It's a new decade, so I've been thinking about some ways we can restructure this WikiProject to make it more normative and higher quality. For the past decade and a half, the main Tornadoes of [Year] page has been overwhelmingly United States-centric, with only major tornadoes from different countries shoehorned in. This has led to article titles that are pretty clearly wrong, especially since we have established tornado databases in Canada and Europe that go without any mention every year. For this reason, I am proposing multiple, major changes to the way we do things:

• The main Tornadoes of... pages, I think, should become disambiguation pages

• Within these disambiguation pages, there should be a link to United States tornadoes of... which would serve as a true US-centric version of what we currently have (example: Tornadoes of 2020)

• Within these disambiguation pages, we should have links to List of Canada tornadoes in... and List of European tornadoes in... given established tornado databases there (example: List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2020)

• Within these disambiguation pages, we should have links to List of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks in... for each the continents of Australia, Asia, North America, South America, excluding Europe because it'd have a monthly list, and excluding Antarctica because obviously there are no tornadoes there (example: List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks)

This is a large undertaking, but I think it would help users more easily find what they're looking for without being disingenuous about what's currently offered on the Tornadoes of... pages. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 04:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I strongly concur with this plan. We've been in desperate need of an overhaul. Pinging other editors for input: @TornadoLGS, United States Man, CrazyC83, TheAustinMan, Runningonbrains, Juliancolton, Rdfox 76, Redfishtwofish, and Tornadotom666: ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Also @TornadoInformation12: ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Concur. Brief descriptions for minor outbreaks/events (i.e. without articles) could be added on the monthly pages too, with the dab page for all in the year. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I had thought it would be a good idea, at least. to restart the European year list since that got dropped somewhere back in 2014. I know Environment Canada conducts surveys, but I don't know where to find them.

But I'm concerned that this endeavor, as it is currently proposed, would actually decrease the visibility of tornadoes outside North America and Europe. Significant events, if they don't get articles, are still listed alongside US events, and generally in greater detail than in the continental list. For the sake of conserving detail, I would suggest some sort of annual page for these tornadoes as well, even if there is less content than for the U.S., Europe, and Canada. I may have some other thoughts on this matter, but I'll have to sleep on it. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Concur. It would be nice to bring the tornado databases for Canada and Europe to the same level as the monthly catalogs for the US. We should also probably include Africa as well since they do get tornadoes. Tornadotom666 (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am not in support of doing away with the Tornadoes of... pages in favor of a disambiguation. We do need confirmed lists of tornadoes from Canada, Europe, and elsewhere, and those significant events can be mentioned here like always. The reason these pages have become so U.S.-centric is because tornadoes are overwhelmingly U.S.-centric. I do not think splitting this off into more articles is the solution here. We barely have enough user activity and information to maintain the main Tornadoes of ... pages. If you follow through on this, are you actually going to put in the work that is required to maintain all those new lists? I believe that's partially the reason it was dropped to begin with. So, I will lean my support behind the monthly or yearly "list" pages for areas outside the United States, but we need to keep all the "paragraph" information maintained in one place, like Tornadoes of 2020. If you are afraid of this becoming U.S.-centric, simply do a better job of adding tornado information to that page from other countries. United States Man (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a good point. It may be more efficient to keep Tornadoes of ... the same format and focus on improving the yearly Canadian tornadoes list, yearly European tornadoes list, and significant tornadoes and tornado outbreaks by continent (which I think should include Europe as well, since it would be selective for the more significant events, not a comprehensive chronological list). Once those are more polished, informative, and well-sourced, I think it might be significantly easier to include non-US tornadoes on the yearly Tornadoes of ... page. Tornadotom666 (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Tornadoes are not overwhelmingly US centric. Canada gets about 100 per year, Europe sees several hundred per year. If people are concerned about exposure to those events, they should support this proposal because the current format that does not do justice. In terms of simply finding more information about tornadoes, it's simple enough to do that...if we're talking about confirmations. But the United States is the anomaly in that we have archived severe weather outlooks, discussion about meteorological setups, etc. The level of detail we get for tornado events in the U.S. is worthy of the current format. In other countries, we only get scant detail about confirmed tornadoes. That is more suitable to a list format than combining it with what should be a U.S. only page. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 16:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Eh, I'm still not sold. Sorry, United States Man (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think some of the aforementioned visibility concerns are valid, and a lot of the problems arise because it is difficult to maintain a prose-based article cataloging worldwide events that aren't necessarily related to one another. Prose-based articles about continental seasons or hurricane seasons work well because the events they cover can be linked by common influences or facts, such as weather patterns and seasonal forecasts. There is not much prose that can be written that bridges tornadoes worldwide together without substantial synthesis; this is the case with the the annual listing of earthquakes which simply lists earthquakes and their statistics. I think we can all get behind the idea of new tornado lists for other continents, and personally I like TA13's proposal, but if we want to stick with the current Tornadoes of YYYY system, Wikipedia guidelines for staying on topic and giving proper balance prevents certain information from being emphasized. This would not be an issue if we had dedicated, regionalized pages on which information could be expanded in a focused manner. For instance, it seems jarring to me that on an article with worldwide scope the infobox leads off with an image of American tornado statistics and then has a large map of fatalities for only U.S. tornadoes. If we were to split a yearly U.S. tornado article off, we could have those graphics, talk about U.S. warning changes, SPC/NWS statistics, and U.S. weather patterns because the scope of the article would allow for that without creating the appearance of undue weight. TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 18:18, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

After a little thought, I agree with United States Man. Separating non-U.S. tornadoes from the main article and shunting them off to their own corner will likely decrease their visibility. The current proposal also does poorly by tornadoes outside North America and Europe. And yes, any article about tornadoes, especially one in English, is naturally going to be U.S.-centric. We get a good number of tornadoes outside the U.S., yes, but the majority of reported tornadoes worldwide occur in the U.S. I do support running European and Canadian lists in addition to what we are currently doing. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, just a suggestion here. How about we keep the main list article mostly as it is, using it to report significant events worldwide, with the separate lists being used in addition to the main list, much as we do with the US monthly lists now? Add links at the top of the main list articles to take people to the separate continental lists for each year, along with a bit of an explanation of what constitutes a significant enough event to make the main list page (perhaps the standard we've been using for putting US outbreaks into it, or perhaps something else to be roughly equivalent based on lesser coverage elsewhere in the world?), and then have just minimal levels of detail on the individual events listed on the main page, with links to the appropriate event sections on the subpages, where we include the level of detail we now have for events on the main page. This makes the main list less visibly US-centric except in coverage of total events (where proportion of events and quality of coverage would explain it for anyone questioning it), and more of a useful "executive summary" of the year's significant tornado events; the various continental/regional/national-level lists would then be expanded beyond pure table-type lists to include the event summaries, which would then link to the separate articles for individual notable events. This would somewhat strike a middle ground between reducing the main "Tornadoes of xxxx" page to a disambig and the status quo, and wouldn't significantly increase the workload, as we'd basically be putting the amount of data we already have into the lesser articles while having, essentially, a one-liner description of the year's major events in the main list. Hopefully, the explanation of what gets into the main list (and, presumably, what gets a prose discussion on the appropriate sublist instead of just slots in the table) might also reduce the number of "There was a tornado in East Cityton on the 37th of Smarch that knocked over three garden sheds and a patio table" entries we get put into the main list with no sourcing and need to clean up... rdfox 76 (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Honestly, I do not see the need for major changes. I am definitely a "if it's not broke, don't fix it kind of guy. I don't see any glaring issues with the current system, and this current format is simple and effective. The more complex things get, the messier they look, and the harder they are to maintain. If the concern is over non-US tornadoes, I don't really see the point, because as of lately, non-US tornadoes have been well-covered in the global yearly tornado pages, and I myself make sure of this. I'm actually in the process of going back through past years and adding better info for non-US events. It will take a while, but will be worth it. Minor changes are ok, but big changes to the system are a huge no-no in my opinion. Keep it organized, simple, and inclusive of all global events, as we have been. We've been doing an especially great job for the past few years. With all this considered, there is really no need for a huge overhaul, and I cannot stress how important it is to keep things simple. Bottom line, make additional lists for foreign events if you want, but PLEASE keep the yearly global tornado pages. They're great. Let's not "over-engineer" this, as I feel we did with the 2011 Super Outbreak article, but that's a whole different can of worms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TornadoInformation12 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea, I would be in if we were to do this. -Redfishtwofish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redfishtwofish (talk • contribs) 23:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Please see and comment on this merger Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Meteorology#Proposal that impacts this project.Jason Rees (talk) 16:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Can someone create an article for 2020 California Labor Day weekend heat wave.

• [[https://ktla.com/news/local-news/triple-digit-temperatures-in-southern-california-heat-wave-break-records/

THANKS. SWP13 (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm wondering if you guys have a Wikiproject Discord I can join. Flasty Jam (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Flasty Jam I think you can go to the WPTC Discord at first. It is pretty much Wikipedia's main Discord server for weather. MarioJump83! 23:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@United States Man and TornadoLGS: Would you guys possibly be interested in working towards a topic for tornadoes of 2018? I think it would be cool if we could have an overall topic for weather in 2018 with subtopics for the different types of weather events. It would involve getting all the lists to FL (Tornadoes of 2018 and the monthly lists for US tornadoes) and any regular articles (tornado articles) to either GA or FA. What do you guys think? Noah^Talk 19:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC) @TheAustinMan, ChessEric, TornadoInformation12, DavidTheScientist, Elijahandskip, Destroyeraa, CapeVerdeWave, and AC5230: Pinging additional people. Noah^Talk 19:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Any reason you pick 2018 in particular? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

We have people working on a topic for tropical cyclones in that year (which is nearly half done) and I figured it would be easiest to complete topics in other areas for the same year so we have "Weather in 2018" completed eventually. We also have had plenty of time for academic journals/papers to be released on these events as well which helps for completing some areas. Noah^Talk 20:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about what you mean. Are you asking for us to write a general summary as a subsection to another article?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@ChessEric: I am talking about improving all the articles for 2018 tornadoes to either GA or FA and all the lists to FL status. Any missing articles/content would have to be created/added to articles. Noah^Talk 23:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

edit | discuss

Tornadoes of 2018

10 articles

List of United States tornadoes in April 2018

List of United States tornadoes from August to October 2018

List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2018

List of United States tornadoes from June to July 2018

List of United States tornadoes in May 2018

List of United States tornadoes from November to December 2018

2018 Port Orchard tornado

Tornado outbreak and blizzard of April 13–15, 2018

Tornado outbreak of November 30 – December 2, 2018

Oh. I was already doing that for the older tornado articles, although college had slowed me down quite a bit. Plus I have several tornado articles that I'm working on here. You are free to help.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject,

This article has been tagged for 12 years for having incorrect information and apparently has never been checked. It would be great if one of the members of this WikiProject could look it over and either correct the misinformation or tag it for a deletion discussion. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, again, WikiProject,

One of my tasks these days is going through WikiProjects and removing unused categories. Frequently, these assessment categories were set up between 2005-2011 and they were never used. This phenomenon applied to your Severe Weather article categories which went unused for 14 years. For some reason, editors in this WikiProject have chosen to assess articles into "Thunderstorm and tornado articles" categories instead of "Severe weather articles" categories although I'm not sure why (you can see this in Category:WikiProject Severe weather articles). I've dealt with dozens of WikiProjects so far this summer and I've never seen this happen elsewhere.

You might consider renaming this WikiProject Thunderstorm and Tornado since those are the categories you have placed articles in. I'm happy to restore the Severe weather article assessment categories if you want to start using them but that would necessitate you recategorizing all of the articles placed in the Thunderstorm and Tornado article categories into Severe Weather article categories so someone has to want to and be willing to do this work. But if so, just ask on my talk page and I'll happily restore them. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: yes, I've been trying to clean up this WikiProject too. I believe someone changed it to "Thunderstorms", and then, maybe because there was not a consensus, that it was changed back half way. I've been trying to sort it all out with the WP templates, and have gotten some things done, and others are hanging, right now. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I have a bad habit of starting too many discussions at the same time. I'm just seeing your reply, Funandtrvl. It seems like there is a lot of discussion going on right now about reorganizing Wikipedia's weather WikiProjects and so attention might be elsewhere. But thank you for filling me in on a little history about this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Please see the corresponding list of articles that have been FAR noticed here. Amongst the ones there, Tornado has been noticed and has some serious issues that would need to be addressed in order for it to maintain its featured status. Any help with saving articles that have been noticed would be appreciated. Noah^Talk 15:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Tornado for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Noah^Talk 13:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

All,

I have started a discussion as to the notability of the page 2017 Minnesota tornadoes. United States Man (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

All,

There are currently ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa tornado outbreak of July 2018 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Dalton, Minnesota tornado as to whether these articles of marginal notability should be deleted/merged back into list and yearly articles. United States Man (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I left comment on the talk page of the current Arbitration case about WPTC. I asked if, in the interest of transparency (since a lack of transparency was one criticism of having off-wiki discussions), we should include a link to WP:SEVERE's Discord server on the project page, as there is on for WPTC. The two ArbCom members who commented said it was a good idea. I agree with them. I had thought I should mention it here before going ahead with it, though. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm making this post as a central hub so we know what needs work and what is good. Of note, even if the monthly lists are good, we need to make sure those updated tables have been transferred to the outbreak pages, as well as that the updated numbers have been added to the yearly tornado pages. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for doing this and working to update them. I kept them all updated years ago but I got burned out and haven’t been able to bring myself to work on them in recent years. United States Man (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
• I would also like to mention that many of NWS links are dead due to the site changes, so these need to be replaced as well. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

July–August 2022 United States floods has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS, Elijahandskip, ChessEric, and TornadoInformation12: The same IP hopping user that many of you are familiar with has created a WP:CONTENTFORK article and has protested its deletion. I began an AfD as there is simply no reason to have information simply copy/pasted from the outbreak article to a new article. United States Man (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

United States Man and the rest of you guys. Just a head's up, it is two different IP users. One is a sock of Andrew5 that has hopped at least two IPs, and possibly others that I am not aware of. Talk:Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021 is one of the few places both of the recent sock IP's edited. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

If you think there is enough evidence, you could bring it up at SPI. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying this specific IP is the sock, but this sock has an interest in weather and there are a whole lot of different IPs that I think have been seen in weather articles and various discussions. Besides general interest in weather, I haven't notice any new easy-to-spot sock IPs. All I'm saying is there is a sockmaster using IPs in weather articles, so when USM brought up "The same IP hopping user that many of you are familiar, it may be two different users (this is what I think) or it is one sockmaster (more unlikely). Elijahandskip (talk) 03:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Good Lord. I'm getting tired of this. I hope they figure this out. I left my opinion on the article in the discussion already. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

1899 New Richmond tornado has been nominated for an individual 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The final selection RfC for the map, template, infobox, and timeline colors has started. This affects maps, templates, infoboxes, and timeline colors for the Weather, Tropical Cyclone, and Severe Weather wikiprojects. Please see the discussion here to participate. Noah^Talk 21:52, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I am increasingly annoyed at the state of this WikiProject. Some of us have been editing for over a decade, some just joined a few months ago, but it is clear at this point that all of us need to have a discussion about how to move forward. The sarcasm, the name calling, the edit wars and the arguments, they've got to stop. Today or tomorrow, I will finish updating 2020 tornadoes, meaning our lists will be complete spanning the end of 2013 to present. That only leaves over 15,000 tornadoes that need to be finalized or added to this site. Time would be much, much better spent assisting in that effort, improving older articles, and the like rather than the pettiness, the fighting, the image wars, the rewriting summaries, and the rewriting of rewritten summaries that is increasingly a daily activity in this project. Let's be productive. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 21:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Why the name change? I thought you were some random coming in here barking at us lol. United States Man (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Me too! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

TropicalAnalystwx13 was my old handle on Weather Underground. I updated it for what I go by these days. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 04:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait, now I can't remember who you were before. (This is why I don't change my name). TornadoLGS (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: He was TropicalAnalystwx13. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 13:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Great Storm of 1975 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. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

A slight modification has been proposed to the consensus that was achieved in the final selection given its outcome. Said modification only involves the category 5 color. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Weather/Color_RfC#Modification for the discussion. Noah^Talk 18:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

An AfD has been created to discuss the recently split 1974 Xenia tornado. United States Man (talk) 03:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a heads up that we are discussing a replacement infobox at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/New Weather Infobox. Please see that page for further details. Noah^Talk 23:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I just created 2023 Vermont floods. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to give an opinion at Articles for deletion/Tornado outbreak of June 12. Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to give an opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Desert Southwest floods. Thanks,

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

question Lolkikmoddi (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lolkikmoddi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather#Participants, though you'll have to edit the source and scroll down to the "Participants" section, then you can add your name there! Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 06:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

This category has only sub-categories, for intensities from F0 to F5. These subcategories contain both entries for individual tornadoes, and for tornado outbreaks whose highest intensity corresponds to the subcategory. So the content of the subcategories doesn't match the name of the overall category, which specifically refers to tornado outbreaks. Should the category name be changed, or should individual tornadoes be categorised by intensity elsewhere? (There is no Category:Tornadoes by intensity). The descriptions of each of the intensity subcategories differ too - Category:F4 tornadoes mentions both indvidual tornadoes and tornado outbreaks, but the others only mention tornado outbreaks. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up observation: this category seems to be superfluous anyway. Tornado and tornado outbreak articles could just be assigned directly to one of its 6 subcategories. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Severe weather, 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 00:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Template:Infobox storm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Noah, AA^Talk 15:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I am planning on nomming the List of California tornadoes for featured list status soon. I wondered if anyone could give it a fresh set of eyes? With such a long article, I might've made some dumb mistakes, and maybe some glaring ones as well. Any comments could be made on the talk page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There is currently a large tornado outbreak underway in the US, specifically Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, West Virginia, Wyoming, Montana +others. Feel free to help, as it is impossible for one person to document the entire thing. Most of it is going to happen later tonight, so information is going to rapidly come in, so by tomorrow there will be a lot more info to build on. Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The recent outbreaks section at Portal:Tornadoes has been changed into a section featuring the tornado content of the current year and will automatically transclude from a list of specified articles. This should make it easier to update since only links need to be added. This change has been made in part since this portal section has not been maintained since the MfD. Noah, AA^Talk 13:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I noticed first, on the article for the recent tornadoes, and now, on the "2024 Sulphur tornado" article, random radar loops have been described as public domain simply by virtue of using PD data. I don't think this is accurate. In the former case, the loop was pulled from a random person on Twitter. Just because someone made a loop in Python or whatever using NEXRAD data doesn't automatically make it free/PD. In the latter case, a screenshot from RadarScope was reused. Is there anything indicating that radar images made using that software are free to reuse? Obviously they are permitted to be posted on social media and the like by users owning the app, but that doesn't automatically equal public domain. Master of Time (talk) 16:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the Wikimedia Commons regarding it (actually a deletion discussion) and data/screenshots from NEXRAD are indeed considered public domain, as long as icons that are copyrighted are not present. I.e. like on RadarScope/Radar Omega, some storm chasers have livestream icons, if those are not present, they are considered public domain. Both GR2/3 products, RadarScope & RadarOmega have free-to-use map backgrounds + the public-domain radar data products + public-domain warning polygons. That is at least what Wikimedia Commons decided. Deletion requests/File:Alexander City Tornado Emergency in 2023.jpg was that discussion. That is also why the Wikimedia Commons has a whole category filled with NEXRAD radar images: Commons Category:Weather radar images. In short, if no storm-chaser icons (due to individual copyrights) are present, the data is considered automatically public domain under PD-USGov-NEXRAD. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

A comment and direct statement from an administrator on the Wikimedia Commons in that discussion: “The data is clearly PD. While the software which was used to present it is copyrighted, the only human involvement is by the uploader…It is well established the output of a computer does not itself have a copyright unless it is derived from a copyrighted work.” The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That administrator doesn't have unilateral authority on this issue. But anyway, let's neglect the RadarScope case, to start. You can't just say that because the data is PD, something you found from a random meteorologist on Twitter (who had to script said loop) is in the public domain. It's not made by some downloadable software, it's something they had to code. Saying it is public domain implies they have literally no rights over it (including the right to attribution), just because it uses a free data source. Master of Time (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Per the Wikimedia Commons, NEXRAD radar loops & all NEXRAD-related images are public domain. They made something using public domain data and even watermarked it with “NOAA” at the top. You are arguing something watermarked with the U.S. government isn’t public domain. The debates have already all been decided on the Commons. And you are right, an admin cannot “unilaterally” say something like that…However, that deletion discussion was a community consensus with even another highly-experienced Commons editor besides myself and the administrator commenting on it. In short — Anything NEXRAD related is in the public domain unless some aspect of the image/screenshot is directly copyrighted (chaser icon or something else along those lines). Anyone can make a radar loop, in fact RadarScope/RadarOmega/GR products can all make radar loops. Why should one radar loop (again, attribution watermarked with “NOAA”) be an exception to the U.S. government public domain rule? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

P.S. — Are you sure you want to open this can of worms? Any NEXRAD deletion means total NEXRAD deletion, including all radar images from every Wikipedia page (tornadoes, hurricanes, ect…). The Commons already decided they are public domain, so, at least in my mind, the topic was already formally decided in that deletion discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And I'll add on that your implication that something being in the public domain means all derivations must therefore be in the public domain isn't right. It wouldn't be PD if there were license restrictions. That's what PD is – no restrictions. The closest you could get would be maybe a Creative Commons license requiring that all derivations use the same license. A discussion involving three Wikimedia Commons users on a single file isn't the same as "Wikimedia Commons decided..." And my argument isn't to try to remove all radar images from Wikipedia or whatever you implied. Other than the aforementioned individual with the radar loop, I feel that RadarScope in particular just seems questionable considering they sell licenses which require annual payment. Master of Time (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, why is one NEXRAD radar loop not public domain while every other NEXRAD radar loop is? Saying there is a problem with one means problem with all, therefore, removal of NEXRAD from Wikipedia. That is the can of worms. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:19, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer some clarity on the copyright status of the use non-free commercial software to display public domain data. I'm a little wary of the use of, for instance, screenshots of US$250 software long-term, and a single brief deletion discussion doesn't inspire much policy confidence on that front. NEXRAD data itself is free, but I wonder if visualization of it using non-free software is questionable in much the same vein as there being limits to publishing a screenshot of Windows Notepad with the text of The Tale of Beowulf. There are alternatives, like the NOAA Weather and Climate Toolkit, that visualize NEXRAD radar data without the worry of using non-free software. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 16:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia already had that discussion as linked/quoted above by an administrator, interpreting Wikimedia policy. Just saying, the debate is closed. If you have an issue, please bring it up at the Commons, not here, as Wikipedia doesn’t dictate what is/isn’t public domain images.

I will say, if any NEXRAD images are declared to be not free-to-use, I will immediately remove any NEXRAD images from all Wikipedia articles as they all would not be free-to-use at that moment in time. Right now, the consensus on the Commons is NEXRAD screenshots, no matter what, are free-to-use. I don’t think y’all actually understand what an overturn to that consensus means. Literally, Wikipedia uses hundreds to probably over a thousand radar images, because Wikimedia Commons declared NEXRAD info to be automatically public domain/free-to-use. If that changes, every radar image would be removed from Wikipedia, as NEXRAD would no longer be a valid reason for inclusion. Almost every derecho-article has a NEXRAD image, aka every derecho article loses it. Most hurricanes (even Hurricane Ian) have radar images. Those would be gone. Every tornado radar image. Like, we can go down this road if we want, but I’m just saying the Commons already decided it…so we either would reaffirm NEXRAD is 100% public domain or overturn that free-to-use consensus and remove hundreds to thousands of radar images from Wikipedia (a near-complete wipe of Commons:Category:Weather radar images types. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• @TheAustinMan: — An administrator on the Wikimedia Commons directly stated it was free-to-use and public domain: The data is clearly PD. While the software which was used to present it is copyrighted, the only human involvement is by the uploader…It is well established the output of a computer does not itself have a copyright unless it is derived from a copyrighted work.

Annotated comment (by me): “The [NEXRAD data] is clearly [public domain]. While the software which was used to present it is copyrighted [GR2/3, RadarScope, RadarOmega], the only human involvement is by the uploader…It is well established [by several non-radar image discussions on the Wikimedia Commons] the output of a computer does not itself have a copyright unless it is derived from a copyrighted work.” Aka, NEXRAD data is clearly not copyrighted, therefore, derivations of it (all those softwares) cannot actually copyright the data, unless a physical human created the derivation. That does not happen as the data is relayed directly from the NEXRAD radar site to the software, with no human intervention in between. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Admins have no more authority in discussions than a regular editor. Whether they are an admin or not is besides the point. Noah, AA^Talk 21:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Then to be crystal clear, a community consensus on the Commons determined a RadarOmega NEXRAD image is public domain and a community consensus, on the Commons, is required to overturn that. The 13+ year silent consensus on English Wikipedia on the topic has been broken, so as of this point in time, there is no consensus on English Wikipedia that NEXRAD/radar image are in-fact in the public domain. In fact, based on just this, consensus may be leaning toward they are not public domain, and therefore need to all be deleted/removed from articles. Using common sense, if RadarOmega is public domain, RadarScope/GR products are also public domain. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter I have no opinion on if nexrad images are or not a part of the public domain, however, it is quite clear that you need to take a step back, breathe and remember that Commons does not dictate what is in the public domain in the United states and what isn't. They can only advise what is and isn't based on the rules that are set out by the government. Jason Rees (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I will just say that there are numerous radar loops on Wikipedia (including one on the very article that started this discussion) that are straight from weather.gov.... those are obviously public domain. Master of Time (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• So this whole debate cools down and gets sorted, I have posted a clarification to the copyright policy over on the Commons Copyright Discussion page (Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:Evolution of the Minden–Harlen tornado.gif). Until this mess is sorted out, I have also removed the NEXRAD radar loop from the article in question, as that single loop sparked this whole discussion. Hopefully a true clear policy will come about from that discussion on the Commons noticeboard. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this is an important discussion to have. As others have stated, NEXRAD data itself is obviously PD, but that's not the topic of conversation here. I think radar imagery derived from any non-U.S. government source and/or not created by someone explicitly stating a CC license should be considered copyright.

RadarOmega has been brought up in this thread, so I'll use that as an example. On RadarOmega, the NEXRAD data itself is PD but the basemap on every map display is not (unless Mapbox and Maxar have a stated CC license or other agreement somewhere). Thus, portions of any screenshot or loop from RadarOmega including a basemap should be considered not PD, not because of the radar data but because of the map.

It is my opinion that a loop found on social media created by that author using Python should also be considered copyright unless specifically stated otherwise, even if the data, software, map, etc. are PD. The Wikimedia contributor who uploads it is not the original creator of the work and thus is not the one who decides it is PD. If any part of a radar screenshot/loop is copyrighted, the whole thing is copyrighted. That image should be recreated from PD data and map imagery for CC use, not used anyway. Unfortunately, this will mean a lot of work to undo and change edits made my numerous well meaning editors.

From here, I think the best course of action is to a) bring Commons in line with what is and isn't PD, b) compile a reference list of resources where screenshots are PD and c) form a NEXRAD task force that has the skillset to recreate and upload radar imagery with an associated request system for WP editors. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 17:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You guys realize that you can just download real-time radar loops off the individual NWS sites right? That's one way to solve the problem. That's also how I'm getting radar loops for when tropical cyclones make landfall in the U.S. ChessEric 19:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised that this significant outbreak does not yet have an article. This definitely needs to change because this was a significant event, so can someone start it please? ChessEric 21:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:December 2021 Midwest derecho and tornado outbreak#Requested move 23 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello all, I've never posted here before, but I just wanted to run this past everyone on the WikiProject because I know this is hardly the highest thing on the to-do list. I've been looking into both articles on Canadian tornadoes (before 2001 and after 2001) and for some reason, the current formatting just appears very sloppy to me and I think it could easily be cleaned up. My primary suggestion for change in each article would be to change the current list of tornadoes to a table, possibly within their own section by century or even by decades, if needed depending on the number.

(For example, pre-1700-1860 doesn't have many tornadoes at all and could reasonably fit onto one table without being overloaded, whereas 1870-1890 the number of tornadoes recorded greatly increases.)

I have a whole table planned out in my head about this, but I don't want to overshare everything unless other people think this is a good idea. Thanks! Garriefisher (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome! You're right that things seem disorganized. We have:

• List of Canadian tornadoes and tornado outbreaks (before 2001)
• List of Canadian tornadoes and tornado outbreaks (since 2001)
• List of fatal and violent Canadian tornadoes
• List of tornadoes by province (Canada)

So yea, it seems like there's some overlap. The US has tornadoes mostly on a monthly basis, and has lists for each state. The US lists do use tables, even going back to List of United States tornadoes in 1946. I'll note that there is a discussion to split off Canadian tornadoes for the 2020s. So I support that, and encourage further splitting by decade where necessary. As for whether it should be organized by table or not. As it stands, it seems that most tornadoes are single events, and not part of large outbreaks, so I don't know about organizing the content into tables. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your response! Honestly, I thought that categorizing the lists (based on province, fatalities, F or EF rating mostly) would make it easier for readers & users of Wikipedia to be able to easily navigate a huge list of information that might not be as easy to parse through. It might just be my personal aesthetics and inability to concentrate, but I think that it would make it easier to pick out the information specifically that you're looking for.

Also, yes, I commented on the split for 2020s a month or more ago (honestly cannot remember when) and while I support that, I think I phrased my original comment incorrectly. I don't mean to separate the tornadoes into separate articles by decade, I just mean (in the case that we were using a table), separate tables under decade headers to make it easier to navigate as well. I don't know if I'm making any sense here but I just mean, keeping the 1700-2001 article intact, with tables under decade categories on the article itself. Hopefully that clears it up? Garriefisher (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yea, you're making sense. I agree with a header to navigate, but does it have to be a table, or would a link to each year work? The latter option would be easier, and easy options tend to happen on Wikipedia. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it for certain doesn't have to be a table! Just that it's my own personal preference aesthetics-wise, while it's not easier. I mean, I don't mind creating the table even if it is harder, I'm autistic like I have the time, believe me. But if you think it isn't a good idea, I totally respect that as well! Garriefisher (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hah nice, then let me direct you to List of Australia tornadoes, which has just the type of table you're talking about. If you'd like to try it out, maybe do the events since 2020, since that's where the proposed new list would start. You can always make a sandbox by calling the article Draft:List of Canadian tornadoes and tornado outbreaks in the 2020s, or something like that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2013 Washington, Illinois tornado#Requested move 20 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)