Login
Login

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Climate sections in articles on individual towns

{{talk header|wp=yes|sc1=WT:WEATHER|sc2=WT:WPWX}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|

{{WikiProject Weather}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(50d)

| archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 7

| maxarchivesize = 150K

| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 1

}}

{{Page views}}

__TOC__

2024–25 WikiProject Weather Good Article Reassessment

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1769181847}}

I would like to announce that a new task force has been created to re-examine the status of every GA in the project. Many good articles have not been reviewed in quite a while (15+ years for some) and notability requirements have changed quite a bit over the years. The goal of this task force is to save as many articles as possible. Anyone not reviewing an article may jump in to help get it up to par if it does not meet the GA requirements. The process will start officially on February 1 and will continue until every article has been checked and either kept or delisted. The task force may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/2024–25 Good Article Reassessment. Noah, AATalk 15:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

;Articles under review

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 {{ping|Wxtrackercody}} on the aforementioned talk page mentioned that:

"{{tq|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 [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/weather/weather-tornado-warning-south.html many] [https://www.accuweather.com/en/severe-weather/100-tornadoes-confirmed-from-weekend-outbreak-including-several-ef4s/1756030 different] [https://weather.com/storms/tornado/news/2025-03-18-south-tornado-outbreak-recap-arkansas-missouri-mississippi-alabama sources] [https://www.cnn.com/weather/live-news/mega-storm-us-weather-03-15-25/index.html 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 → {{no redirect|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. — EF5 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)

:::{{tq|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 {{omission}} 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. — EF5 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, [https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/1980-2024/?disasters 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 {{ping|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|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 [https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL084470 here], while the NCEI doesn't describe it as two sequences, but as three "multi-day events" with gaps inbetween[https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/tornadoes/201913]. 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

:{{ping|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#Requested move 20 March 2025 (/gen); it had to be left out of this RM on procedural close grounds. — EF5 04:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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.

Good article reassessment for [[Squall line]]

Squall line 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) 05:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion at [[Talk:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado]]

There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado#"Strongest" and "worldwide" claims of interest to this Wikiproject. This discusses two claims about the Bridge Creek tornado's record-breaking nature. Feel free to participate there. Thank you. Departure– (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

F6 tornadoes are impossible claim

There's a pretty big misconception about F6 tornadoes that states they're simply not a thing, but does this claim have any actual reasoning behind it besides simply no tornado officially being rated as such? Of course there's the Lubbock, Xenia, Birmingham, and Guin edge cases but I see all too often that since Fujita labeled F6 as "inconceivable" it was outright impossible to achieve. Departure– (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:The whole "inconceivable" part was that it caused "inconceivable damage". Both sides are true - no F6 tornadoes exist since no tornadoes are rated as such, but the rating itself did exist. Now that the EF scale exists, that could differ. — EF5 14:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes. To my knowledge EF6 is physically impossible, but F6 always was and technically still is for any country still using the F scale to rate tornadoes. I'm less sure about the IF scale (I think they'd just lump any "inconceivable" damage into the IF5 category) but my point is that this fact should be elaborated somewhere on one of Wikipedia's pages - Tornado myths, Fujita scale, something like that? Departure– (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll add it to the tornado myths page. — EF5 14:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

"Violent" but EF3

This mainly pertains to one tornado (see Draft:2020 Jonesboro tornado). In November 2022, Timothy P. Marshall (by all means reliable) stated in a survey that the tornado was "violent" (see page 11 of [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365174723_Damage_survey_of_the_Jonesboro_Arkansas_tornado_March_28_2020 this source]). The tornado received an EF3 rating, however, and the "violent" descriptor is only used for EF4+ tornadoes. So... should it be included? — EF5 17:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:"Violent" meaning EF4+ is a technical term, but by all means use "Intense" or "Strong" or "Significant". I'd say don't use "violent" in Wikivoice personally, but you can add something that says "X described the tornado as "violent"" in a quote-type style. Departure– (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

[[Draft:List of notable tornadoes]]

Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 March 31#Template:Individual tornadoes, I've started this draft. Feel free to add to it. Departure– (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:This reminds me of the original List of notable tropical cyclones, which for a while was a large catch-all list for a bunch of miscellany. Eventually, certain lists were split off, like records and basin-specific information, so much that now the list is redirected to Outline of tropical cyclones. I feel like the same thing would happen here. There already is Tornado records, and several lists for certain areas, so I’m not sure what a notable tornado list would look like, if it’s not a duplicate for other articles. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

[[Draft:Tornado outbreak of May 15–16, 2025]]

There's an article on this now. Don't call this a formal RM, but I had this at Draft:Tornado outbreak sequence of May 15–16, 2025 - notice the sequence. I did this because most non-Wikipedia places call these sort of day-after-day events as multiple separate outbreaks in the same event - in lieu of a formal RM in changing everything else, I wanted to just experiment on this page with the two-day "Sequence" given it's almost certainly going to end up at a "sequence" title over the coming days and the May 15 event was a separate outbreak from the May 16 one in most respects - same system, different outbreaks. That's just my perspective.

So, should this be at "outbreak" or "outbreak sequence"? Note this is informal and will only change anything once the page is published as an article. It's subject to be overturned with an RFC or RM. Pinging @MarioProtIV and @EF5 as involved. Departure– (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sequence. WP:CCC, as usual, and WP:COMMONNAME applies. — EF5 17:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Outbreak per previous standards. Per the definition, {{tq| A tornado outbreak sequence, or tornado outbreak day sequence, sometimes referred to as an extended tornado outbreak, is a period of continuous or nearly continuous high tornado activity consisting of a series of tornado outbreaks over multiple days with no or very few days lacking tornado outbreaks}}, which this current system is not. If it’s the same system it’s considered the same outbreak. We don’t dictate what other news stations and sources refer to this as. We should really only be going by the billion-dollar NCEI list (deprecated as of 2025) to determine outbreak sequences as brought up before by Cody IIRC. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::At the same time, we shouldn't discount that experts like Grazulis and even the NWS itself use a much more conservative definition of "outbreak". Also, precedent isn't consensus and, per a relatively recent WPWX RFC, the NCEI BDE list can't be given full sway over price and I don't see why it needs to be for severe weather events either. They're events - {{green|Tornado event of May 15–16, 2025}}? Departure– (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No, “event” would not work and that’s basically a level below outbreaks, IMO. Also Cody’s comment was moreso a suggestion given he wanted to reduce the amount of May sequences we have which are honestly kind of superfluously strung together (such as last year’s May 19–27, where NCEI has it as two separate outbreaks respectively). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|EF5|MarioProtIV}} In mainspace at Tornado outbreak sequence of May 15–16, 2025. The title dispute can wait until after we stop updating the article every day. Departure– (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

[[:File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg]] has been nominated for deletion

There is an ongoing discussion to determine if :File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg meets the non-free content criteria or if it does not. This WikiProject relates to the discussion, which is why I am sending this notification.

You can participate in the discussion here: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 21#File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Community sanctions (21 May 2025)

Due to frequent sockpuppetry, the intertwining with contemporary American politics, a large amount of uncited edits, and occasional contentious material, I propose that weather- and tropical cyclone-related articles be placed under some form of community sanctions (see WP:GS). I don't know the exact procedure for getting these sanctions implemented, etc, and this thread for now will just act as discussion of whether or not it's needed, but I'll outline a few points.

  • As of 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency and the Second Trump Administration more broadly have been targeting NOAA and related groups. This includes the indefinite cessation of the NCEI's "billion-dollar disaster" figures, changing official wording of the Gulf of Mexico broadly to Gulf of America, and politicians and private individuals typically on the right wing spreading conspiracy theories about controlling weather etc.
  • On Wikipedia, there are at least 3 major sockpuppeteers targeting weather-related articles over the past few months to my knowledge - Lokicat3345, Andrew5, and Dcasey98. Andrew5 in particular is known to edit primarily from proxies / dynamic IPs.
  • Since the 2024 tornado season and until now, articles on contemporary topics including ongoing tornado outbreaks have been subject to the rampant inclusion of uncited changes, especially to tornado ratings. In addition, disruption, often from IP addresses, has occurred regarding the strength of individual tornadoes especially after the Greenfield tornado one year ago.
  • On Tornado records specifically, individuals from Reddit were found to have incited off-wiki disruption by attempting to change information to see one tornado "win" over another in terms of wind speeds.
  • The EF scale has come under scrutiny lately, especially following the Greenfield tornado, and it's not too uncommon to see people changing EF ratings because "Did you see the damage?". This is especially the case on storms where complete surveys are not available.
  • Stealth vandalism on older articles is also a problem. Older articles are often the target of the LTAs I mentioned earlier.
  • Tropical cyclones, due to their intensity and news-worthy nature, are frequent targets for vandalism regarding their strength, death tolls, etc.
  • In addition, climate change is a contentious topic in of itself, with meteorology being greatly affected by global warming and other effects of climate change.
  • Ongoing tornado outbreaks and tropical cyclones, especially those with widespread impact, are often the most subject to disruption. This mostly includes the introduction of uncited or poorly cited material, in addition to synthesis.
  • "Now-casting" is a problem on Wikipedia, in which people watching radar, Twitter feeds, or broadcast media, including YouTube live-streams, will add uncited but often factual information regarding tornadoes and severe weather, before reliable sources can be created. This does not apply to direct NWS sources, such as those taken from IEM.

My current proposal on the table is as follows:

  • All articles with topics on severe weather, tropical cyclones, summer and winter seasons, and potentially wildfires will be subject to these sanctions.
  • Articles should be semi-protected as a precaution against now-casting, sockpuppetry, and off-wiki canvassing, where applicable.
  • Edits can still be proposed through edit requests on talk pages.
  • Unsourced or poorly-sourced claims, or changes to existing claims, should be reverted on-sight, unless information is adequately sourced and explained in an edit summary. Where claims are doubtful, discuss on the talk page instead of edit-warring. Where sources are available, they must be cited in the article instead of only existing in the edit summary, or else they should also be removed on sight.
  • No revert rule will be instituted. The standard 3RR will continue to apply.

This is just a proposal, and is based on my observations that weather and related topics are subject to differing forms of disruption and contain contentious material as much as many other actual contentious topic area. [https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/05/weather/weather-weapons-nws-radar-attack We weren't getting violent in the real world about it until this year, though.] I primarily ask for blanket semi-protection due to the fact that most sockpuppetry, in addition to unsourced and poorly sourced material, comes from IP addresses or new accounts.

Pinging @EF5 and @Wildfireupdateman as those that had previously proposed sanctions. Further discussion about whether or not sanctions are necessary should continue below. Departure– (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Strong support per all of my reasoning previously. Due to the general age range that weather enthusiasts are in (again, this is [https://asteriskmag.com/issues/08/the-depths-of-wikipedians backed up in a reliable source]), this is 100% needed. Just go to a recent tornado outbreak page from post-May 2024 and you'll see at least five reverts in the last 100 edits. It's absurd and needs to stop. — EF5 17:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::One thing I do somehat disagree with is the {{tq|Where sources are available, they must be cited in the article instead of only existing in the edit summary, or else they should also be removed on sight}} part, it's not my fault that mobile editing sucks. — EF5 17:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This is a problem, as you, in good faith, are adding uncited (as in unverifiable from merely reading the article) information. Either wait for the sources to be made, or cite them yourself (even if it takes a good while), but that's still OR, from my perspective. It falls into the category of now-casting as a whole. It might suck but so does seeing unverifiable and potentially untrue information, where I need to go to the edit history to see the source, which itself could be to the NWS, to Twitter, or to literally anywhere. It's just not a good system, no offense to you, of course. Departure– (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Departure–, my point is that the source is there, another editor just needs to add it. I can assume I'm far from the only person who has to to deal with adding references on mobile, which takes so long that you can get in edit conflicts. — EF5 17:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Edit requests exist for this reason. I'm sure in a now-casting situation, or one where later sources can be added, another editor would gladly accept and implement your edit request in a less clunky manner that doesn't get you in OR situations. Departure– (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::And how do you submit an edit request on mobile? Everything on mobile takes ten times longer than on a non-cellular device. EF5 17:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'd assume it's just going into the talk page and leaving a neutrally-worded "Hey, so XYZ just happened see [example.com this], I'm on mobile so can someone add this?" sort of deal. Nothing too complicated Departure– (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::If you want a recent example of this, just look at my last 25-or-so edits. It's all reverting rating-related changes. — EF5 18:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Strong Oppose - this proposal is poorly thought out and seems to be overreacting to stuff like the addition of unsourced information on wiki, conversations off wiki, windspeed changes, sockpuppets and the political situation in the United States. Over the years that I have been contributing to the Wiki, we have seen products come and go due to budget constraints, technology/governments changing including in the US. As for the supposedly reliable source about the age of tropical cyclone/weather editors, I would note that its a generic assumption, as no one has asked me how old I am and I doubt they have asked anyone else about their age.Jason Rees (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Could you clarify on the “ seems to be overreacting to stuff” part? This isn’t an overreaction, this is a serious issue that we’ve had to deal with since last year. EF5 00:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::To put the whole of the weather project on community sanctions is a massive overreaction, since all Donald Trump and DOGE are doing is making changes to the way the government operates, which any government would do and in the US includes NOAA. The other stuff is just general wiki stuff which has happened for years, does not happen on the majority of articles related to the project and doesn't need much more than a general enforcement of Wiki's rules.Jason Rees (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The point is to curb the consistent and disruptive vandalism of pages. That’s “normal”? It’s very annoying and has to be dealt with daily. It happens on hurricane articles too, no? EF5 01:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Unfortunately it is normal that Wikipedia gets vandalized on a daily basis - its the nature of the internet - but there are ways and means to deal with them, that does not involve placing the whole of the project under sanctions, when the majority of articles in the project do not suffer much vandalism. For example, educating people about how to put references in, not launching SPI's into each and every sockpuppet, not making articles about current weather events that are marginally notable etc.Jason Rees (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Let me lay it out this way, Jason Rees. Wikipedia does perhaps "jump the gun" a bit when it comes to these severe weather events, but I'd like to point out that these events, to my knowledge, always end up notable if they end up in mainspace. One way or another they're getting the significant coverage that proves notability. Wikipedia is very unique in this. Most places on the web that catalogue severe weather, minus tropical cyclones, typically do so in one of three ways:

::::::* Social media feeds, in which information from unofficial and unreliable sources can very easily appear as fact

::::::* News site feeds, in which information can come much slower, and stories are hyperfocused on where X news organization can get reporters to

::::::* Databases and story-blogs, such as weather.gov's WFO summaries and the NCDC Events database, in which verified information is put into a relatively specific area of writing, where some information is lost as apparently unnotable etc.

::::::The way Wikipedia handles these ongoing events is that neutrally worded summaries from official or otherwise reputable sources, those with NOAA, are used to clearly define the setup that day and surveys afterwards (preliminary or not, but we should specify). Wikipedia's mode is also as a sort of compilation; much unlike a news article / timeline system, information can be added whenever adequate sourcing exists and topics can be given their due weight according to apparent importance. This system often leads to more comprehensive summaries of these events as they're ongoing, and often contain more information as a sort of very light "synthesis" that Wikipedia itself is built off of, that is, stitching all notable aspects of an event together. This is something that a lot of broadcast media and these blogs miss. The tornado in St. Louis, Missouri, for instance, was, when it was written, given a section in the article with RS-backed prose, and the little section it was given gave out more information than any other sources that had shown up in the hour after the tornado hit. In addition, during the aftermath of an event, the Wikipedia article on it often acts as the best sole guide to finding information that has been reported both before, during, and after severe weather occurred; not just that meteorologists expected there to be severe weather in a place, but also that a tornado warning was issued at XYZ a.m., first responders were there at ZYX a.m., and they're doing X for recovery efforts the next weeks.

::::::The system, the little niche, I outline Wikipedia's ongoing severe weather coverage to fall into, is unique among the web and, in the context of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, can work, and while doing so can easily benefit the encyclopedia as a whole, as even after an event, the amount of love an article got when it was happening often doesn't go to waste (I go into more detail about newer events in the essay WP:NOTTOOSOON).

::::::Articles all over Wikipedia will get vandalized and that's a shame but it's just the nature of the project we work with. However, I did identify that weather, unlike most standard areas of contributions but like other contentious topics, does have a specific type of disruption to the project that I, in my full honest opinion, think that a set of sanctions like the ones I've outlined above will do more good than harm. Having a reliable and accessible source for new and verified information no doubt is going to help knowledge worldwide, and, even if Wikipedia is not a newspaper, once the dust settled, you realize that having articles like this made when they are and constructed how they are (see NOTTOOSOON) ends up helping the construction an encyclopedia.

::::::Brief version: Wikipedia has a unique place on the web in its coverage of these events, and, per WP:NOTTOOSOON, weather articles being made in the way they are reinforce that and also help the encyclopedia down the line. These sanctions ensure that we can maintain this system, not preventing people from editing at all (we have edit requests for that very reason). I myself think they will be to the significant benefit of the project. Departure– (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Oppose – We are {{smallcaps|Wikipedia}}, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We may have a sockpuppet problem. We may have many editors adding badly cited content. But this is no reason to protect articles out of hand. When we do this, we stop being the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and start being the oligarchical encyclopedia that anyone can edit provided they make an account and wait until the weather event they want to add information on has already dissipated. Edit requests are a thing, sure, but not a very good one. No one wants to go through that endless bureaucracy. WMF studies show (as much as we can trust the WMF) that most readers who wish to make an occasional edit to a protected page are put off by the edit requests and the edit never ends up being made. Protection should be a last resort. I already have on my userpage that blocking is a last resort — anything that infringes on the right to edit should be a last resort. Protecting articles out of hand is the beginning of the end for our tradition of being a free encyclopedia. Don't even get me started on PIA's ECR. Protection is much worse than blocking because while blocking only restricts edits from one account/IP, protection restricts all anons, good or bad. Blocks can be easily appealed, protection cannot. Yes, there are LTAs. But we should try to deny recognition by RBIing. What bigger reward is there to an attention-seeking LTA than to see GSs in their honor? Revert the edit, block the sock. Nock, draw, loose. Simple. We should deny recognition to Trump too. He wants to restrict Wikipedia's coverage of weather to what he wants. There is no better way to play right into his hands than to needlessly restrict weather articles. As far as GSs go, this one is radical, second only to the abhorrent ARBPIA. To preserve us as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we should avoid roping off a large portion of it. We had one arb case. One. The worst offenders are either reformed or tbanned. It had – get this – nothing to do with weather! Why don't we withdraw this half-baked request and get back to improving articles? 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 11:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :There may have only been one ArbCom case, but several other notable ANI cases affecting the weather WikiProject, including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive351#User:Jasper Deng’s closing of a discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#Canvassing at an AfD are two prime examples. As of now, numerous random weather articles are already under protection such as 2021–22 North American winter, Hurricane Idalia, Hurricane Isaias, Hurricane Felix, and February 2025 North American storm complex. Not to mention, Tornado outbreak sequence of May 15–16, 2025 and Tornado outbreak of May 18–20, 2025. We’ve proposed this in 2023 and above, and with weather being as controversial as it is, it makes sense to at least put sanctions on. Support sanctions and weak oppose the semi protection part of it. Crickster8 (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Sock
  • ::The list of semi protected articles is more extensive then I thought. Severe weather sequence of July 13–16, 2024, June 2021 North American storm complex (which had a contested merge), January 13–16, 2024 North American winter storm, February 2024 nor'easter, January 5–6, 2025 United States blizzard, Hurricane Nicole (2022), November 2022 Great Lakes winter storm, Hurricane Dorian, etc. Crickster8 (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Sock
  • :::Looks like a huge contentious RM was started for Tri-state tornado of 1925 while a MRV was in progress (a policy violation) and no one can agree on a title for Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 which included topic ban violations. Yikes. Crickster8 (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Sock
  • ::::Crickster8, I have to ask how you found out about WPWX. I find it funny that a user with five edits can point to several old ANI discussions. — EF5 12:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :Chicdat, then how do we deal with consistent vandalism? It isn't going to stop at all unless some form of protection is applied. — EF5 12:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ::I'm not saying end all protection, I'm saying reconsider when to adopt it and when to block. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :::When should it be adopted? Non-stop vandalism isn't curbed by simply not doing anything. — EF5 12:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ::::{{ec}}Blanket protection helps nobody. If there's persistent vandalism or disruptive editing on a high-profile page (e.g. current AHS, current hurricane/tornado outbreak), temporarily (pending changes/semi-)protect until the event is over. If the page is lower-profile, pending changes protection will suffice. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 12:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :::::Chicdat, the issue is that it happens everywhere. The same vandal on the May 18-20 article yesterday then went to the March 13-16 article, where protection had to be requested (and was denied, for some reason!) to both. — EF5 12:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ::::::That's a case for better and faster protection (e.g. lots of weather admins), not for general sanctions. Everything in the news gets edited a lot, period. Once the tornadoes have died down, there's no need to maintain protection. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :::::::In that case, see articles like 2011 Super Outbreak and 2011 Cullman-Arab tornado. Both are well over ten years old, yet still get year-round vandalism. — EF5 13:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ::::::::Precisely what pending changes is for (I am a big believer in pending changes). This proposal proposes a protection for all weather articles – even incredibly obscure ones. Does Pre-1600 Atlantic hurricane seasons need indef semi-protection? Does Tornadoes of 1962? That's called overkill. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 13:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :::::::::Chicdat, but who would consistently monitor the pending changes? I'm looking for the best possible way to get across this, and pending changes doesn't seem that bad. {{ping|Departure–}} how would you feel about changing "protection" in the proposal to "pending changes"? — EF5 13:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ::::::::::Pending changes would be a significant benefit as it would still allow for some changes to be made by non-regulars, which I was entirely dreading making this proposal. I wouldn't have an issue with changing this from semi-protection to some form of pending changes (even if I think pending changes as a system needs some adjustments). Departure– (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :::::::::::Tornadoes of 2025 was previously pending changes protected but then was bumped up to semi. Tornado outbreak of February 5-7, 2020 was also at one point under PC and was upped up to semi. It seems pending changes might not work as intended. Crickster8 (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Crickster8, then we start with post-2010 pending and bump to semi where needed. — EF5 14:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Another, more contentious debate is whether IPs should be allowed to edit at all or if it should be banned. The Portugese Wikipedia has already done this. Crickster8 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Feel like it needs to be made clear that the result of discussion here will not be binding even if it passes - the procedure for establishing general sanctions is to pass it through WP:VPR, as per WP:GS#Community sanctions, and I suggest getting much more solid evidence of disruption (e.g. linking to SPIs, page protection logs, past dispute resolution attempts, etc.). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :vpr is semi protected, otherwise I would. Crickster8 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Sock
  • Comment Here's the issues:

:* SPIs: Andrew5, LokiCat3345

:* Past ANI/ARB discssions involving Wx: 1, 2, WPTROP ARB case

:* Protected pages: Literally go to any post-2023 tornado outbreak page and it's almost 100% been protected at some point in its life.

There's a lot more, but I don't feel inclined to bring together a list when the issue is right in front of our faces. EF5 12:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Well we literally have to, or it won’t be binding. It was set up wrong yet again. Crickster8 (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Sock

:Let me state now that I don't think the ANI thread is too relevant to the matter at hand. A cursory look shows that it was about off-wiki canvassing and poor handling of discussions, and those don't appear to be the issues at hand here. The issues I see are persistent synthesis, unsourced content changes, and seemingly daily sockpuppetry. Now, per @Chicdat's notes, I would not be too opposed to having such sanctions only cover post-2007 or post-2010 weather (of those leaning on 2010 being the cutoff point) as while not as frequent as a small subset of articles a lot still do get vandalized or targeted by sockpuppets.

:As for the specific scale of disruption, I've made a page where I can view the recent changes of any article, and I've specifically narrowed it down to tornadoes and tornado outbreak articles from 2000 to 2025. The following recent changes may be affected by these sanctions:

:* Special:Diff/1291567000 at Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025

:* Special:Diff/1291600938 at 2008 Poland tornado outbreak

:* Special:Diff/1291546205 at Tornado outbreak of May 7–10, 2016

:* Special:Diff/1291515811 at Tornadoes of 2004

:* Special:Diff/1291504972 at Greensburg tornado

:* Special:Diff/1291504415 at 2020 Easter tornado outbreak

:That's within just the past few days. See also Special:AbuseFilter/1324 which was made specifically for this (but never actually implemented). The manner in which vandalism most often occurs within weather pages is very unlike that seen across much of the rest of Wikipedia. These changes can be very hard to notice unless you're specifically looking out for them. As for simply reverting or leaving pages unprotected, the 3RR still applies in the reversion of vandalism (to my knowledge) and I don't want to have any long-time editors receive any form of sanctions for keeping unsourced material out of these articles. Per EF5, most recent weather articles have received some form of protection at some point, which goes to show (in my opinion) that these sanctions wouldn't be necessarily impossible to implement on the grounds of being unnecessary. Departure– (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Can someone bring this to VPR in all seriousness? It’s semi protected indefinitely, and it’s the only valid way to bring it over. Seems like my comment was ignored. Crickster8 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Sock

:::Bringing this to VPR is premature. More local discussion should happen first. Departure– (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Look at that, there was literally socking in this discussion. If that isn't proof, I don't know what it. EF5 15:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Don’t worry, Chicdat is a known coward. They were blocked for edit warring on Names of European cities in different languages (U–Z), see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#DSMN-IHSAGT. They were also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1055271010#Chicdat_and_disruptive_editing_at_WP:RfP topic banned] for 3 years with it only being [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1263425346 recently] overturned. 68.216.63.46 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Striking Andrew5 sock. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Departure–}} Lol, that happened. EF5 15:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::You can’t strike a sock before it’s confirmed, did you not hear of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, {{u|MarioProtIV}}. Sounds like someone needs to take AP Gov. 68.216.63.46 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Striking sock. WP:DFT. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ec}}Glad to know I'm a known coward. Thanks, Andrew5, for a quick trip down memory lane. BTW, they forgot to mention I was blocked for edit warring with a known LTA. Maybe there's some special LTA Discord chat where Andrew5 and the BKFIP reminisce about their interactions with me – who woulda thunk? 🐔 Chicdat  Chicken Jockey! 18:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Oppose - The type of disruption that is encountered on WPW is something that I wouldn't call deserving of general sanctions. Wikipedia has always been a place where recent or current events are a subject of rapid editing. The problem of socking is only the most problematic with Andrew5, as Lokicat seems to have slowed down in terms of socking. I don't see these issues presented as only applying to WPW, therefore, I don't see the need for sanctions. CutlassCiera 17:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there should be more targeted protections in the more active articles with a lot of disruption. I don't think there needs to be a blanket protection, which would stop most anon users from editing, just because of a few trolls. Any instances of the now-casting, or vandalism, should be removed right away. I think a solution for some of the predictions making it into the article is taking more time to create articles for individual outbreaks. Don't publish them until it is well-sourced and the scope is evident. I understand that some outbreaks can be anticipated in advance, just like some hurricane articles are created when a storm is just an invest. But a lot of the problem is the "FIRST" mentality of wanting to get the information on there, even if it's not the most accurate information (which can sometimes take some time to figure out). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 23 May 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.

----

{{check talk wp}}

{{Tmbox

|small =

|imageright = 30px

|image = 45px

|type = move

|text = It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved somewhere else, with the names being decided below.

----

{{smallcaps|result:}}
Procedural close. There is already an open move request on this page. Only one move request can be open at a time on any talk page. After the existing RM has been closed, let me know if this request should be reopened and I will revert this closure. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 02:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

----

Move logs: [{{fullurl:Special:Log/move|page={{Urlencode:Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather}}}} source title]{{·}} [{{fullurl:Special:Log/move|page={{Urlencode:Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather}}}} target title]

This is template {{tls|Requested move/end}}

}}

– All focus on tornadoes in one specific area but have inconsistent names due to a lack of standardization. I don't know if this should extend to state-wide or country-wide lists but these should at least be standardized. I personally am in favor of "Tornadoes in X" but that would also involve changing the subject of these pages to include why some place has so many tornadoes or whatever - but who would be opposed to that? Either way, standardization will help for consistency. Departure– (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support move to "tornadoes in XXXX" - Why does a Cleveland County article even exist if we already have Tornadoes in Oklahoma? — EF5 21:32, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Because we didn't always have that page (weren't you the one who made the state page?). I guess someone saw Moore, Moore, Moore again, and saw that Moore was being hit by so many tornadoes but didn't want to do just a "Tornadoes in Moore" article. (That someone was WeatherWriter in 2022, apparently, and this was before we had consistent naming in the first place.) Departure– (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The Cleveland County one seems unusually specific for Wikipedia standards. The Huntsville one was mostly a dab from 2007 until 2022, when it was expanded into the list it is today. Then List of Alabama tornadoes was made in 2013, but is still more of a dab than the other state tornado articles. The St. Louis one could be useful for making List of Missouri tornadoes. I think the Chicago one should be integrated into the List of Illinois tornadoes article, since there's useful content there, but there's probably not a need to have both. Just my thought how to deal with these. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:31, 23 May 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.

Featured article review for [[Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne]]

I have nominated Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne 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) 22:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Sources]]

For all weather editors, a large list of reliable and unreliable sources if being created. Several discussions for a lot of different sources (including ones like The Weather Channel, AccuWeather, and Ryan Hall, Y'all, are already being discussed on the talk page. Please assist if you have any thoughts to give on the various sources and their reliability. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:The World Destubathon|The World Destubathon]]

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is $500 of prizes going into improving Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Medicine and Business-related articles and we hope to see a lot of science-related articles destubbed and older stale articles improved in particular. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for weather-related topics, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

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

style="background:#FFFFFF; border:2px solid #000080; padding: 10px; width: 100%"
File:Articles for improvement star.svg

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)

[[WP:FAR|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]]

File:Information.svg 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)