Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Lightning0.jpg This is the talk page of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article here.
Portal.svg Quick links:
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology:
Top priorities in bold

Cscr-candidate.svg

     Other candidates:

Winter Storm Index/Summary Articles[edit]

Note: This has been copied and modified from the location where I originally posted it at Talk:Early 2014 North American cold wave#Merge Late 2013 North American cold wave into this article, and rename.

I would present an idea to create winter storm index/list articles as a way of connecting winter storm articles together and giving brief summaries of smaller events. The article would be named 2013–14 North American winter storms, or something similar, with the North America in the title being replaced with whatever the area of concern is. I like the idea, because an article such as the one I have proposed could serve both as a collection of links to and summaries of all of the different storms and other winter weather events (with articles) that have occurred during a particular winter at a particular location (e.g. North America) and as a page containing information pertaining to events of lesser impact or events with less published information about them. For example, say there was some information about a storm, Storm X, and that this storm, while it did have some impacts, did not have very much information published about it. In this situation, there wouldn't be enough information to make a very decent article, so, instead, all of the information would be placed in a section of its winter index article (e.g. 2013–14 North American winter storms#Storm X if it happened during this winter and in North America). If said storm did have its own article already, it would still have its own section in the related winter storms article (the plural was intentional), but it would be briefer and would have a Main Article: Storm X link. To take a real example, say we created the proposed article at 2013–14 North American winter storms. The article February 11–17, 2014 North American winter storm would have a section in this article with a brief summary at 2013–14 North American winter storms#February 11–17 or somewhere similar, and the section would have a link as Main Article: February 11–17, 2014 North American winter storm. I think that this is a good idea, and should work similarly to tornado by year articles (e.g. Tornadoes of 2013) and tropical cyclone by basin and season articles (e.g. 2013 Atlantic hurricane season). It appears that some editors have already created an article similar in purpose to the one I am proposing for the current winter at Winter storms of 2013–14 in the United Kingdom, and there are also others for previous years in other locations (Examples: Winter of 2009–10 in Europe, and Winter storms of 2009–10 in East Asia), although these articles have inconsistently named titles relative to each other and to the name I have suggested. Alternate names that I can think of for the articles' titles (once again substituting North America) would possibly be 2013–14 North American winter, 2013–14 North American winter storm season, or 2013–14 North American winter weather events, although I am still listening for other alternate titles if anyone would like to suggest one other than those I have already suggested. Does anyone have any thoughts about this idea? Do I need to clarify? Dustin talk 21:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary, as most of the noteworthy storms already have articles. Unlike tropical storms, there are winter storms all the time that aren't noteworthy of their own articles, and it would be very hard to keep a small enough article with such storms. As for a central location to have links, we already have the box at the bottom with links to winter storms. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
You seem to have overlooked one of the main purpose of the article, and then some. First of all, the only alternative is to completely ignore what may have been very significant events just because they didn't receive a lot of coverage. Also, the storms that do have articles only give specific information about that particular storm, and nothing else. There are already some storms being ignored; for example, the winter storm that occurred in early December of 2013, as well as multiple storms that occurred in early February are being completely ignored. This article would solve all of those problems, and even when you account for all of the small events, these articles should not be too large. In tropical cyclone season articles, you don't see editors simply ignoring the tropical depressions that never strengthened or hit land. That is similar to how I would have this article work. This article could accomplish far more than a template could. Dustin talk 22:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't those issues be resolved by simply creating articles for the two storms that you referenced that have been "completely ignored"? Inks.LWC (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps one, or maybe (although probably not) two... but certainly not all. The former refers to a storm that occurred in late the November, as well as another storm that occurred in early December. The latter refers to multiple storms that occurred beginning in very late January and, especially, early February. Not all of these storms had very significant coverage, but I can guarantee that all of them had at least some coverage, being enough coverage to write a not-so-long description of the event, but not enough to create an article of very significant length. This is where my proposed article would come in. I looked up the early December storm, and there were multiple links, so I decided to copy the first NWS one from the top to show which storm I was specifically talking about. Here: [1]. I believe that this storm had some significant effects in many areas. There was snow in some areas (including Oklahoma obviously when you examine the link) and ice in others (such as Texas, I believe). This would only be one, but concerning storms that don't have articles, this is the first storm that I would prefer to mention. I'll say some of the others if you ask, though. Dustin talk 02:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

What if it was limited to storms with summaries, tracked by the Weather Prediction Center? That way we could also have track maps, theoretically. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to do such articles, I'd rather go with this, because at least then we have a base criteria for what to include. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure that I would like to limit the list to only containing WPC-tracked events... but I suppose that it would probably be good to start there, at least. It would be preferable to start with creating very short summaries of the events that already have articles with links to their main articles. Articles from this winter would appear to include the following: October 2013 North American storm complex, December 2013 North American ice storm, Late 2013 North American cold wave, Early 2014 North American cold wave, January 2014 Gulf Coast winter storm, February 11–17, 2014 North American winter storm. Late 2013 North American cold wave doesn't appear to contain very much information, and could possibly be absorbed (as a section) into the article I am proposing. Dustin talk 02:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not see this being a good ideas as there are not very many notable winter storms in a given year, 2011 for example had only 2. While in 1999 just one North American blizzard of 1999. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You are making the assumption that notability can only be established if it already has an article, which is incorrect. There are multiple storms that were certainly notable but which don't have articles, possibly due to lack of editor interest. Just because a storm doesn't make top national headlines isn't enough to establish that it isn't notable. Those years which you have listed definitely had more than that many significant events each. Finally, understand why I am proposing this article; it would not just be a list of articles, but it would actually contain summaries and other information pertaining to events that don't already have their own articles, as well as contain links to and brief descriptions of events that do already have articles. Dustin talk 02:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Even if some of the storms listed in those hypothetical articles aren't all that significant, storms with enough of an impact to cause major problems across parts of the US should be included, because the information presented can always be expanded on by other users. Then, the articles would become a repository for such storms, and readers will be able to know exactly what happened during those storms, and learn more about them. I believe that this idea could work out, provided that we have enough people working on it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that you understand what I am saying (or at least you appear to). Dustin talk 02:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Dustin has made some good points, and the more I think about it, this is something I'd be on board doing. Like I said before, I think Hink's idea would be best, as it would give us a guideline on what to include, and it ensures that we don't include nominal tiny storms but also don't miss moderately impactful storms that don't make big news. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it be okay for me to start the article? We can dispute the name later if necessary on the talk page of this article. I found some storm information from the Weather Prediction Center, as Hurricanehink suggested. For this winter, I found some archived summaries here and here. Most, if not all of the storms I mentioned earlier have archived information. I think the article can have a good start. Dustin talk 23:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

For if we ever create the article, I have created a page, User:Dustin V. S./2013–14 North American winter storms. It is only a shell that we might be able to start the article at, with section headers. If we all can agree to create the article, I'd like to move it into the mainspace, and we may begin! Does anyone have further comments? Dustin talk 01:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
If nobody responds soon I will go ahead and create the article. Dustin talk 06:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Alright. I think that the general consensus at this point is to create that article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the way I see it, the consensus is toward creating the article. The way I see it, supporting the article are the following users: Dustin V. S., LightandDark2000, Inks.LWC, possibly Hurricanehink. The only opposition I can see is Knowledgekid87. The consensus is definitely leaning toward create. I am going to move the article into the mainspace. We have a while before anyone will actually see the article who is not an editor, though, because it will be a while until the article is added to Wiki's search results in the search bar. Dustin talk 16:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Move executed: 2013–14 North American winter storms -Dustin talk 16:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't have moved it over until it actually had some substantive material in there, and unfortunately I'm unable to help work on it at the present time, but if at least a couple sections can be written, that'd be nice. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You are right, but I was thinking that so long as some of the more important content can be added soon, and we don't de-orphan the article until after we have achieved this goal, that it should work out okay. Dustin talk 18:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
That is the exact opposite of what the article should look like. It's sort of the first of its kind, but if we're to make it and for it to survive AFD, then it should be better fleshed out, with an indicator of what's in this article. Are we including every storm that affects Alaska and Nunavut? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
No, not every storm, but every significant or notable storm that impacts Alaska (and the rest of the US). It's basically a collection of the notable winter storms that affected various parts of North America within that season, including major winter-related weather events that took place within the same timespan as well. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
To Hurricanehink, If you think something, such as a section, should be removed or revised, simply do so. I am still unsure of how the article should be formatted; I am also unsure of which storms to include and/or exclude. Dustin talk 00:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't have the time right now, or else I would. As I warned initially, it would be convenient to limit it to only HPC storms - here are the HPC summaries. Perhaps move it to limit it to the United States? That is what we have the data for, at least, so it seems logical. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I listed the WPC storms... however, perhaps, to avoid having empty sections, we should remove the empty sections (for now). We can then re-add any sections after we have typed up some information. If you think I should clarify, please ask. Sorry about problems with the article; I am really the only person who has edited the article (yet). I would ask that anyone willing to do so helps with the article. I don't want to be the only editor. Dustin talk 01:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If anyone can help, please do so. I am still the only editor. I am somewhat limited on time. I have been collecting information on more of the storms. I would really appreciate help, even if it was only a small or minor edit, inclusive of edits by IPs, assuming it is a good edit. I would also accept additional ideas on the talk page. What I especially need are sources for some of the events; with this many events, it is a bit of a hassle finding sources. Can anyone help, please? Dustin talk 22:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You could use Weather.com's Winter Storm Central; most of the info on named winter storms this year is still there. If you're lucky, you may also be able to dig up some archived advisories on some of the storms in some other weather agency site. Unfortunately, I happen to be busy myself, and I don't have sources for a lot of the systems (particularly those that didn't cause a lot of disruption across the US). However, I'll drop in and help whenever I'm able to. (PS, I have a userpage/sandbox on one of the most recent major winter storms. It may help.) LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to check out the things you mentioned. I might consider compiling a list of sources that contain relevant information, and putting it on the talk page. Dustin talk 20:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge with WikiProject Climate[edit]

Has this discussion ended or is it still ongoing? I can't find it on the talk page or in thearchives. If it is over, this tag should be removed from both this WikiProject and WikiProject Climate Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I would probably support the merge because meteorology and climatology do concern one another, and it appears that WikiProject Climate has been inactive for some time and is rather disorganized. Also, at least based on the content of WikiProject Climate's page, it would seem that many, if not all of the project's listed articles could be classified under WikiProject Meteorology and its subprojects. Also, the proposal was made with this edit, but nobody ever replied, and it was archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Meteorology/Archive 9#Merge Climate & Meterology projects with this edit. Dustin talk 20:48, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Dustin. I support this merge as well. United States Man (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

A new WEF class is headed your way[edit]

I am the Wiki Education Foundation campus ambassador for a grad school class studying the atmospheric boundary layer at UCLA. Over the next couple weeks they will be working in their sandboxes and asking the aggregate here for input before they move into the article namespace. I'm hoping all of you can guide these new editors. I'm especially hoping to retain these editors and I think your effort is key to this process. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


Hi Guys, I'm one of the grad students Chris Troutman is referring to. I will be writing on the topic of turbulence generated coherent structures with a focus on Hairpin Vortices. If you're interested, I posted a list of references I will be using on my sandbox. Do you guys have any initial feedback or comments on either my topic, my references, or general questions about our class? Student0531 (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Glad to be a member of the Meteorology family. I'm preparing an article on convective mixing in atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) as part of the UCLA class project. The draft is in my sandbox. A list of possible references was compiled already. Any feedbacks would be really appreciated. --Lethepku (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello meteorology community, I'm also a student creating an article about satellite measurements of the atmospheric boundary layer especially boundary layer aerosols and clouds in my sandbox. Thanks for your future thoughts and input! --Imaleaper 22:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I am preparing an article on Alpine atmospheric boundary layer as part of an UCLA class project (The Atmospheric Boundary Layer ). I am gathering a draft and the references in one of my sandboxes: Alpine Atmospheric Boundary Layer. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions. Thank you! Liz.Baldo (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am preparing an article on the representation of the atmospheric boundary layer in global climate models as part of a UCLA class project (The Atmospheric Boundary Layer ). I have already placed references and will place my draft in my sandbox. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any constructive feedback!Kquinn1981 (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm preparing an article on Monin-Obukhov similarity theory as part of an UCLA class project (The Atmospheric Boundary Layer ). I have gathered references and will draft in my sandbox. Let me know if you have any comments or feedback. Thank you. Geoalchimista (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm hoping to expand the article on Urban Canyons as a part of this class project.I have put together a list of possible references and started working on a draft in my sandbox. Any feedback/comments are welcome! RoshiniA (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)RoshiniA

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Eady Model[edit]

Dear weather experts: Is this old Afc submission about a notable topic, or should it be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a weather expert but both the Scholar references to the Eady model and books mentioning the model have dozens of sources. The term "Eady model" appears frequently in Scholar titles. This model appears to be a foundational model for today's numerical forecast models.The references cited aren't representative of those available through Books or Scholar. Only a couple look likely to be retained. The mathematical discussion references really need to be done by an expert. Narrative references can be done by a generalist.
SBaker43 (talk) 08:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking this out, SBaker43. By making improvements to the draft you have postponed its deletion for six months. From you remarks it seems that this is indeed a notable topic. It would be good to have an opinion from someone here about whether the Eady model is being accurately presented. I will move this submission to Draft: space so that it can have a talk page. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I'm not at all sure how I feel about the issues raised here by this AfD, but it appears that it may set a precedent whereby many other NWS office articles could be deleted in the future. More commentary is welcomed. Guy1890 (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The AFD had to be relisted on May 5; additional input would be helpful so that this does not end in no consensus. Dustin (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, no consensus is a procedural keep, which would be fine by me. Guy1890 (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

City weather[edit]

FYI, there's a notice at WT:USA about a discussion at WT:CITIES concerning {{weather box}} -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

On a related matter, can the "weather box" be collapsible in its current format? Guy1890 (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the box is collapsible; I just gave the template one look, and seeing a hide button, clicked it, and the box collapsed. I still don't know of how you would start out the box in a collapsed state, though. Dustin (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
By default, the box is not collapsed but if you add the parameter |collapsed= Y or |collapsed= Yes, the box will be in a collapsed state. See Template:Birmingham, Alabama weatherbox as an example. Ssbbplayer (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanx for the info. Is the weather box % humidity line the humidity at 6 AM, 3 PM, the 24-hour average, etc.? Guy1890 (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
@Guy1890: In the U.S., where I've input the data, daily RH is taken as the average of 3-hourly measurements (8x day). "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 17:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI, there's now an RfC about this same subject as well. Guy1890 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Paul Julian (meteorologist)[edit]

Dear weather experts: The editor of this draft has run out of time and patience. The subject is notable. There are some URLs for more references on the talk page. Would anyone who understands meteorological terminology like to finish this up? I suggested that s/he resubmit, but this hasn't happened.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

All due respect to Anne, who is a wonderful editorial colleague, the article needs no further preparatory work, only approval, and the only patience I lost was with the Wikipedia system, where chaos so often reigns. I stopped with the article because of opportunity cost, when (i) a reviewer rejected the submission after looking at the wrong version, an earlier unreferenced version, (ii) when the 15+ citation article continued to be over-scrutinized as a beginning stub, though it is far better than many other longstanding biographical articles at Wikipedia (e.g., search Paul Julian, a name-fellow of the meteorologist, an artist designer with a longstanding stub with no real citations); and (iii) when those reviewing showed a clear lack of experience with biographical research into pre-internet government scientists (e.g., questioning the NCAR archival records as valid). So, I am hoping someone with a perspective a bit more spot on can can to a rapid approval, see Section below, same signature and date. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The article does look good, however im not really able to provide much help or feedback on it.Jason Rees (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Great thanks. Feel free to refer to anyone you know who might. Cheers. Le Prof
Draft was accepted on 5 Jun 2014 by User:Chris troutman.
SBaker43 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Meteorology At Wikimania 2014[edit]

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wait, so how is WikiProject Architecture involved with this? Dustin (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The person has just made a mistake while putting the notice on this project page, by putting Wikiproject Architecture rather than Meteorology.Jason Rees (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I wasn't sure if members of the Architecture WikiProject had some sort of task in coordinating this or something, although when I give it some thought, I probably should have just given my question a bit more consideration before asking it. Thank you for the reply. Dustin (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Overhaul necessary[edit]

I believe it is necessary that WikiProject Meteorology receive some sort of overhaul. The page design (no offense to the creator) is not particularly good (in my opinion) and could be greatly improved. For example, there might be better organization of subpages if the main page were to instead use tabs like WP:USA/WP:WPSCI or the appearance could be improved to be less generic, like WP:WPTC (which also has better organization). Regardless, this first comment here is not so much a proposal for what to do as a way of saying this project needs to be overhauled in some sort of way. I mean, a large portion of this project is just in complete disarray, and much is too general. As the main project for weather things, I thing it is important that some changes be made. Regard this not as a final proposal but as a resolution. That's all I will say for now. Input would be welcomed. Dustin (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If you feel that an overhaul of the Project page is needed then be bold and do it, i dont think its been done in a few years.Jason Rees (talk) 15:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Part of what I am proposing might require me (or other willing editors) to fragment the main page of the WikiProject, which is why I am being cautious in just making sweeping changes. If we can agree on it though, I think some good changes could be made. Dustin (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think a project page overhaul is a rather easy task. WikiProject Meteorology is more like a broad overview of the subject, with individual subsets that focus more on individual topics, so in terms of how the project is run, I'm not sure what solutions I can bring to the table. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 02:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If changing editing habits is too difficult, then why don't we just start with the page design? It would at least help with organization, I think. I personally think the project's page design could do with some major improvements. Dustin (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul Julian stub awaiting approval[edit]

Paul Julian, of the Madden-Julian oscillation, formerly of the NCAR, has never had a biosketch here, and I salvaged one from deletion so that a stub could go up (original author, who knows). If there is anyone here involved in reviewing articles awaiting approval, please take a look at it, here [2], and/or refer it to someone else who can approve. Sooner it is in main article space, sooner AMS members, your WikiProject members, etc. can come forward with further biographical material and strengthen the article, Madden can be next. Cheers. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 13:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I don't understand if you are only asking for reviewers or if you also are hoping that people will make contributions. If the former holds true, then I will not be able to aid because I am not a reviewer. Dustin (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, this was undoubtedly an accident, but you were not signed in when you made the above edit, so your IP address is shown instead. Whenever I do that, I often try to replace it with my correct signature. That's not really a major issue, though. Dustin (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the attention Dustin; both are desired, someone to approve, and others to contribute (but probably in that order). I will, as soon as it is in the main article space, but up some further resources for editors. Again, feel free to refer... For now, just waiting. Cheers. Le Prof
@Leprof 7272: Okay, I don't know if you already submitted the article, but it looks at least good enough to be submitted to AfC, although I wouldn't consider it completed. In any case, I guess I might be able to help with references after the article is created; I am not an expert on biographical articles, but since you requested, I think I may be able to help in at least some small way. Dustin (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Haze meter[edit]

FYI, there's a notice at WT:PHYSICS about Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Haze meter -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft at AFC needs your help[edit]

Please evaluate Draft:Convective Boundary Layer for acceptance into mainspace. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Great flood of 1913 in Indiana[edit]

There are several notes in the article that Fort Wayne was flooded by the Ohio River and its tributaries. That can't be, as Fort Wayne is only at a tip of one small creek reaching to the southwest edge of the city. Most of the water in Fort Wayne drains to the northeast on the Maumee River.99.127.86.146 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. At a quick glance, the given source does seem to say that Fort Wayne was flooded by waterways in the Ohio drainage basin, though I'm not familiar with the hydrology of that area. By all means, please feel free to edit the relevant article to correct any inaccuracies (so long as your changes are supported by reliable sources, per the standard disclaimer). It does seem peculiar that Fort Wayne appears to be chiefly within the Maumee River Watershed, but again... not my area of expertise. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet for Wikiproject Meteorology at Wikimania 2014 (updated version)[edit]

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The aftermath of the ENSO to El Niño article move[edit]

Last year, the ENSO article was moved to El Niño, the most discussed half of ENSO. This allowed for most of the La Niña information to be shed this morning, which was added to the La Niña article. This now leaves room for an ENSO article to be resurrected, which can use summaries of the El Niño and La Niña articles, and greatly simplifies the editing process. Sometimes, wikipedia works. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm interesting work, one question would ENSO cover the Neutral conditions?.Jason Rees (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I have a line in there for the definition of neutral. Otherwise, neutral would be climo.  :P Thegreatdr (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

atmospheric phenomena[edit]

FYI, See WT:PHYSICS, where several atmospheric phenomena articles are being discussed -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Particulates[edit]

The uses of Particulate, Particulates, Particulate matter is under discussion, see talk:Particulates -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge of High-pressure area into Anticyclone[edit]

Hi,

I am proposing to merge High-pressure area into Anticyclone, the same thing. Please feel free to enter the discussion.

Pierre cb (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)