Talk:Weather

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Weather has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
July 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Meteorology (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

parts of the atmosphere[edit]

it dosent really say thata they are showing all the parts of weather because it also depends on on the atmosphere for heat or coolness. fk heyyyyyyy whats up

Wikinews weather[edit]

There is a discussion on the wikinews mailing list about setting up bots or other software agents to track weather conditions. The intent is to have quite a high level of detail to present weather conditions as news. Obviously, if you maintain a historical record of the data there are other uses for the data - some of which may benefit Wikipedia.

We'd welcome any and all input on this, particularly on the presentation of the data and what should be stored. --Brian McNeil /talk 13:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Weather Warnings[edit]

Don't you reckon we should update or change the way we get in contact with the weather warnings? We should have better and easier ways to see whats comming etc... what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westy1997 (talkcontribs) 08:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Lastitem (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Improper References[edit]

Should references 46/47 be used since they are citing a web page which is in turn citing another source? This is essentially another aggregate site run by a individual relaying other sources.

Midway22 (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

weather is one of the most dangerous things on this planet. It is more powerful than any thing living on Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.159.153 (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a provocative argument, in my opinion. Lastitem (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether redirects here[edit]

As I understand it, "whether" is used as "I will go outside, whether or not it is raining", rather than a mis-spelling of "weather".

Wiktionary suggests that "whether" is obsolete, though I'd disagree with that - I've used it (and seen it used) a fair few times. Perhaps it's used more frequently in British English than in American (or other) forms of the language? If this is the case, then it would only be obsolete in the context of a particular regional dialect.

I seem to recall that "whether" can also be spelled as "wether", though a quick search doesn't seem to find any evidence to support this.

2.26.15.230 (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiktionary only indicates whether is obsolete for some uses, but anyway the page whether is a redirect because despite its primary use as a conjunction, it isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia page. Thus, it redirects here. — Reatlas (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
That's fair enough, but it just seems odd that it redirects here without an explanation as to why. I'm not really sure what the best thing to do is here, but surely SOMETHING should be mentioned? Currently, the impression is that "whether" is an alternative, obsolete, or incorrect variant of "weather". 2.26.15.230 (talk) 11:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Whether is not an alternative, nor am I aware of any time when it was an alternative to the word weather. One might as well place a redirect for "and" to "ant"! Either Wikipedia is both encyclopedic and accurate or it redirects incorrectly. Currently, it's doing both in this instance. As in the conjunction "whether" is redirecting to the noun "weather", with the conjunction regarding a range of alternatives and the latter being most commonly used regarding atmospheric phenomena and occasionally space conditions. Unless Wikipedia is to now also be a dictionary of random incorrect redirects, the redirect from "whether" to "weather" really needs to go.Wzrd1 (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you aware of the existence of Category:Redirects from misspellings? Ant doesn't redirect but there is Aand. @IP, you have a point, but I don't really see what can be done. The closest thing might be a hatnote saying "Whether" redirects here. For the interrogative word, see... But we don't have an article to link. Edit: Actually, maybe Template:See Wiktionary will do. Edit 2: Actually, actually, Template:Wiktionary redirect is probably appropriate here.— Reatlas (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 Done, Whether now soft redirects to Wiktionary. — Reatlas (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
A good solution. This allows people who arrive here looking for Weather but misspell the word to learn of their mistake. Rivertorch (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Agriculture changing weather[edit]

In the intro and the body, we have a statement that agricultural activities can inadvertently change the weather; this document is the source. Unless we have some other source saying that agriculture is able to do this, I'd suggest removing the agricultural bit: the source page says "agriculture" and then goes on to discuss nothing but industrial activities, which cause problems such as acid rain. A basic rule of writing summaries is that you don't include what's not mentioned elsewhere: unless we can give examples of agricultural activities potentially causing changes in the weather, we ought not mention agriculture. As it is now, I thought this was perhaps someone jokingly implying that rain follows the plow, rather than anything serious. Nyttend (talk) 05:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... perhaps wait a couple of days to see if someone can source it now that this discussion has been brought up? At the very least, if it is not in the source, tag it with {{Failed verification}}. Dustin (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)