody: Yes, the title is colored, but it does not represent the Volcanic Explosivity Index of that event. They are always brown (specifically #F6DA9F, see for yourself). Pacific and Atlantic hurricanes are the only cases where one color is used. For NIO, WPAC, SWIO, AUS, SPAC (i.e. every other basin), multiple intensities are used—and these locations are where the majority of cyclones form yearly. Again, the color bar at the top means redundancy. A parameter needs to be passed into the header and at the body of the infobox, because of how templates work. "RSMC Assessment" and "Non-RSMC Assessment" are highly technical terms that would not benefit readers; the agency is better suited for this (and that's exactly what the new box does). Chlod (say hi!) 02:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not married to the terms, we can come up with alternatives. Listing the specific agencies in those headers is fine with me too. I will continue to oppose any solution that does not have the chief categorization for a hurricane at the top, though. Just to drive my previous point home, I do not care that other templates display the information differently, because it's my opinion that they should conform to how we display hurricane information, not the other way around. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As someone who works on templates of other projects, it'd be a shame if {{Infobox person}} (WP:WPBIO; 456,381 uses) placed the profession/occupation of the person at the top of the infobox, or if {{Infobox officeholder}} (WP:PLT; 208,216 uses) mentioned the highest position a certain person was elected at the top of the infobox, or if {{Infobox animanga}} (WP:A&M; 6,636 uses) were to indicate whether a manga had reached its anime adaptation. To be absolutely clear: you are essentially asking to go against implicit consensus amongst template editors on how infoboxes should be constructed. WPWX is not the biggest WikiProject on Wikipedia; all the aforementioned projects have thousands of more articles under their scope than WPWX. And if you've spent some time working on the templates of this project, we're not exactly the cutting edge of template design here, not by a longshot. Chlod (say hi!) 02:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Wxtrackercody: Maybe its about time we had a think/discussion about how best to display hurricane information, after all at the moment its all based around the Atlantic/Eastern Pacific, rather than what most of the basins need. It is also worth noting that sometimes when a system impacts land the modern day RSMC categorization isnt the most official or the best categorization. As an example, I present Cyclone Ofa and Val which impacted American Samoa and thus considered to be Hurricanes and are rated on the SSHWS. I also look at Cyclone Veena and Cyclone Nisha-Orama where Meteo France/RSMC La Reunion have reanalysed the systems to be VITC/ITC's. As a result, I feel that the infobox being proposed while not perfect is better than what we currently have in play and thus I support its immediate deployment.Jason Rees (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Wxtrackercody: I personally believe that having the coloured bars in the middle of the infobox allows us to be clearer on whose intensity estimates we are presenting while keeping in line with the rules of Wikipedia. As an example, I tested it out on Severe Tropical Cyclone Veena of 82-83 and got the following result. The other option is to get rid of the coloured bar alltogether.Jason Rees (talk) 02:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - per Wxtrackercody. United States Man (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Two recent oppositions = WP:IDONTLIKEIT Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I feel like this is another instance of the project being taken in the wrong direction and would appreciate if you didn't interject with comments directed toward me. United States Man (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Opposition per anything is deference to that anything. This is not a vote therefore two counts of the same thing is not a stronger argument and the only argument made was that everything would be great if not for the not liking it. I am not interjecting any more than you and was not speaking directly to or about you; I am responding to the discussion as I see it. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid or reasoned argument, you offered nothing else and this is not a vote. If you don't want to be involved in discussions, don't join them. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 03:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Seems like I struck a nerve lol. Never seen someone get so excited over nothing. If I share the same viewpoint as another editor, why would I retype the same exact argument? United States Man (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, opposing on the grounds of how information is displayed to the reader is not WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which doesn't even apply here since this is not a deletion discussion. Hurricanes are categorized based on their strength. This information has been displayed at the top of the infobox since its inception. That makes sense, and I think it should continue. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    IDONTLIKEIT is a comment on the weight of an argument. It doesn't matter if it's a deletion discussion—you'd be reading too much into the letters of the essay if that were the case. Our colors have also stayed the same since inception. Have we never changed those colors since then? Chlod (say hi!) 02:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose We do not gain by moving the color bar down, or generally by obscuring information, making it harder for readers. Unlike with the track colors, there is no compelling accessibility reason to do this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Users don't have a scroll bar? Chlod (say hi!) 00:33, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Using the scroll bar takes time. The smallest amounts of time matter for UX.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support This makes our infobox more in line with Template:Infobox officeholder/example or even the Template:Infobox military conflict. It's time for change and not sticking to the past. MarioJump83 (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support Assuming all important parameters are included, I have no objections.
This new Infobox is visually attractive and presents a better understanding of the information than the older infoboxes. While the replacement process can be time-consuming, I believe it would be worth it. This Infobox will be easier for editors to maintain and update as needed (rather than using many different Infoboxes). I would also like to suggest that, it would be helpful to provide some examples of what the new infobox might look like and to include template data, which would be useful for making visual edits. Tojoroy20 (talk) 12:00, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. As an uninvolved editor, it seems the new infobox has a ton of advantages over the old infoboxes, and the only reason for opposition is a relatively minor aesthetic/ux choice. 🙢 - Sativa Inflorescence - 🙢 15:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Colors for new events[edit]

Should the colors proposed above be implemented for the events that currently do not have their own infoboxes? These colors will only be used in infoboxes and related templates, but not elsewhere. Please note that the infoboxes for these new events have yet to be designed and will be subject to a new RfC before being implemented. Additionally, several of these scales are proposed to be pegged to the values at Module:Storm categories rather than having new colors proposed.

  1. Palmer Index
  2. U.S. Drought Monitor Scale
  3. Actual Temperature (For heat/coldwaves)
  4. Minimum Wind Chill
  5. Maximum Apparent Temperature (heat index)
  6. Radio Blackouts
  7. Solar Radiation Storms
  8. Geomagnetic Storms

Do you approve of the colors for the new events listed above? NoahTalk 20:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC colors discussion[edit]

Please discuss here. NoahTalk 20:42, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support As I said above, I appreciate the use of color coding to distinguish different types of information, which makes it easier to read and understand.
Tojoroy20 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

Phase 3: Additional Development[edit]

Overview of Supported Scales[edit]

All scales listed are to be assumed as currently supported unless otherwise mentioned. NoahTalk 14:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tropical Cyclones
  • NWS
  • JMA
  • MF
  • IMD
  • Australian Scale
  • JTWC
  • HKO
  • CMA
  • RSI
  • Canadian wind chill exposure risk (planned; Colors in module)
  • Wind chill [US: based on values] (planned; Colors in module)
  • Beaufort [Windstorms] (planned; Colors in module)
  • EF/F
  • Torro
  • IF
  • Heat Index [US] (Planned; Colors in module)
  • Heat Index: values for outside US (planned; Colors in module)
  • Temperature: values (planned; Colors in module)
  • Palmer Index (planned; Colors in module)
  • Drought scale (planned; Colors in module)
  • Atmospheric River scale (planned; Colors in module)
Space Weather
  • Geomagnetic Storms (planned; Colors in module)
  • Solar Radiation Storms (planned; Colors in module)
  • Radio Blackout (planned; Colors in module)
  • Air Quality Index (planned)
Current Infobox Scales - Not already included above
  • Red Flag Threat Index (planned; Colors in module)
  • Storm Prediction Center: Fire Weather Risk (planned; Colors in module)
  • Storm Prediction Center: Severe Weather Risk (planned; Colors in module)
  • SPIA Ice Damage Index (planned; Colors in module)
  • Winter Storm Severity Index
  • Oceanic Niño Index (planned; Colors in module)


I'd like to point out that issues with the infobox or any subbox should be made at Template talk:Infobox weather event. I watch this page and it helps clear out clutter from an otherwise unrelated discussion area. I'll be moving comments there shortly to clean up. Chlod (say hi!) 03:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done. Chlod (say hi!) 03:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chlod: Are there any other scales that deserve to be included? NoahTalk 15:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Maybe the Oceanic Niño Index like shown here for La Niña/El Niño pages. Infinity (talk - contributions) 22:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC: TC pressures and winds[edit]

The following discussion 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.

It has recently been objected to that tropical cyclone pressures from the JTWC are being used in the new infobox that was approved recently. Each agency has its own section within the infobox so it is clear who is giving the estimate for which winds and pressures. Please see Template:Infobox_weather_event#Tropical_cyclones and its example at the bottom of the page for usage. Which option is best? NoahTalk 22:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Option 1: Retain the prior status quo of no JTWC pressures and no winds and pressures from agencies other than the RSMC and the JTWC.
  • Option 2: RSMC and JTWC winds and pressures allowed, but no winds and pressures from additional agencies are allowed.
  • Option 3: Winds and pressures from all agencies are allowed to be used as applicable.


  • Option 3 I see no harm in displaying the JTWC pressure estimate and the estimates of winds and pressures alongside the RSMC estimate. It simply shows the different perspective various agencies take on the peak intensity of a storm. Given that it is clear who is giving what estimate, I don't see a compelling reason to oppose this feature. NoahTalk 22:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 Wikipedia should strive to be a comprehensive encyclopedia and that means including pressures from all involved weather agencies. Not including JTWC pressures, or any other agency in that matter, would make the encyclopedia less comprehensive. Somari, for example, is an unofficial video game that had an article here on Wikipedia, and it is well-known here on the Internet. JTWC is the same thing, it is considered as unofficial since it is no longer the main RSMC for Pacific and NIO, but the information related to them has been included for very much beginning of Wikipedia, and it would be fair that JTWC/outsider agency pressures should be included. I don't see not including JTWC pressures or PAGASA pressures would do some harm, rather it would make Wikipedia stand out from the rest. As far as it goes, however, inclusion of the non-official RSMC data should not go as far as to trip the WP:NOTDATA. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with keeping the JTWC pressures; for PAGASA, I'd give it a "hmm... maybe...". For a storm over the Philippines, pressure data from barometers on home turf (PAGASA) definitely seems much more reliable, but this is if it only hits the Philippines. In other cases, we should probably just have RSMC and JTWC only and discuss data (if of note) in the prose of the MH section. Chlod (say hi!) 03:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3, but I'm hoping that we only add in the non-RSMC/non-JTWC winds and pressures in the event that it's either significantly different from the RSMC or if it's particularly notable (either through consensus or a common sense agreement). Including all the data for a long-lived tropical storm that passes through Guam, the Philippines, Vietnam, and China (possibly even HK or Taiwan) seems like an information overload (since you'd have data from the JMA, JTWC, PAGASA, NWS Tiyan, NCHMF, and CMA, also possibly including the HKO and CWB). I had already hinted at this usage at Template:Infobox weather event#Non-RSMC scales a while ago, when I learned that this could possibly trip WP:NOTDATA. Chlod (say hi!) 03:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, people need to use appropriate judgement before adding and/or discuss with others. In the case of Goni and Haiyan, it would be appropriate to have PAGASA added. Similar case can be said for CMA in cases where a storm hit China at peak. NoahTalk 04:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 1. Confusing readers with unofficial pressures opens up a whole can of worms, especially as the JTWC is only one agency out of many. This would especially be a problem in the western Pacific where there are many agencies with conflicting intensity estimates.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 2 + PAGASA I believe it is important to show the JTWC pressure if the winds are shown. It looks empty if it just includes the winds (as shown here). However, allowing as many agencies to be in the infobox is has two issues. First of all, it makes the infobox long which is unideal (I know that this many won't be used, it's just a demonstration). The second issue is that other agencies do not official track systems outside their basin, so there is no winds or pressure to use. Even if the winds and pressure from the basin are used, it seems redundant to list many agencies when most of them don't add any value. However, if a storm enters PAGASA's Area of Responsibility, I think it's ok to add {{Infobox weather event/PAGASA}}. I say this only for PAGASA as other meteological agencies (CMA, HKO, etc.) don't have any tracking/naming responsibilities for tropical cyclones. Infinity (talk - contributions) 22:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Option 2 I think using just RSMC/JTWC data (with pressure) would be the best. The existing situation excluded JTWC pressure due to limitations in the existing inbox, but we now have the flexibility of also showing the JTWC pressure. — Iunetalk 22:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Option 3 Based on others points below, I am alright with including pressure data for other agencies other than the RSMC/JTWC when applicable (such as in Cyclonebiskit's example with Rammasun). — Iunetalk 14:21, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I feel that we need to break this RFC/discussion down a bit and take a few steps back, as there are several strands to consider. The first strand surrounds the usage of JTWC pressure data, which is problematic when we consider that the JTWC does not provide pressure estimates within the advisories or their ATCR, but does within both their running and final best track files. Is this good enough bearing in mind that the JTWC does not supply pressure data for some systems I'm not so sure. As for the multiple intensities thing, I prefer option 3 as we have to remember that there are several systems where there are several intensities provided and make more sense to present in the infobox than the RSMC/JTWC data, however, since there are numerous warning centers in the WPAC, I feel that the NIO and SHEM need to be treated separately as there are not as many disagreements between warning agencies. For the WPAC, I would suggest that using PAGASA intensities for Haiyan isnt the best option, since they didn't BT the system and probably took the data straight from the JTWC. I also feel that the only agencies that we should use in the WPAC are the JMA, JTWC, HKO and CMA, since they provide BT for the majority of systems all over the WPAC. In the NIO/SHEM, there are a number of generic situations where I believe that multiple intensities would be useful, including where there is a significant disagrement between the local/international centres, a system has moved from Aus to SWIO or visa versa at peak, a system is rated on the local scale (Eg SSHWS/SWIO). Just my thoughts.Jason Rees (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3: I think that showing all data that comes from reliable agencies is the best way to go, as long as these agencies work in a similar fashion of the RSMC and JTWC, having their own scale system, having a proper warning system and do periodic advisories. ABC paulista (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3. The JTWC, while not official, is widely used and allows for an apples-to-apples comparison across basins. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Limited use of Option 3 – My only concern with Option 3 is rooted in the WPac as we'd have to include PAGASA, CMA, CWB, HKO, KMA, and NCHMF which would make the infobox unwieldy and WP:NOTDATA comes into play. It could be discussed more in particular situations, such as Typhoon Rammasun where the CMA has a substantially lower pressure owing to a record-low surface ob in Hainan. Main reason I would keep JTWC in the infobox is for global homogeneity with 1-min winds being accessible and how widely it is used in media. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Option 3 when necessary, mostly per Chlod, CrazyC83, and Cyclonebiskit. The new infobox gives us the capability to show both sides of inter-agency conflict while still showing relative priority, which we should be making full use of per WP:BALANCE. My initial vision for the infobox during its development phase was to include all the other non-RSMC estimates from IBTrACS so as to be as comprehensive as possible – but I do see the concerns over NOTDATA and clutter raised above and so won't push for that. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:57, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.

Introducing myself, currently doing research for articles...[edit]

Hi, folks. I wanted to introduce myself: I'm David, I have a degree in journalism (so I can write rather well), and I also have a significant interest in weather, particularly tornadoes. I hope to get more involved with the process of researching, writing, and editing tornado articles (and others, as time permits). Since I'm rather new to the concept of creating articles, I asked at the Teahouse and was advised this might be a good place to share this information.

In recent weeks, I've done a tremendous amount of research (and there's more to do) so I can write some tornado-related articles - specifically, list pages that organize notable/significant tornadoes by path length, width, damages, and death tolls).

I'm also currently working on a list page for tornadoes in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. My home state tends to be stuck at the kids' table when it comes to severe weather, so I'd like to share our tornadic history with those who are interested. If I can find the time, I'd also like to create similar articles on the Northern New England states (Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont).

If anyone is interested in collaborating on these (whether you've already started or you'd like to join me), please let me know. Thank you! Dym75 (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @Dym75:, appologies for not responding sooner but I have personally been busy in real life, anyway, I hope you have enjoyed finding your way around the Wiki over the last month or so and that you have managed to get your teeth into a project. It would be great to see our coverage of tornadoes in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont improve and I would imagine that you have encountered our more proflic tornado editors @United States Man, ChessEric, Elijahandskip, TornadoLGS, and Wxtrackercody: who will be able to help you navigate the wiki and help develop the lists that you mention by pushing you in the right direction. I am also intrigued to see that you have a degree in journalism and may ask you to copyedit a few articles in the future if I need it.Jason Rees (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dym75: Welcome the club brother! ChessEric 22:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is more accurate for deaths: NCEI or TWC[edit]

In January 31 – February 2, 2023, ice storm, The Weather Channel (TWC) posted an article during the ice storm saying 10 deaths occurred. ([1]) The National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) posted that no deaths were documented from this ice storm. ([2]) Multiple editors have disagreed on whether TWC's death toll or NCEI's death toll (or both) should be used in the infobox. So, which should be used in the infobox?

Personally, I opt for an inclusion of both as in this previous version. One argument used by an editor for TWC over NCEI was, "NCEI won’t mark car crash death tolls". Well, I know that is factually incorrect as NCEI actually marked one of the TWC car crash deaths as an indirect death (February 1 in Oklahoma). It is obvious NCEI does look at car crash deaths, they are just considered indirect deaths in this case. Showing both NCEI (the official death toll of 0) and TWC (RS Media direct death toll of 10) in the infobox is the best way to minimize error. Thoughts? Elijahandskip (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would strongly suggest that you look through the sources carefully and go with the most accurate death toll that the majority of sources use. One thing I will say though is that TWC would report on a death toll while the event is very fresh, while the NCEI tends to report well after the event.Jason Rees (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most sources support the death toll of ten, one of which includes AP News (and a NYT article that should be on the talk page.) Common sense should be used. (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are we seriously about to say The Weather Channel is more reliable than NCEI? Like we have had this discussion SO many times I feel like in terms of X media vs NCEI. We always use NCEI since that is the (per the National Weather Service) location for official information. NWS actually confirmed d that principle earlier this year ([3][4][5]NWS Directives PDF) We already had a discussion about when NCEI damage totals are different that other source damage totals (i.e. Aon in this discussion). Every time NCEI vs X source comes up, socks get involved, hence why the Aon one vs NCEI actually got voided. Aon’s side had socks trying to stack the vote. That said, prior to the void due to sock puppetry on the side of Aon, a good compromise was made after a very experienced editor, who also worked in the insurance sector, participated in the discussion.
  1. Aon damage totals are a reliable source for damage total information (RS Noticeboard discussion conclusion) and can be added to an article's content.
  2. Aon damage totals are acceptable for an articles/storms infobox if NOAA has not published a damage total.
  3. Aon damage totals are acceptable for an articles/storm infobox if a NOAA NCDC damage total is also present. This would have both damage totals in the infobox (format done to this article, Tornado outbreak of March 21–23, 2022.
  4. Aon damage totals are ok for an article's content (aka text portion of the article), but should not be added in the infobox if a NOAA Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Diasters damage total is present, due to RS use of it over the Aon damage total.
While this discussions isn’t about Aon damage totals vs NCEI damage totals, there is a principle to it. The overall conclusion was still NOAA/NCEI used the infobox and disagreements got published in the text portion of the article OR even in the infobox as a second entry. When there was a debate about TWC vs NCEI, I attempted to use this discussions general outcome of putting both in the infobox. That motive seemed to not work. I really don’t want to go to an RfC over this because this overall principle of NOAA being official is used on multiple articles, especially tropical cyclone articles. For example, Tropical Storm Hermine (2022) uses the finalized Tropical Cyclone Report’s death toll of 0, despite multiple media reports of 30+. If a discussion reverses the principle of NOAA finalized death tolls in the infobox, then finalized tropical cyclone report death tolls wouldn’t matter at all. Agreements in the past said to do a split thing between finalized NOAA info and disagreement media material, so let’s go back to the split proposal I had originally when starting this discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And this relates to the topic at hand…how? (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because of the following reasons. (1) There has been previous consensus that if a disagreement between the official information and other sources exist, both are suitable, together, in the infobox and (2) that NCEI does in fact track the deaths mentioned by TWC, but officially marked them as indirect deaths, while TWC marked them as direct. The original split NCEI/TWC death toll mentioned and proposed above solves all the problems of NCEI vs TWC. I'm not sure why so many anonymous editors are determined to remove NCEI from Wikipedia, but overall consensus (when the rule-breaking accounts are excluded) seems to indicate that NCEI can co-exist with other sources in an infobox. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Both can be included if properly conveyed. For the infobox it would be "Fatalities: 0 (per NCEI), 10 (per [relevant source(s)])", with the appropriate sources attached as suggested in that edit diff. We're not bound to using a single source, especially if concrete reasonings for the exclusion of reported deaths is not given. It's known that NCEI is prone to human error given the sheer volume of information that is being compiled into the database so things can slip through the cracks even in the present day (namely local offices not submitting their reports on time and that info not making it in). In regards to Hermine, I contacted the NHC and they explicitly stated the deaths were attributed to squalls ahead of Hermine and not directly associated with the storm thus we can go with no fatalities. However, given extensive media reporting the incidents are kept in the article and marked as not caused by Hermine for the full picture. Multiple avenues can be explored as there's no one-size-fits-all solution to many of these situations. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly! The proposal for having both NCEI and X media sources listed in the infobox actually is best as it shows both sides; official and reliable secondary sources. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caution should be exercised when classifying fatalities from news sources. There's nothing on the Weather Channel page that specifically says the deaths are direct or indirect. It is worth noting that nine of the fatalities noted on the Weather Channel are listed in the NCEI database (3TX + 1TX + 1TX + 1TX + 1TX + 1OK + 1OK) so to say that NCEI asserts that the storm caused no fatalities seems erroneous; the infobox makes no differentiation between direct or indirect fatalities (nor does the template documentation). In general, where reliable sources disagree, both can be noted as Cyclonebiskit mentioned, with clarification either directly in the infobox or through an explanatory footnote (see {{efn}} and {{notelist}}). –TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 13:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TheAustinMan: Isn't it the NCEI doesn't state that the storm caused any fatalities rather than the NCEI states that the storm caused no fatalities? NoahTalk 13:40, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Your suggestion would be more accurate, as NCEI doesn't explicitly say that the storm caused no fatalities; regardless, for the storm in question, NCEI does include fatalities that match with news reporting, with the exception of the fatality in Arkansas. I was referring to Elijahandskip's initial statement that The National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) posted that no deaths were documented from this ice storm, which isn't accurate per the links I previously provided. –TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 14:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Storm Set Indexes[edit]

Last year, editors outside the project discussed our storm "disambiguation" categories and decided to move them to "set index" because these pages are set index articles not disambiguations since they provide more than just navigation. They use the set index template "storm index". I would like to move pages within Category:Set index articles on storms to List of storms named X to reflect that these are indeed lists and not disambiguations. This is the most concise title that's possible and takes into account that not every named storm will be a TC. Around 100 pages currently exist at such a title while around 600 or so do not. I also would like to change the class on all the talkpages to SIA from DISAMBIG to reflect this as well. If everyone is okay with this, I will handle all the required work for it. NoahTalk 14:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’d personally rather have all of these SIA be merged into “List of named storms” by letter, but that’s an unpopular opinion. If you don’t mind doing the work, sure, go ahead, this has been an issue for a while now, so good to finally get it done. Thanks in advance for you being proactive. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article page moves[edit]

For the past few days, I've been seeing User:TheQuestionMark move quite a few articles regarding typhoons, hurricanes and tropical storms (see Special:Contributions/TheQuestionMark). Since none of these moves were reverted, I assume that these page moves were accepted by editors working in this subject area. But in case they flew under the radar, I thought I'd mention them since you have such an active community. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, yes, I have been moving a LOT of index articles in a boldly manner. I started doing this more commonly since this requested move by me. Since then, I have been continuously moving articles to a more appropriate name. I only have been here for a little more than a year, so I'm still getting use to the community. If what I'm doing is disruptive or rule-breaking, I am happy to cease the article moving. ▶💬 00:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Liz: The articles @TheQuestionMark: has been moving have needed to be moved away from being TC based for ages since TCs are not the only storms to be routinely named. I just wish we could move them all at once and encourge users to use them to describe names assigned by TWC, UKMO, MetEirrean, Meteo France etc. Jason Rees (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]