Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Weather and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:WEATHERWT:WEATHER WT:WPWXWT:WPWX

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 28 days

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Weather Weather portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts

2024–25 WikiProject Weather Good Article Reassessment

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, AA^Talk 15:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles under review

• 1949 Texas hurricane (review)
• Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado (GAR)
• Wind shear (GAR)

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

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

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

Options

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

Discussion

• Oppose Option 1, other than option 1, I am okay with any result. I am assuming that generally reliable sources will include news sources like AP or CNN. News stations may not have highly qualified meteorologists on hand. They are also encouraged to make flashy headlines to grab and keep attention. Combined with climate change becoming primed language, news stations use it very frequently where the climate change connection has become so WP:RUNOFTHEMILL where it is about as notable as a fish storm in the East Pacific. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:00, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong Oppose 6, the exact opposite direction I want it to go. Adding the mention of fringe views would add more to sections I want cut down. They deserve their own article, if notable, and should not be on the individual storms' articles. ✶Quxyz✶ 00:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Option 2 and strong oppose 4/5 - while discussing climate change everywhere we can is editorial, not mentioning it anywhere is borderline conspiratorial. ^EF⁵ 22:04, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not necessarily disagree with you, but I also would not be opposed to further restrictions to keep articles focused. These mentions could instead go into articles like Climate of the United States, Tropical cyclones and climate change, and so on instead of being on specific articles. Though, once again, I do not care beyond opposing option 1. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:30, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed Option 5 – Climate change links in severe weather articles should only be added when cited directly by meteorological organizations (ex. National Weather Service, NOAA, WMO, IPCC, ect...) or an academic study directly on the specific disaster. This feels like more in line anyway with the general consensus from the RFC discussion at the Central Texas floods article, which removed an article from CNN when CNN themselves linked a pre-Texas flood climate change study to the floods. This option would mean climate change is still linked to specific weather events, but it would be clear experts linking to it, meaning the risk of a random news article being used WP:UNDUEly would be non-existent. The Texas floods article still has climate change links, more specifically because there is already an academic-published article directly linking these specific floods to climate change. Not a violation of WP:UNDUE and leaves it to the experts, not a random news article from CNN, The New York Times, or even some random local meteorologist who does an interview with a news outlet. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've asked about it (as a policy question) at AN [1]. Should probably get an opinion there, but if that gets declined out as the wrong venue, I'll take it to another high profile page like Village Pump or Jimbo Talk. Geogene (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Option 4: An article about a specific weather event must be about that specific weather event, not about the larger topic of climate change (that already has an article and related sub-articles). Regardless of fringe or mainstream, moving into such info would turn it into a coatrack article and lose the focus of the article. If the whole climate change discussion takes place within the reactions to the weather event (such as politicians pointing fingers at others), then report the news story just like sources do, without going off-topic. --Cambalachero (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 3 then Option 5. Strong Oppose Option 1. I'd be happy if Option 5 was tightened up a bit to make it more clear that we're not limiting it to only US government sources, which would be a bit of a problem given the current environment. On a philosophical level, I think 3 and 5 are the most consistent with our mission, even if 5 can present some hopefully short-term difficulties. Perhaps I'm guilty of being a bit naïve, but I do want to be avoiding WP:CRYSTALBALL about how government coverage will be, and deal with it when it actually happens, even if I'm not optimistic. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pointless RfC. NPOV is a non-negotiable policy, so whatever this RfC's outcome is, is irrelevant. If a certain weight of high-quality reliable sources discuss a topic then that is reflected in Wikipedia articles. If they don't, it isn't. and that applies for climate/weather topics as for any other. Bon courage (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't need to mention or describe a POV dispute at all articles, as long as academic consensus is not contradicted and the dispute is already explained elsewhere. We don't describe the evolution vs. creationism at every article about a species, or refute the flat earth theory at every article about astronomy. Cambalachero (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is some of the options here would short-circuit NPOV. We don't need to mention WP:FRINGE things pertaining to topics no. But we are required to put WP:FRINGESUBJECTS in context. Follow WP:NPOV. Bon courage (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad RFC - Too many poorly distinguished options and with too broad reach. This cannot be binding on all such articles - that would be over-reach - although I note that option 2 (and perhaps 1 and 3) are broadly in line with existing policy. Oppose options 4, 5 and 6. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 6 is best. To discuss a major event while not covering reports as to whether human action had likely made it more likely or more intense would be a disservice to our readers. Our readers reasonably expect our articles to answer "Who What When Why" questions if we can find that covered in reliable sources. We also have an obligation to tag fringe views as fringe if we cover them at all. ϢereSpielChequers 09:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – If the source connecting a weather event to climate change is partnered with the organisation “Covering Climate Now”, a higher quality source should probably be used. Covering Climate Nows guidelines/style guide state that journalists and news outlets should ensure that they are making the climate change connection in all reporting of abnormal weather events. https://coveringclimatenow.org/resource/your-guide-to-making-the-climate-connection/ 49.185.135.98 (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Here’s a list of CCN partnered news organisations, there’s a fair few major ones. https://coveringclimatenow.org/partners/partner-directory/

  FYI, This is not meant to throw any shade at CCN. They are obviously an extremely important organisation, and it’s just fact that in some way, all current and future weather events are, and will be impacted by anthropogenic climate change. All newspapers with any sense of social responsibility should make this known. However, I do think it muddys the water with regards to DUEness in wikipedias coverage of weather events. 49.185.135.98 (talk) 14:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given that the American Geophysical Union, or more specifically their Eos (magazine), is listed as one of their partnered organizations, I don't think that that should be considered a negative thing. That should be a fairly highly reliable source for climate change, at least among news organizations. Geogene (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure the options are well thought-through. On one hand, the climate change increases the probability of extreme weather events, and therefore usually it doesn't make sense to mention it for articles about specific events (it definitely should be mentioned in articles such as Atlantic hurricane or Climate of Florida). On the other hand, if scientific sources for some reason make this connection for a specific event - it would be good to see examples - then there is no reason not to mention it, so I guess I'd choose Option 5 or 3, I'm not sure I understand the difference. Alaexis_¿question? 20:31, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The first four were made before 5 and 6, so are formatted differently. I meant them as a sliding scale (id est 1 being the most liberal and 4 being the most locked down) based on what I saw at the previous RFC. I do not like the options that I made, particularly 2 and 3, as they have significant overlap and are very vague. I initially made them vague to prevent my own biases from morphing the options and from drawing lines that many would disagree with (like seen with Option 5). Depending on the circumstances of how this RFC is closed, I am assuming consensus will be derived from a mixture of the options based on the rationale that those involved put down, which is mostly how I intended it when creating the four options. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:20, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe this RfC is trying to solve the problem of many news organizations using boilerplate text on all extreme weather-related articles to the effect of "climate change makes extreme weather events like this one more likely, but whether this specific event was caused by climate change will take some time to analyze". I agree that we shouldn't treat such boilerplate disclaimers as evidence that mentioning climate change in specific event articles is DUE. However, I also don't think we should ban all news sources, as they occasionally do publish in-depth science journalism on the relationship between climate change and specific weather events. I hope the closer can interpret this comment accordingly. Toadspike [Talk] 09:26, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Personally I feel that @Toadspike: has hit the nail on the head here. I remember being told by @Femke: when I met her earlier in the year that the science behind attributing weather events to climate change has come on leaps and bounds over the last few years to a point where it can be trusted. As a result, I am happy to include information about climate change within articles about weather events, assuming news sources suggest that its relevant and it flows within the article.Jason Rees (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Yes, indeed. It's gone from something only done in papers, to something that is operationalised (like weather forecasts). Even without the simulation, it's usually possible to say something immediately like "The hurricane intensified rapidly, something that is more likely due to climate change". Was pinged, so won't !vote, but I will leave a neutral notification in the more relevant Wikiproject Climate Change. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 or 2 we are far past the point where there is scientific doubt that the frequency and severity of extreme weather events is exacerbated by climate change. A dispassionate document of the anthroposcene should contain that information and how reliable sources tie it to climate change. Simonm223 (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I should also note a strong opposition to Option 5 as there is too much risk of political interference with US government weather agencies and climate protection bodies. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Thank you for laying that out for me. Given the specificity of that RfC, this one seems like a wild leap. I mean, one possible (if unlikely) outcome of this RfC is the alteration of existing policy so that these high-quality sources ([4], [5], [6],[7], [8]) would need to be excluded, all in the service of [checks notes] refusing to acknowledge a truth that is [checks notes again] inconvenient to a particular political demographic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@WeatherWriter:, the previous RFC raised a reasonable question about a specific source, but over-egged the case for excluding the "four-sentence CNN analysis". That short CNN piece isn't the best of sources, but it links "how rainfall events have intensified over time" to a useful article from 2024.[9] Saying "The study did not involve these floods, as it came out before the floods" is too restrictive for a background source which is clearly about the same topic. Fortunately, source 24 (already in the article) links to the 2024 source, so using it isn't OR. The "CNN analysis" was by "CNN meteorologist Mary Gilbert, who ... has also never published anything academically regarding climate change." She is a writer and meteorologist on CNN’s climate and weather team, with a BS in Meteorology from Millersville University of Pennsylvania. While I'm aware of at least one prominent unqualified weather presenter, Gilbert is well qualified as an expert, whether or not she publishes academically. . . dave souza, talk 09:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary section break

• Just follow the core content policies. Core content policies say that each article must give due weight to all aspects of the topic that have been reported in reliable sources, regardless of what we say on the talk page of WikiProject Weather. I find the options generally confusing, but I'll specifically oppose options 4 and 5 because they seem to be putting a higher bar for inclusion for climate change than would normally be used (otherwise what would be the point of having these options?). If reliable sources are talking about climate change a lot, I don't think it is a reasonable interpretation of policy for our articles to do the opposite. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• None of the above. There's no problme to fix - if reliable sources attribute a severe weather event to climate change, then so can we. If they don't, we can't. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Well said! @Quxyz:, folks may feel it's climate change becoming primed language, but that results from climate change denial becoming run of the mill. When a source shows Trump's fringe views and a rebuttal, editors must check the whole source and make sure mainstream views get due weight. . . dave souza, talk 13:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While that is part of it, it is also primed language for the same reason that murder is becoming a primed language. It makes the viewer feel doomed yet guilty, thereby increasing attention. Part of it likely comes from the fear of denialists (understandable), but I feel like the news has partly turned it into primed language to make the viewers feel a certain way. I also do not know how conservative news primes it; I am sure it is, likely to make a mockery of the "radical left" in the same way that gender ideology is considered a hippie delusion. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Quxyz: – "DEI" was also made primed language for the same reason, as discussed earlier. Unfortunately, atmospheric physics takes no notice of tendet tender feelings, but nevertheless we must show the majority scientific view (worldwide view, notwithstanding current administration efforts to redefine endangerment) . . dave souza, talk 04:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC) "tendet" corrected to "tender" 10:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While in conservative sources, DEI and climate change may be primed for a similar reason, not in centrist or progressive sources, which are the ones Wikipedia cites more frequently (at least in the United States). To connect a storm to climate change can mean writing an extra story which means greater attention, generating more ad revenue. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Quxyz: - Interesting point about the economics but if, for example, an authoritarian were to sue the source and demand a bung to his flying library, that would be a strong disincentive to mentioning climate change.
  Your contrast of "conservative sources" with "centrist" or "progressive sources" reminds me that I'd expect Kerrville folk to be lefties, or corrie-fisted[10], but ,more significantly, that brings us back to the origins of this RfC which I'll discuss below. . . dave souza, talk 10:43, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And the correct scientific term for sources that deny or minimise climate change is not "conservative sources", it's liars. They are lying. They know they are lying. We know they know they are lying.

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

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

  The difference with climate change is that we are guilty - not just those of us who have voted for politicians in hock to Big Oil, all of us, to some extent. I drive a car with an internal combustion engine. I keep my house at a comfortable temperature. Those are choices. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:47, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 with the addition that a meteorologist is not a subject matter expert, as per User:WeatherWriter's distinction between meteorologists and climatologists. Strongly oppose Option 4. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 then Option 3, with the understanding that simply having a bachelor's degree doesn't make someone a subject matter expert. Oppose Option 1: generic language regarding climate change should not be enough for inclusion. TropicalCyclone (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @TropicalCyclone:, as discussed above @WeatherWriter:, I'm glad we can agree that Mary Gilbert is an expert at reporting meteorology and the news, which is a reasonable standard for the wide-ranging topics raised by the July 2025 Central Texas floods. Sorry if my wording seemed to imply academic publishing. . . dave souza, talk 11:19, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dave souza: I don't want to dwell on this, but I don't agree that being a weather reporter for two years (and before that, a weather forecaster) makes someone an expert on climate science. TropicalCyclone (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  TropicalCyclone, heck, James Spann has been doing weather since the late 1970s and isn't remotely reliable for anything climate change-related. — ^EF⁵ 18:32, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad RfC– @JzG: "There's no problme to fix". @Quxyz: - This RfC is a spin–off from an article RfC which originated early in this discussion where @Buffs: argued against a source, adding "Lastly, I'll leave you with this point. Mary Gilbert, in particular, is a leftist activist who actively pushes Global Warming hysteria. She routinely uses sensationalized language in her articles and I find her to be significantly less than credible." This has evolved into a proposal to disallow news reports as a source for climate change if their author, though an expert at reporting meteorology and the news, lacks academic publications or a degree in climatology. [strike offtopic comment, not aimed at anyone here Concerns that mention of climate upsets conservative snowflakes have no weight in core content policies. . . dave souza, talk 11:53, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This RFC is not because of politics. The previous RFC decided extremely little about the type of section in general, which I oppose as they are excessive when only citing non-scientific news sources. Also, you are cherrypicking by framing Buffs as the only dissenting opinion. There were eight other editors who opposed the inclusion for various reasons, including that individual storm articles may be incompatible with describing climate change. Also, do be mindful of WP:BLUDGEON. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Jason Rees: Climate change#Warming since the Industrial Revolution shows "Around 1850 thermometer records began to provide global coverage.[55] Between the 18th century and 1970 there was little net warming, as the warming impact of greenhouse gas emissions was offset by cooling from sulfur dioxide emissions" – so human caused changes balancing out: haven't checked over the sources, obviously we can refine the wording. Also note Extreme event attribution was developed in the early decades of the 21st century, that may be a consideration.[12] . . dave souza, talk 19:50, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greensburg tornado has been nominated at FAC

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

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

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

Seeking out interest for a project-wide newsletter

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

The Monthly Wiki-Weather Review

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

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

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

How about four-or-so sections:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good article reassessment for Climate of North Carolina

Climate of North Carolina has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:44, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Cyclone

Cyclone has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

F-scale era tornadoes rated on the EF scale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal: require coordinates when uploading DAT-sourced images

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

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

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

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

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

RFC - Weather articles utilization of collages

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Maths, science, and technology History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should WikiProject Weather encourage the use of infobox collages for weather with standalone articles?

Brief background: Infobox images are an often-debated topic for weather articles, sometimes leading to edit wars. In fact, tropical cyclones has an extremely detailed ordering of what image should take precedent (WP:WPTC/IMG), due to how many edit wars have occurred. Very few weather articles currently contain infobox collages; four examples include 2020 California wildfires, Joplin tornado, Tornadoes of 2024, and the very recent July 2025 Central Texas floods. I am able to locate less than 20 weather articles with infobox collages. Some of the most notable weather disasters only display a single image in their infobox including these five examples: Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Maria, Tornadoes of 2025 and Hurricane Helene (along with Effects in North Carolina subpage). According to WP:COLLAGETIPS, "The great benefit of collages is that they allow an article to present multiple visuals for the topic. This makes them particularly useful for leads of broad subjects such as many cities, where using a single image could never be representative enough to suffice by itself."

Just in September 2025, Effects of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and Hurricane Maria have both had infobox image debates and edit wars. To reduce edit wars, should infobox collages be more widely encouraged for all weather articles, should they be discouraged, or should be encouraged for certain types and discouraged for certain types? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Widely encouraged – I believe they should be widely encouraged. Most readers, especially non-weather enthusiast readers, will be almost entirely reading the lead and infobox for facts. As stated in WP:COLLAGETIPS, they are amazing for displaying multiple visuals for a topic. As with the case of articles like Joplin tornado or 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado, the photograph of the disaster itself is the lead/embed image for the article. I believe WP:WPTC/IMG should still be used for that lead photograph of tropical cyclone articles, however, a collage should still be added. They do not need to be large collages. 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado has a three image collage, while Joplin tornado is five images and Tornadoes of 2024 has six images. But collages will not only be more beneficial to the majority of readers, but may also hopefully stop edit wars for the infobox image. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Weird, my comment was deleted/never went through. Encourage based on length as article length is overall what I use to determine whether to use a collage or not. ^EF⁵ 22:27, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for similar reasons to WeatherWriter. Quake1234 (Talk Page) 22:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – WeatherWriter stated it well. No one image would suffice. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree with MarioProtIV that we should not use collages for tropical cyclones – or indeed any image other than one of the tropical cyclone. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 22:36, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for all but tropical cyclones, oppose collages for tropical cyclones – While I’m fine with tornadoes and other weather events having collages, they would be less beneficial for tropical cyclones, and the primary reason for that is it would decrease the amount of coverage the image of the cyclone itself has in the infobox (on top of everything else usually included below the image), essentially WP:SANDWICH. This is because tropical cyclones by nature are an official named entity basically by the government while tornadoes and floods are not. Tropical cyclones have their track in the meteorological history section which makes the point of collages useless and redundant for inclusion in tropical cyclone infoboxes. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  However looking at Helene’s NC article I would not be opposed to collages there as for that area that represents affects in that area and for the specific page. Just no collages in infoboxes on the main tropical cyclone page itself, in case I didn’t make it a bit clearer. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only counterpoint I would make to that is the fact a single image cannot clearly display some tropical cyclone topics. For example, File:Maria 2017-09-20 0238Z (Coastline-less).jpg is a great visual of Hurricane Maria, but that does not show the representative of devastation from Maria, nor the 3,000+ deaths caused. 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado is only three images, with the primary image (the tornado) actually being 2-3 times the size of the damage and radar image (which may actually be 4x smaller than the tornado photo). Would something similar be acceptable for tropical cyclones? I.e., 2-3x photo size of the tropical cyclone, but also have 2 other photos (probably damage and flooding)? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:40, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the edit conflict that just occurred was my other proposal to satisfy that concern. Even with the smaller images there would still be some concern of SANDWICH which is why collages on sub articles like what was done on Helene’s NC page is probably the better route, and concurring with what Chicdat said since one image of the tropical cyclone on its main page suffices enough. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't believe WP:SANDWICH would be an issue for most tropical cyclone articles. I'll use Hurricane Helene as an example. The SANDWICH issue would be between the infobox and File:Helene 2024 path.png in the Meteorological history section, which also includes a radar image and an ISS photo. Solution: ISS photo and radar image move to the infobox, and the track image moves down a single paragraph. SANDWICH fixed. In my opinion, SANDWICH shouldn't be a reason to oppose, given image placement is not set in stone and moving an image down one paragraph just fixes the issue. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I threw a test of Katrina together to see how it might look and I honestly am not a fan of how it would look for main articles. There’s also the issue of the infobox getting longer and creating more whitespace especially if the TOC isn’t that much or the lead isn’t long enough to wrap around the infobox (only in the high impact storms is this usually achieved). Also even when compensating for the main satellite image to stand out the other images would be tiny and thus hard to see which is why I still don’t agree with putting collages in the main articles. On the subarticles about effects wise, this isn’t needed since that’s more about the impacts from the storm and not the storm itself. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:30, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OH! You mentioning "whitespace" and "TOC" just clicked with me. You use the Legacy 2010 Vector appearance. On the 2022 default appearance, there would be no additional whitespace (since 2022's default appearance often contains 0 whitespace), and the TOC is by default already collapsed. I respect your vote completely and now I understand why. I will have to agree to disagree with you, since it would look perfect on the 2022 Vector default appearance. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:49, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two photos would likely not be enough for most major hurricanes. I could possibly support a separate traditional collage but then issues arise related to the infobox having too much content. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For largely the same reasons, oppose for main tropical cyclone articles, support for everything else. I will also add that I am doubtful that this will stop edit wars for the infobox images (with the exception of articles where the edit wars have been about whether or not to use collages). An edit war over something like which satellite image to use for a tropical cyclone article or which picture of a tornado to use will occur regardless of if it's in a collage. MCRPY22 (talk) 22:56, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• My response will be exclusively regarding tropical cyclones as that is largely my specialty.

I do not believe that the main articles should soley have collages. Hurricanes are weird in that they are specifically known from what they look like. There are a couple other individual extratropical systems that are like that, but that is not the trend. As for Effects of Tropical Cyclone X in Y articles, I would support a collage over a satellite image exclusively.

As for having both a collage and a satellite image, it gets more complicated. There absolutely needs to be a max number of images, such as six or eight. That seems like a lot until one realizes that storms like Beryl can have expansive effects from Dominica to Arkansas. In Beryl's case, I also worry about bias in image selection. From what I remember, pretty much every image related to Beryl's effects are from the United States even though nations like Dominica were far more devastated.

In conclusion, if a collage can be made that is brief yet comprehensive and without bias, I would support it. However, I am not sure of the manageability of that in hurricane articles. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max is typically always six. There is three different format styles that infobox collages take: Three images - 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado style, five images Joplin tornado style, and six images, Tornadoes of 2024 style. Hope that helps you and all other editors! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have seen seven but I digress. Anyways, the problems of American-centric bias and a storm being possibly too big and expansive still exist. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for all except tropical cyclones. Recently for California wildfires, I've seen infobox collages with two images, namely Gifford Fire and Pickett Fire. I've looked at some tropical cyclone articles, and there is only one image in the infobox: the tropical cyclone at peak intensity. Most tropical cyclone articles are long enough with the meteorological history and effects that at least one or two more images can be added throughout the body of the article without extending beyond the references section. I support for other severe weather articles per WeatherWriter's reasoning. Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support for tornadoes and "effects of [insert tropical cyclones]" - I was apart of the Effects of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina conflict so I'll mostly bring my points there to here. I fully support and encourage people to put collages in the two types of I listed, and I find it ridiculous that having multiple images in the infobox could be considered "unnecessary" and one image is "enough". There are certain disasters out there where it feels necessary to display the multiple effects that disaster caused across one place/region. Hoguert (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose for individual tropical cyclone, tropical cyclone season, meteorological history, tornado outbreak, and individual tornado articles in the infobox and neutral for tropical cyclone effects articles: I respect and fully support your rationale for not including collages to individual tropical cyclone infoboxes. However, I'll also extend the same rational to cover individual tornadoes, as they fall under the same argument for tropical cyclones. For tropical cyclone season, meteorological history, and tornado outbreak articles, that would conflict with MOS:IMG. Any method of creating a collage for season articles will conflict with MOS:IMAGEREL because too many can be distracting: usually, less is more, cause problems with MOS:LEADIMAGE because some images may not be natural and appropriate representations of the topic due to their limited representation, or be a solution in search of a problem due to very few edit wars in the lead image for tropical cyclone season articles. Some effects articles may not benefit from collages in the lead for the reasons given above. However, some collages can be used to show important, relevant information that other images don't. I do not believe satellite images should primarily be used for the lead of these topics anymore. They should be replaced with images that show the effects, provided that they don't only contain information present in other images, and that effects that are typical for a storm (e.g. blowing palm trees) aren't included. For these topics, except parts of the effects topic, one is enough. Collages aren't a one-size-fits-all solution for those topics, and they shouldn't be used for every article. For the rest, I don't really give a flying fish about them, they mean little to me. --Columbia719 (talk) 23:47, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with tornadoes; articles on individual tornadoes are usually shorter and can’t fit a ton of images. ^EF⁵ 00:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  They don't need the extra images. The first image for an individual tornado should be the tornado itself, and the infobox should contain nothing but the image of the tornado. Most tornado articles should be large enough to fit a couple of images outside the infobox. Besides, not every article needs images (MOS:IMAGEREL). If it can't fit in the article, then the article should be expanded, the image should be downsized, or the image should be removed. Columbia719 (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not all tornadoes have existing images, though, so what would go in the infobox then? Also, images are generally beneficial to the reader, and in articles like GAs (Greensburg tornado, 2025 Somerset-London tornado, etc.) and FAs (still waiting for one of those) collages are very helpful to understand the topic. In any case we’ll likely just agree-to-disagree, though. ^EF⁵ 11:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I expect the lead image for individual tornado articles to follow a similar style to WP:WPTC/IMG. If there's no direct photograph of it, use radar. If there's no radar, use an image of its effects. Simple as. Collages aren't needed as the image of the tornado should be a well representation of the topic, which should be primarily about the tornado themselves, by themselves. Columbia719 (talk) 13:46, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An image of the tornado isn't always the best representation, though, especially when an image doesn't exist. Some tornadoes are more well-known for the damage they cause (i.e. the 2011 El Reno–Piedmont tornado and 2011 Smithville tornado). WP:WPTC/IMG is an advice page and doesn't hold bearing as WP:WPTC isn't WP:W. I still don't see how a simple collage in an infobox wouldn't be beneficial to the reader. That is the whole goal of Wikipedia, after all. ^EF⁵ 13:59, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I completely agree with @WeatherWriter Kingbob2011 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but consider context and length of article. Personally, I think this is a ‘per-article’/case-by-case matter- where multiple images could be used to establish further context (ie, an image of the storm, image of damage, path map). But not such as multiple images of the storm, multiple path maps, multiple images of (similar) damage. PicturesOfTrickery (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Help with page

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

Sandwiching issues with track maps

I discovered this issue on another article and wanted to get some input here. On many tropical cyclone articles, especially those where the lead isn't the same or longer than the infobox, a pretty ugly sandwich occurs between the track map and the infobox. An example is Tropical Depression Ten (2007), which is a featured article. One of the solutions another editor suggested is moving the track map image to the right, as in [13]. Placing a {{clear}} template below the lead results in lots of whitespace which isn't very aesthetically pleasing ([14]). What are some ideas to fix this, or is it better to let it be? HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 16:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Weather and autism study

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

List of Iowa tornadoes listed at Featured List Removal Candidates

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

Good article reassessment for Hurricane Bonnie (1992)

Hurricane Bonnie (1992) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Pacific typhoon date formatting

Following a lengthy discussion at ANI, a recommendation on my behalf there has led me to formally propose a RfC on how we format dates across the Pacific typhoon pages.

To make a long story short, since last month there has been anons changing the format from MDY to DMY at many of the recent typhoons, most notably Typhoon Co-may and Typhoon Ragasa. The discussions got heated, but in the ANI thread it appears we were violating some of the Manual of Style (MOS) guidelines about this. Now, we’ve used MDY (i.e, October 5, 2025) for Pacific typhoons since probably the earliest days of the wiki, probably because of how the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) is out of Guam there and is a U.S. territory. But, with this incident, and the fact the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) became the designated Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre (RSMC) in 1993 which is non-U.S., it may have been against MOS to do so considering MDY should really only be used for U.S.-centric stuff like NHC in the Atlantic and Pacific. So, should we switch these Pacific typhoon pages to DMY (i.e, 5 October 2025) which would actually match the other non-NHC basins we write about? MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Support the switch to standardize the formatting, it makes no sense to not switch in this case. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 19:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could the RfC statement be rephrased so people not acquainted with tropical cyclones can understand? I don’t know what the “RSMC”, “JTWC” or “JMA” are, and don’t really understand what’s being proposed. ^EF⁵ 19:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @EF5:  Done, should be a bit easier to comprehend. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support changing to DMY. We must be in compliance with the MOS. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I believe pretty much every nation in that basin, besides the United States, uses DMY, or at least a majority. MDY should only be used if a typhoon only significantly affected the Mariana Islands or some other American territory. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:BADRFC Even if this WikiProject RfC passes, we cannot "switch these Pacific typhoon pages to DMY". That ANI thread said "Let me be clear: the mess was caused by Wikiproject members imposing their preferences on other editors. You cannot do that." WP:DATERET says

  • If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on the topic's strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, or consensus on the article's talk page.
  • The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used, unless ...
  • ...

       Don't quote me, but placing {{subst:Rfc notice}} on Talk:Typhoon Co-may, Talk:Typhoon Ragasa, and on each affected article's talk page might work, but this will need to be repeated next time.
  This non-neutral RfC cites JTWC and JWA, but they are irrelevant because Japan is not a "particular English-speaking country" that MOS:DATETIES needs:

  In articles without strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, the choice of date format ... is controlled by MOS:DATERET; ...

  MDY should really only be used for U.S.-centric stuff like NHC in the Atlantic and Pacific No, that IP was able to impose their personal preference of DMY because they wrote "the first non-stub version". If that IP had preferred MDY when writing "the first non-stub version", MOS:DATETIES and MOS:DATERET would allow them to impose MDY.
       If we want a special exemption like how MOS:MILFORMAT says in certain topic areas, it is customary to use a date format different from the usual national one, we need to start a discussion at WT:DATE.
  173.206.37.177 (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]