Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

2024–25 WikiProject Weather Good Article Reassessment

[edit]

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

Articles under review

RfC on the naming of tornado articles

[edit]

How should the names of tornado articles be handled going forward, especially around the use of the year and the existing convention WP:NCWWW? Departure– (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to use this opportunity of a centralized discussion to raise some qualms and mounting tensions over the use of years in weather-related articles.
Articles relating to WikiProject Weather have, especially since the Tri-State tornado saga began in 2024, been increasingly dropping the year from their names, on both past and recent events. I have particularly seen this first-hand on many tornado articles:
  • 3 August 2018: 1970 Lubbock tornado was BOLDly moved to Lubbock tornado; mover's rationale being [y]ear not needed.
  • Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado/Archive 1#Requested move 26 December 2024: the 1925 Tri-State tornado move discussion first begins. I'm going to qualify this by stating that I did not intend for this to balloon into the major issue that it turned into, and that I was the nominator of the move: from 1925 Tri-State tornado to Great Tri-State Tornado, as I saw the latter as a common name that could override the prior NCWWW name.
    • The article was moved to 1925 tri-state tornado (note that tri-state is lowercase) as a result of this discussion, rather than its original or destination title, and was then requested again to be moved to Tri-State tornado,
      • This second RM closed with a highly controversial move to Tri-state tornado of 1925, throwing the standard form of NCWWW out the window.
        • 21 May 2025: 2021 Tri-State tornado, a different page with a similar name, was then BOLDly moved to Tri-state tornado of 2021, in parallel with the prior move, but this was swiftly reverted as undiscussed.
  • 26 February 2025: 2007 Greensburg tornado was successfully moved to Greensburg Tornado (lowercased later on): nominator's rationale was Rare instance of a tornado being more commonly known by a name without the year.
  • 26 February 2025: 1997 Jarrell tornado was successfully moved to Jarrell Tornado (lowercased later on): nominator's rationale was Rare instance of a tornado being more commonly known by a name without the year.
  • 22 April 2025: 2024 Greenfield tornado was successfully moved to Greenfield tornado, dropping the year. I started this RM, with my shortened rationale to drop the year being [p]er Greensburg tornado [...] [t]his tornado has become one of the most notorious tornadoes in recent memory.
    • I want to note that at the time of this move, the event had only occurred 11 months prior. This proposal got unanimous support, which looking back, is shocking, but to me now demonstrates how entrenched opposition to including the year in these titles got by April.
  • 5 June 2025: editors failed to come to a consensus against dropping the year from the title of 2025 Somerset–London tornado; nominator's rationale was [n]o tornado remotely of this magnitude (or no tornado ever, for that matter) has ever taken a path through two cities named "Somerset" and "London". This is the clear WP:PTOP out of the zero tornadoes it is competing with. Also note that year numbers in tornado articles aren't WP:CONSISTENT, see Greensburg tornado and Jarrell tornado which were both dropped of the year disambiguator when it was found they were PTOPs. This was really a once-in-a-lifetime event for Southeast Kentucky, so unless there's a freak setup I don't think another one of these will impact Somerset or London anytime soon.
    • What shocked me when I went through this discussion back when I went through it was how, even though it had only been three weeks since the event occurred and reporting to that point failed to find a single COMMONNAME for the tornado, so many editors were willing to drop the year from the title per WP:PTOP (not even COMMONNAME or NCWWW, as many before tried to).
      • The point Also note that year numbers in tornado articles aren't WP:CONSISTENT in the nomination, to me, spells out the whole issue. Once editors began to drop the year from pages per single-page RMs, they'll then look at other pages and use the prior moves as justifications to move. Looking at this issue in whole, to me this tactic, intentional or not, seems to be an attempt to sidestep having a wider discussion about NCWWW's applicability to these articles.
  • 10 July 2025: Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado was moved to Windsor Locks tornado; nominator's rationale was [t]here isn't another notable Windsor Locks, and precedent is to not include the state. I also think it sounds better. In the discussion, many editors suggested adding a year to the title, but the proposal failed to gain consensus, and the new title reflected that.
  • 23 September 2025: 2011 Smithville tornado was successfully moved (through a very low-participation RM) to Smithville tornado, dropping the year.
    • This in particular is notable, as one editor added a neutral !vote, with the rationale being Smithfield, Alabama was also hit by an F5. Note that "there has not been another tornado to strike this area" is one of the most common reasons cited to drop the year from tornado articles.
  • 20 October 2025: Editors are in the process of moving 2025 Enderlin tornado to Enderlin tornado: nominator's rationale is [m]ostly just want to settle this, but I think "Enderlin tornado" is the better option as a ef3/f3+ tornado has never come close to Enderlin, nevertheless an EF5 tornado - note also that the page was BOLDly moved without discussion to Enderlin tornado previously, and that the event only occurred on June 20 this year, only four months before the discussion.
  • 20 October 2025: That same day, another discussion (still open), appeared, and editors appear to have come to a strong consensus against dropping the year from the title.
    • Many arguments here acknowledge, for the first time in a while, that NCWWW is useful for disambiguation, Others say that while no other tornado has struck both cities, NCWWW's use is still helpful for disambiguation regardless - in other words, there is pushback against "inventing" arguments for why disambiguation isn't necessary. This is one of the main problems I've found in most of these moves.
  • 12 October 2025: another RM by me, although this one's still open. This is to do with the page 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado and is the clearest example I can find that proves that NCWWW troubles are still very much alive within weather articles. My rationale when opening this was [p]er MOS:GEOCOMMA, and the open FAC. [..] if nothing else, an RM will at least settle this matter.
    • This article is a current featured article candidate, and one review mentioned MOS:GEOCOMMA recommending the use of a second comma in the title - 2013 Washington, Illinois, tornado instead of the current title 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado. Note also that the issue of a comma has been brought up many times and the page has been BOLDly moved back and forth in a sort of slow-motion move war that didn't occur to me when I participated; see the move log for the page.
      • If you read through the current RM discussion, there is a significant amount of editors supporting a move that would, in one way or another, drop the year from the page.
I'm going to qualify my comments with some acknowledgements: yes, I did participate in this murky set of naming conventions by opening multiple of the mentioned requested moves, and yes, I did, inadvertently or not, participate in the slow and minor but still disruptive move war at 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado. However, I'm willing to take a step back and recognize that these smaller requested moves are simply not going to capture the pure scope of the underlying issues at hand. Once weather editors, myself included, began to remove the year from titles, we began to remove them from even more citing our own precedent.
I personally think a part of this is renewed interest in creating these articles--in my own time here, I've seen the amount of articles on individual tornadoes seemingly double--in addition to maintaining existing ones, and ironing out two decades of old and archaic names on pages widely forgotten until now. I applaud the fact that such efforts exist, but at the end of the day, the feedback loop of smaller RMs turning into wider precedents, and the "invented" reasons as to why articles should drop the year as the primary topic/common name, to me, seems prime to have another 1925 Tri-State tornado spark up within the next year, and as such I want to address this issue head on.
A few questions I hope to have answered in this request for comment are as follows:
  • How should editors determine whether or not any given tornado article should follow NCWWW?
    • What constitutes a tornado's potential position as a primary topic?
    • What constitutes a common name for any given tornado? (This is less contentious, thankfully, but I think some thought should be given to it.)
      • Does the "notoriety" of any given tornado matter at all in PTOP or COMMONNAME discussions?
  • Do undiscussed moves around tornado articles cause more trouble than they're worth?
  • Should all tornado articles be standardized under NCWWW?
    • If not, should any given tornado's position as a PTOP or as having a COMMONNAME be legitimate arguments to drop the year in favor of another name?
  • How much time and effort is it worth putting into debating the names of these articles?
I apologize for the long length of this opening comment, but there are so many issues at play here that desparately need to be ironed out if we want to decisively avoid another Tri-State situation. Departure– (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of trying to "sidestep the process" sure are something in an RfC's opening comment. EF5 13:25, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–: sorry if that came off as rude; I've struck it. As for my opinion, I agree with Nomz on basically every point. EF5 13:33, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better to sort this out once and for all rather than having the same argument every time someone requests a move. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 13:28, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not participate in any of the situations described above but I am of the opinion that the year should be removed only for exceptional cases (the Tri-State tornado being one of them). WP:NCWWW explicitly references 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami as a good example of including where, what, and when in the title.
In my opinion this is directly relevant to weather event articles and is especially relevant for the quoted Somerset-London case in that there is no other Wikipedia article including the terms "Tōhoku earthquake" and/or "Tōhoku tsunami" in the title. Additionally, the Tōhoku earthquake is the largest recorded earthquake in Japanese history and it still has the year in the title.
Years in titles do not add unnecessary fluff (only five characters) and are helpful for site navigation. Editors should not be overly pedantic in removing them. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 19:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The site navigation problem is insignificant. Adding a couple of redirects makes it a non-issue, and using the WP:COMMONNAME should take precedent over marginal site navigation issues anyways NomzEditingWikis (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're clinging onto the most minor part of my argument. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 12:51, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion on the matter is definitely in the minority, but I am in favor of always having the year in front of the named event, even for extremely notable events listed above that it was taken away from. This is specifically in relation to location based named events like droughts, floods, tornadoes, and tropical storms that took place before the establishment of named storms. I think including the year in an article's title is extremely beneficial for event identification, classification, and adds an average 5 characters to a title. Realjospence (talk) 18:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The year of the tornado should be dropped, barring a need for disambiguation, such as in the case of 2013 Moore tornado vs. 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado. When mentioned, even years removed from the event, they are almost always referred to without the year. Redirects can be used to make the site marginally more navigable, although I don't think this is a significant issue, but the rule of thumb should always be to use the name that most commonly is used in the real world.
On the topic of the name beyond the year, I think they're roughly in the right place. There are some that are a little overly long, such as the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado and others that just don't correctly describe the breadth of the impact, such as the 2012 Southern Indiana tornado. However, the current consensus to use just one area name, barring the rare occurrence that two similarly sized communities were damaged at similar intensities, is good. An great example of this exception is the 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado. The other caveat to this convention should be to disambiguate different tornadoes that struck similar areas. Piedmont, Oklahoma is nowhere near the size of El Reno, Oklahoma, yet it is necessary in the name to disambiguate the 2011 El Reno–Piedmont tornado from the 2013 El Reno tornado. NomzEditingWikis (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. There is no need for the year if a WP:COMMONNAME or WP:PTOP exists. The non-existent “site navigation” issues don’t make sense; just add a redirect. EF5 14:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is a naming convention explicitly for weather related events, I'm not sure what this RFC is asking? If WP:NCWWW is the guidance used, then as there was a recently closed RFC discussing removing the year requirement which failed, then the community should respect that consensus. That being said, even as a "proponent" of including the year, WP:NCWWW and WP:NOYEAR leave some opportunities for removing the year (mostly falling back to WP:COMMONNAME if secondary reliable sources have coalesced around a single name and historic perspective for events that are easy enough to identify without including the year; that second one should be used carefully IMO, as historic perspective being invoked hours or days after an event is dubious to me).
Consider carefully the wording at COMMONNAME as well, specifically Wikipedia ... generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources) and Discussions about article titles commonly look at additional sourcing, such as frequency of usage in news publications, books, and journals. It also helps to be aware of the potential for citogenesis if we choose a "common name" too quickly, as it's possible our decisions will influence future sources. —Locke Cole • t • c • b 16:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the tornado is (1) unambiguously named, and (2) of wide significance, I believe the article title should inlcude the year per WP:NCWWW. Elaborating on those conditions:
Condition 1, unambiguously named. Meaning, if the year is dropped, there is no risk of conflating this tornado with another. If you do not have this rule, tornadoes that strike similar areas may be mixed up. The hypothetical titles Moore Tornado and Bridge Creek-Moore Tornado could cause trouble if someone doesn't yet know there's more than one tornado that hit Moore. The extra WP:PRECISION granted by the year helps.
Condition 2, wide significance: WP:NCWWW says the year can be dropped when in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it. It gives the example of the Tenerife airport disaster. We don't need to specify the date because it is so widely known. But contrast these articles: Fukushima nuclear accident and 1999 Blayais Nuclear Power Plant flood. Comparatively, very few people know about the second incident (it does not have as wide significance), so it makes sense to have the year reference in the title. Similarly, only for exceptional tornadoes does it make sense to drop the year. HenryMP02 (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing in list of storms named X articles

[edit]

In lists of storms about typhoons, the JMA number, as well as other numbers like the JTWC numbers, are added on, as at List of storms named Nina. However, this can be unsourced and may be interpreted as original research. So should sources be required for those numbers on those disambiguation pages? The sources are relatively easy to find, at least for recent typhoons, as their respective agencies publish a yearly report listing the storm names and their numbers. HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 13:01, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem that affects more than 1,000 set index articles. Not only are the JMA/JTWC numbers not sourced, but neither is any of the information, like damage/deaths. If we're going to require sourcing and make them more of an actual page (which we should do), I would rather merge every single one of the set index articles (since that's what they are, not disambiguation pages) to List of named storms (A), List of named storms (B), and so on. I could see eventually having 26 featured lists, one for each letter of the alphabet. I don't see all of these lists of storms named X being properly maintained, not when there are 1,065 of them. It would be easier to cross reference the list by each letter with the List of historical tropical cyclone names, as opposed to doing so with all 1,065 SIA's. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would Support this, it isn't a bad idea by any means and would improve the mess that we have HurricaneZeta (T) (C) 20:07, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent idea, I would support such a considation / merger. Drdpw (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some good news

[edit]

Quick FYI for the project, specifically those who have been working to replace {{infobox storm}} with {{infobox weather event}}. I've found a way, using WP:AWB, to largely automate this process, although manual intervention is still required. I tested it at Tornado outbreak sequence of June 1966 briefly, where it mostly failed to work, before getting it to successfully work at Tornado outbreak of July 1–3, 1997. If anyone needs the specific AWB settings feel free to give me a ping at the WP:DISCORD or shoot me an email; I'd be glad to send the setting used so this could be further refined. EF5 01:39, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've wrote a short guide at User:EF5/Process for replacing storm infoboxes for others who may want to take this on. EF5 22:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replace Koppen classification maps to 1991-2020 normals

[edit]

Hi there,

there's a lot of articles with old Koppen classification maps that you may want to replace with the newest 1991-2020 version. See generally c:Category:Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Maps for 1991–2020. I've done this through Austria, including Argentine provinces, but there's so much work that I can't be bothered doing it alone. If there is a way to automate this process, this would be swell. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Smithville tornado#Requested move 21 October 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Smithville tornado#Requested move 21 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 21:12, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Input requested

[edit]

Your input is requested at Talk:2023 Arizona wildfires. Thank you, Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:October 2025 Mexico floods and landslides#Requested move 13 October 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:October 2025 Mexico floods and landslides#Requested move 13 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 14:33, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado#Requested move 20 October 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado#Requested move 20 October 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPathtalk 14:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

General warning per AN/I thread

[edit]

A recent AN/I thread had consensus to convey the following general warning.

The hard work of WikiProjects Weather and WikiProject Tropical Cyclones in covering weather phenomena is acknowledged and appreciated. However, their members are collectively reminded:

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 20:02, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: thanks, this has admittedly been needed for a while. Is the GER/CTOP implementation still being discussed? That would be much more useful than a warning. EF5 20:18, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: - not sure the ping template ever went through. EF5 19:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it fell off the VP. You could un-archive, if you've got an idea of something to say to put some gas in the tank. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:WEATHER

[edit]

WhatamIdoing proposed making a possible Manual of Style page for weather articles at WT:WPTC. I am moving that discussion over here as it would involve more people that WPTC. I do like the idea and I would like to see it done as an alternative to the traditions of the two Wikiprojects. Besides just policy in general, my only other concern is possible size and if it would need to be broken down further into MOS:TORNADOES, MOS:TROPICAL, et cetera. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why specifically at WPTC? /gen EF5 21:32, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because that was where I was complaining about not being able to do policy changes related to weather. Turns out we can, it just goes under the MOS/other guidelines like everything else. WhatamIdoing specifically brought up MOS:WEATHER, though. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a draft that I created to work on until discussing at an RfC. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Working on the draft, I feel like MOS:WEATHER would innately need a split on event and non-event topics. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do I need before GAN?

[edit]

Hello. A few months ago, a draft I wrote was accepted, and my eventual goal is to improve it to GA status. If possible, could you leave me some feedback in this thread so I can improve this article? Please ping when responding. Thanks, 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 00:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of formatting issues with numbers that I am noticing. I'll go through and fix them as it is easy enough for me to do. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you don't have to fix them. Just leave some suggestions for me and I can improve. 🌀Hurricane Wind and Fire (talk) (contribs)🔥 21:33, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Weather forecasting

[edit]

Weather forecasting 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) 15:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for 2010 Guatemala City sinkhole

[edit]

2010 Guatemala City sinkhole 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) 01:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Saffir–Simpson scale

[edit]

Saffir–Simpson scale 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) 03:12, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]