Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
WikiProject Severe weather (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Severe weather, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of severe weather 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Palmsundaytwintornadoes.jpg This is the talk page of WikiProject Severe weather, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to severe weather, and a sub-project of WikiProject Meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss articles here.
Portal.svg Quick links:
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

References[edit]

This is going to be a two-part discussion concerning references for the project so that we can jump start some sort of consistency between both pages and editors moving forward. This will be primarily for the tornado pages. The first thing I want to talk about is the number of references. Right now, we're using 3 references for each individual tornado confirmed: a link to the SPC storm reports page, a link to the event page that local Weather Forecast Offices sometimes put out, and, when, they're available, the NCDC storm events. Per WP:CITEKILL, "While adding footnotes is helpful, adding too many can cause citation clutter, which can make articles look untidy in read mode, and unreadable in edit mode. If a page has extra citations that are either mirror pages or just parrot the other sources, they contribute nothing to its reliability while acting as a detriment to its readability." While a combination of the SPC reports page and WFO event page may be useful in the short term, I don't see the point in adding them one the NCDC storm events are published.

The second thing I want to talk about is just more for consistency purposes (and my OCD) more than anything else, and that's how to cite the NCDC storm events pages. We've all been doing them a different way. Some cite the local WFO as the |author=, the NCDC as the |work=, and the NOAA as the |publisher=; I don't use the |author= field and simply put NOAA as the |publisher= and the local WFO as the |work=. If any of you know someone who's an expert at citing, maybe that would be beneficial.

Thoughts? @Cyclonebiskit, @Sharkguy05, @United States Man, @TornadoLGS, @Dustin, @TheAustinMan, and anyone else who wants to contribute. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not an expert at citing, but I personally would cite the Storm Prediction Center, National Climatic Data Center, and Weather Forecast Offices as |work= and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as |publisher= since pretty much everything is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and is somewhere under noaa.gov. Dustin (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
(The following are my suggestions and not guidelines) When National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) storm event reports have not been published, cite a) an archived version of the local weather forecast office's preliminary local storm report page (instead of the Storm Prediction Center report page, since that abridges report details; see example) and if they provide any additional information or were not originally reported, b) the local weather forecast office's press release on the event; see example. Once the National Climate Data Center does release storm event reports, use solely the NCDC Storm Data publication; see directory. When citing final reports, |work =, to my knowledge, is deprecated. Use |publisher = United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center and |author = National Weather Service Weather Forecast Office [x],[y]. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 23:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I have inspected some of the primary citation templates, and the |work= parameter does not appear to be deprecated. I just thought I should throw that out there. What exactly the parameter's purpose is may vary depending on the citation template used, with the {{cite web}} template using it as an alias for the |website= parameter which is the name of the website, but I don't perfectly understand all of this. I am not sure that {{cite web}} is even the right template to be using for this in the first place. Dustin (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Using multiple sources for the same information has never really been an issue for me, especially since some citations can tend to get old & become "dead" (link rot) at some point in the future. The NCDC Storm Data is the official, U.S. federal govt. record for what has occured over a certain area & in a certain time-frame...so that would obviously supercede whatever a preliminary WFO or SPC report would say about a particular weather event.
FWIW, the "work" that's done collecting all of the info that ends up in Storm Data is, in fact, done at the NWS WFO-level. I'm pretty sure that NCDC just checks over that work for consistency and/or general quality-control issues before it issues Storm Data. SPC really only knows what's been reported to them by all of the individual WFOs in the USA. So, SPC really just serves as a short-term collection point for certain types of severe weather data. It's been quite a while since I've read an actual hard copy of Storm Data, so I'm not sure who NCDC puts down as the official publisher of that publication. True press releases from any organization really should be using the press release citation template on Wikipedia, but the "example" given above wouldn't fall under that category though...it's just a NWS webpage that was issued for public consumption. Guy1890 (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)