User talk:WeatherWriter

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

"Primary source inline" template at 2024 in climate change[edit]

I've noticed your additions of the "Primary source inline" template in 2024 in climate change. Your explanation is that links to original studies "acts more as a self-published sources, not a secondary reliable source."

However, in cases of scientific studies, it's actually best to link directly to the study as a primary source rather than depend on a secondary source's interpretation; see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. This is why I think your primary/secondary distinction is misplaced. If, on the other hand, your actual concern is about the reliability of the source or study--that's why I try to always state the source in article text, to place the source in context.

Can you reconsider those templates? Thanks. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying remove the sources, but add a secondary source. Linking to primary sources is perfectly acceptable, but the articles quality would be improved by adding an additional secondary source. Basically something to show the primary source topic is actually notable enough for the article. On various weather articles, there has been discussions on what is/is not primary sources and to me, something like the WMO quote, which is the entire section, is sourced entirely by WMO. Basically, the tags are for adding/finding additional sources, not removing the primary source. Hopefully that explains why I added the templates. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RCraig09: Basically instead of (CONTENT)[1], with [1] being the primary source, it should be (CONTENT)[1][2], with [1] being the current/primary/self-published sources and [2] being a secondary source to back up the primary source. That is why the "non-primary source needed" templates were added. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, we don't need to prove something is notable/important/reliable in the content itself, or the footnote itself. But in cases in which there may be some question, I'll give it a whirl. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we sort of do. Per WP:SPS, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources (bolding my doing). Even if it is from a well regarded expert or expert organization, if the study in question is notable, someone is bound to talk about it in a secondary reliable source. I would say after a month after primary source publication, if a secondary reliable source isn't found, then I would honestly remove it as being not-notable for the content in the article, especially since all of the things I tag do fall under SPS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Jarrell tornado image[edit]

Please IGNORE the | discussion linked here that I started because I did not know this at the time; but I started a discussion on the wrong file. Please direct any comments on the dead man walking tornado to the actual deletion discussion | linked here. And also, please ignore my struck out comments on that discussion. Apparently I didn’t know until just now that there were TWO pictures taken in the exact same spot, by the exact same person, and presumably by the exact same camera. Just at different times. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:84FB:7141:8A0:F870 (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]