View source for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

{{talk header|wp=yes|sc1=WT:WEATHER|sc2=WT:WPWX}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|
{{WikiProject Weather}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo                = old(30d)
| archive             = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive %(counter)d
| counter             = 5
| maxarchivesize      = 150K
| archiveheader       = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft      = 4
}}
{{Page views}}

==2024–25 WikiProject Weather Good Article Reassessment ==
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 15:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1769181847}}
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]]. [[User:Hurricane Noah|<b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah</b>]], [[Associate of Arts|AA]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Noah|<b style="color:#ff0000">Talk</b>]]</sup> 15:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

;Articles under review
*[[1949 Texas hurricane]] ([[Talk:1949_Texas_hurricane#2024–25_Good_Article_Reassessment|review]])
*[[Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado]] ('''[[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado/1|GAR]]''')
*[[Wind shear]] ('''[[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wind shear/1|GAR]]''')

== Excessive Rainfall Outlooks ==

Per @[[User:ChessEric|ChessEric]]’s reply on the [[Talk: List of Storm Prediction Center high risk days#Excessive rainfall outlooks?|List of SPC high risk days]] talk page. I would like to propose creating a list of WPC high risk excessive rainfall days. We don’t get that many of them and they weren’t introduced but maybe a decade ago. [[User:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Green;">'''Hurricane Clyde''' 🌀</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Blue;">''my talk page!''</span>]]</sup> 13:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

:Has this particular thread been abandoned? Because no one has replied to my excessive rainfall outlook question. [[User:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Green;">'''Hurricane Clyde''' 🌀</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Blue;">''my talk page!''</span>]]</sup> 04:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

== New tornado articles and the news ==

I was wondering if it's a good idea to change the project's ideas for notability for new tornado articles that are considered newsworthy. The example I'm immediately going to point to is the [[2024 Greenfield tornado]], which took until 8 July 2024 to exist in mainspace. [[Special:Diff/1226480147|SirMemeGod nominated a previous mainspace article for deletion on 30 May]]: <q>This article was created way too prematurely. See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur tornado]] for a good example of this “too soon” policy.</q>

[[WP:TOOSOON]] is an argument I see all too often when it comes to articles on recent individual tornadoes and I'm getting a little sick of it, especially here. The tornado had already killed 5 and was in the news cycle for its DOW-measured windspeeds of {{cvt|263-271|mph|km/h}}, not the devastation to Greenfield. If BEST (the FARM research project that put the DOW fleet in Iowa that day) wasn't happening in 2024, it wouldn't have an article, but since it was, we had factual evidence that it was much more powerful than its assigned rating. [[WP:RUSHDELETE|Don't rush to delete articles]] is part of WP:DEADLINE, which also applies, as everyone knew that it would get news coverage for its DOW measurements eventually, and sure enough, by 24 June 2024, the DOW team calculated the figure of {{cvt|309-318|mph|km/h}} inside the tornado.

Although Greenfield wasn't as sensationalized as I would have expected, it also did have significant news coverage after it happened. This leads me to my point. If, say, an EF5 tornado moves through a city, and DOW catches 320mph+ wind measurements / calculations / whatever, under the current guidelines, the article is likely to be deleted until well after it occurred. My proposal is to institute a specific set of in-project guidelines for notability so that way a repeat of this situation doesn't occur.

From my understanding, the articles for [[2013 El Reno tornado]] and [[2021 Western Kentucky tornado]] are the best examples of tornadoes that were obviously notable enough for an article. They had a concrete death toll, record-breaking qualities, and were significant in the weather community. [[2023 Rolling Fork-Silver City tornado]] and [[2021 Tri-State tornado]] were both created well after they occurred. If a tornado is in the news cycle, just the one tornado, and it has record-breaking qualities or a high death toll or something else about it, like Greenfield did, then it shouldn't wait to get an article, after the significance is established. 

I propose the following guidelines for establishing the notability for articles on recent (i.e. less than 1 month since they occurred) tornadoes to avoid the old WP:TOOSOON deletion arguments and all that. Note that not all of these criteria must be met.

* 1. The tornado causes over 20 deaths. (i.e. [[2021 Western Kentucky tornado]])
* 2. The tornado impacts a smaller-scale location, where significant devastation occurs. (none have happened recently, but think the [[Indiana State Fair stage collapse]] of 2011 if the tornado was confirmed, or the [[1967 Belvidere tornado]] which caused 300 injuries at a school. If the only notable impact is at the location, then the article should be about the impact there, not the tornado itself.)
* 3. The tornado causes a significant amount of damage or devastation in a city of over 25,000. (i.e. [[2011 Joplin tornado]]. The population figure is arbitrary, as is the amount of damage, but Joplin would still have been worthy of its own article before surveys were complete and before the death toll was calculated.)
* 4. The tornado sets a record for path length, path width, or another objective indicator. (i.e. [[2013 El Reno tornado]])
* 5. The tornado has a measured or calculated wind speed of over {{cvt|300|mph|km/h}}. (i.e. [[2024 Greenfield tornado]])
* 6. The tornado is rated EF5, IF5, F5, or equivalent. (i.e. [[2013 Moore tornado]])
* 7. The tornado receives significant news coverage from non-weather and international sources. (i.e. [[2021 South Moravia tornado]]. This is a catch-all clause that can save any tornado article as it is the clearest example of setting notability. However, the articles must be on the individual tornado, not on the parent outbreak.)

Some other notes:

* Any records must be confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt to have been surpassed. Wind speed measurements or calculations should be '''confirmed''' by the agency that produced them, and any calculated figures must be calculated by an expert and not synthesized by Wikipedia editors. ([[WP:SYNTH]])
* The tornado does not need to have a final NCEI event database entry to have its own article.
* Tornadoes rated EF5 or equivalent '''must''' be confirmed by the relevant agency that rates them.

Tornadoes that meet any of these criteria will be spared from [[WP:TOOSOON]] deletions, as they will have clearly shown their notability already. This is assuming, of course, that everything is confirmed by independent coverage; if it is only assumed that the criteria are met, then a TOOSOON AfD can go through.

Some examples of tornadoes that don't quite meet these criteria:

* 1. [[2023 Rolling Fork-Silver City tornado]]. It only caused 17 deaths as a high-end EF4 tornado.
* 2. [[Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023#Belvidere, Illinois]]. I'm referring to the EF1 tornado that caused the collapse at the [[Apollo Theatre (Belvidere, Illinois)|Apollo Theatre in Belvidere, Illinois]] that killed one. It falls short of the objective devastation I propose, and doesn't even have its own section.
* 3. [[2023 Little Rock tornado]]. Yes, over 600 injuries were reported in a major city of 200,000, however that number fell steeply to 54, with only one indirect fatality occurring.
* 4. [[Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021|2021 Quad–State tornado]]. If we listened to the initial reports of what would be the Tri-state and Western Kentucky tornadoes, this would have had a path length of 230 miles. While perhaps the Western Kentucky part did set a record, it wasn't the figure of 230 that would have easily beaten the [[1925 Tri–State tornado]].
* 5. [[Tornado outbreak of April 25–28, 2024#Minden–Tennant–Harlan–Defiance, Iowa|2024 Harlan, Iowa tornado]]. Before Greenfield, this was a big news story in the weather community with wind speeds of {{cvt|224|mph|km/h}} calculated at ground level. That's IF4 on the [[International Fujita Scale]] and not quite newsworthy in this context.
* 6. [[Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023#Keota–Wellman, Iowa|2023 Keota, Iowa tornado]]. This had an EF5 DI on the preliminary Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT) that Wikipedia editors use so often that was confirmed to have been an error. It was, however, confirmed to have done exactly one point of low-end EF4 damage, which does technically make it violent per the EF scale.
* 7. [[2024 Hollister tornado]]. It was the subject of much local coverage that stated it was "the most powerful tornado of all time" but of course it only did EF1 damage and all we had to go off of was radar. Its parent outbreak doesn't have its own article, and when Trey Greenwood did an analysis he found that it was not the most powerful tornado of all time and indeed probably wouldn't even have been a violent one.

I know this is a lot of text, but these guidelines will help us if an individual tornado gets nominated for ITN (most likely, I'd be the one to put it there), or if it gets enough news coverage that readers would go out of their way to find an article on it specifically, independent of its parent outbreak. Let me know what you think of this proposal. [[User:GeorgeMemulous|GeorgeMemulous]] ([[User talk:GeorgeMemulous|talk]]) 13:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

:Pinging a few editors that I'd guess would be interested in this sort of thing: @[[User:ChessEric|ChessEric]] @[[User:Sir MemeGod|Sir MemeGod]] @[[User:Hurricane Clyde|Hurricane Clyde]] @[[User:Tails Wx|Tails Wx]] @[[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] @[[User:WeatherWriter|WeatherWriter]] @[[User:Алексеев Н.|Алексеев Н.]] @[[User:Hoguert|Hoguert]] @[[User:Hurricane Noah|Hurricane Noah]]
:Summary: I've written a proposal above concerning WP:TOOSOON nominations in WPW space. If agreed to, tornadoes meeting any of the 7 criteria outlined above will be exempt from TOOSOON nominations. However, they still must have reliable sources proving they meet the exemption and can be deleted for other reasons; this is merely a way to have articles about new tornadoes that have a high-impact or newsworthiness, such that they can appear on ITN or elsewhere, where traffic to the individual tornado's article warrants it to be independent of its parent outbreak. This does not affect any existing articles, but will affect any future tornado articles about tornadoes that are created under one month after they occur. [[User:GeorgeMemulous|GeorgeMemulous]] ([[User talk:GeorgeMemulous|talk]]) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::I agree to all the suggestions except 4 and 5. Also, I think the Little Rock tornado could have its own article. The [[2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado]] article is not needed though. [[User:ChessEric|<span style="font-weight: bold; background-color: #177245; color: #ffffff;">'''Chess'''</span>]][[User talk:ChessEric|<span style="color: #177245">'''Eric'''</span>]] 03:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
:'''Comment:''' I will formally have a vote later tonight, but I will note that a certain set of articles can't be "exempt" from a rule (with extremely rare cases obviously). TOOSOON is 100% a relevant policy, and a WikiProject can't overrule that. I'm even going to be bold and say that the Greenfield tornado doesn't meet [[WP:LASTING|LASTING]], but that's just my opinion and I won't start a second AfD because I'm not dead-set on deleting a well-written article.  Anyways, that's aside from the point. :)  [[User:Sir MemeGod|<span style="background:#222;color:gold;border:3px solid gold;padding:1px;">Sir</span>]][[User talk:Sir MemeGod|<span style="background:gold;color:#000;border:2px solid #000;padding:2px;">MemeGod</span>]]<small></small>  19:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::Also courtesy ping {{ping|United States Man}} and {{ping|TornadoInformation12}}, since I know they'd be interested.  [[User:Sir MemeGod|<span style="background:#222;color:gold;border:3px solid gold;padding:1px;">Sir</span>]][[User talk:Sir MemeGod|<span style="background:gold;color:#000;border:2px solid #000;padding:2px;">MemeGod</span>]]<small></small>  19:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::'''Comment''' This isn't meant to override TOOSOON, rather to better define it within the project space. As it is, one of the main reasons the Greenfield tornado was voted to be deleted was it didn't have an NCEI entry, even though it had plenty of news coverage establishing notability. This proposal is meant to counter that.
::Also, LASTING isn't a formal reason to delete I'd think. Moreso, a reason to keep articles that cause events beyond them to happen. [[User:GeorgeMemulous|GeorgeMemulous]] ([[User talk:GeorgeMemulous|talk]]) 19:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::LASTING is under [[WP:NEVENT]], a formally-designated policy that can either be used as creation or deletions. I had just said that to add, it wasn't really anything of note (also don't worry, I won't target the Greenfield or Elkhorn articles). :)  [[User:Sir MemeGod|<span style="background:#222;color:gold;border:3px solid gold;padding:1px;">Sir</span>]][[User talk:Sir MemeGod|<span style="background:gold;color:#000;border:2px solid #000;padding:2px;">MemeGod</span>]]<small></small>  19:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I would actually '''support''' having an exemption to [[WP:TOOSOON]] for high impact tornadoes. Especially ones that would be candidates for ITN. 
::::But I also think tornado outbreak articles (only for outbreaks that have already happened) should have some clarification as to when TOOSOON applies (although maybe not an outright exemption). [[User:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Green;">'''Hurricane Clyde''' 🌀</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Blue;">''my talk page!''</span>]]</sup> 21:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::But I’d like to also add to the above and courtesy ping @[[User:Hurricanehink|Hurricanehink]] and @[[User:Ks0stm|Ks0stm]] as well; since they participate in weather-related projects. [[User:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Green;">'''Hurricane Clyde''' 🌀</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Blue;">''my talk page!''</span>]]</sup> 21:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Yea this all makes sense on an individual basis. ♫ [[User:Hurricanehink|Hurricanehink]] (<small>[[User_talk:Hurricanehink|talk]]</small>)  03:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
*'''Support''', I'm also getting sick of TOOSOON used as an argument as well regarding tornado and weather event-related articles in general. Guidelines above are well-said and I don't see a problem with them at all along with the examples noted above. ~ [[User:Tails Wx|<span style="background:#FFDF00;color:#0000FF">'''Tails'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tails Wx|<span style="color: orange">'''Wx'''</span>]] 20:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to attach a table of tornadoes and their notability by this proposal, as well as general notability as gauged by my opinions and those of other editors.

{| class="wikitable" 
|+ Tornadoes since 2013 (updated 5 October 2024)
|- 
! Tornado 
! 20+ Fatalities 
! Localized devastation 
! Widespread devastation 
! Objective record 
! 300 mph recorded 
! F5 / equivalent 
! Significant coverage 
! General notability
! Has an article
|- 
|[[2011 Joplin tornado]] 
|{{Yes}} 
|{{no}} 
|{{yes}} 
|{{yes}} 
|{{no}} 
|{{yes}} 
|{{yes}} 
|{{yes}}
|{{yes}}
|- 
|[[2013 Moore tornado]] 
|{{yes}} 
|{{no}} 
|{{yes}} 
|{{no}} 
|{{no}} 
|{{yes}} 
|{{yes}} 
|{{yes}} 
|{{yes}} 
|- 
|[[2013 El Reno tornado]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|{{yes}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{yes}}
|{{yes}} 
|{{yes}} 
|-
|[[2013 Washington, Illinois tornado]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{yes}} 
|{{yes}} 
|-
|[[2020 Nashville tornado]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{yes}} 
|{{no}} 
|-
|[[2021 Western Kentucky tornado]]
|{{yes}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|{{yes}} 
|{{yes}} 
|-
|[[2021 Tri-State tornado]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}} 
|{{yes}} 
|-
|[[2023 Little Rock tornado]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{maybe}} 
|{{no}} 
|-
|[[2023 Keota, Iowa tornado]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}} 
|{{no}} 
|-
|[[2024 Sulphur tornado]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-
|[[2024 Hollister, Oklahoma tornado]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|-
|[[2024 Elkhorn–Blair tornado]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{yes}}
|-
|[[2024 Greenfield tornado]]
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{no}}
|{{yes}}
|{{no}}
|{{maybe}}
|{{yes}}
|{{yes}}
|} 
{{clear}}
These are my view on these tornadoes, if you have a counterpoint to any of these entries feel free to reply. [[User:GeorgeMemulous|GeorgeMemulous]] ([[User talk:GeorgeMemulous|talk]]) 14:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

== [[Draft:List of US tornado records by state]] ==

I promise this isn't [[WP:LISTCRUFT]] as specific as it might sound, but I've started work on a list of tornado records based on the states in which they occurred. Feel free to contribute. [[User:GeorgeMemulous|GeorgeMemulous]] ([[User talk:GeorgeMemulous|talk]]) 00:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:That really seems like listcruft. For example when I worked on [[List of California tornadoes]], I had a lot of difficulty finding out the costliest tornado in the state. It seems like a random one in 2015, but I wasn't able to find proper sources for that. I mention that because I don't see any sourcing in the list, and that's probably going to be difficult going state by state. I do think there is a need for tornadoes by state, like [[List of Arkansas tornadoes]], more than having a records list. ♫ [[User:Hurricanehink|Hurricanehink]] (<small>[[User_talk:Hurricanehink|talk]]</small>)  15:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
::This is mostly so tornadoes that have [[WP:NWEATHER]]'s statewide record get a place, and plus, everything will be verifiable in time. I'm mostly waiting for the NCEI database to come back online. The only part of [[WP:LISTCRUFT]] this might break is the first, that being obscurity, but even then I'm sure there are way more lists that get a pass (cough cough <q>Category:Lists of National Register of Historic Places by county</q> for every single county in the USA, most averaging under one view per day, cough cough). [[User:GeorgeMemulous|GeorgeMemulous]] ([[User talk:GeorgeMemulous|talk]]) 15:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I agree we should have those records, but it's going to be difficult doing every state without having lists for every state. I think you're kind of doing it backwards. If that list was just something like [[List of US tornadoes by state]], I could get behind it. Such a page would have the individual lists for each state, and then could also have a table like this, which would be a useful comparison for, say, the deadliest in each state, or costliest, or strongest, or largest. But just having it as a page on its own seems a bit too specific IMO. ♫ [[User:Hurricanehink|Hurricanehink]] (<small>[[User_talk:Hurricanehink|talk]]</small>)  16:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I understand your position. Perhaps it isn't going to be its own standalone page in mainspace, but I'll keep it in draftspace until the aforementioned list gets created. [[User:GeorgeMemulous|GeorgeMemulous]] ([[User talk:GeorgeMemulous|talk]]) 18:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::I have to agree on @[[User:Hurricanehink|Hurricanehink]] on that. Although in lieu of making separate records articles. You could always put any known state tornado records in the state tornado article. [[User:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Green;">'''Hurricane Clyde''' 🌀</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Hurricane Clyde|<span style="color: Blue;">''my talk page!''</span>]]</sup> 04:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

== Copyright of content from National Weather Service ==

Per the discussion at [[Commons:Requests for comment/Third-party images published by the National Weather Service]], many files from the National Weather Service have been determined to have potential copyright issues. In particular, only ''some'' files submitted to the National Weather Service have actually been released into public domain. This means a lot of other files are at the risk of deletion from Commons; some may need to be transferred to Wikipedia for fair use.

@[[user:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] has put together a [[Commons:Commons:WikiProject Public Domain/PD-NWS review/File review statuses|list]] of all known Commons files obtained from the National Weather Service. The author and provenance of some of those files have yet to be determined. If anyone here knows more about those files, then please share what you have. We appreciate any assistance! [[User:Ixfd64|Ixfd64]] ([[User talk:Ixfd64|talk]]) 00:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

:Thanks @[[User:Ixfd64|Ixfd64]] -- slight correction -- that list isn't ''all'' known Commons files obtained from the NWS (that would be a list of over 12,000 files!) Rather, it's a list of all known Commons files obtained from the NWS whose copyright status is currently under question. 
:''Most'' of these are on the Commons via a purely innocent mistake of thinking that their publication on an NWS website meant that they had necessarily been released into the public domain. A very small number are blatant copyvios, and the copyright status of others is ambiguous for a range of reasons. (And Commons policy defaults to delete unless their free status can be demonstrated beyond significant doubt, via evidence) --[[User:Rlandmann|Rlandmann]] ([[User talk:Rlandmann|talk]]) 12:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

== Requested move at [[Talk:Tropical Storm Conson (2021)#Requested move 8 September 2024]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px|left]] There is a requested move discussion at [[Talk:Tropical Storm Conson (2021)#Requested move 8 September 2024]] that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. [[User:Asilvering|asilvering]] ([[User talk:Asilvering|talk]]) 00:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

== Requesting help with imagery for [[2024 British Columbia floods]] ==

Hello all,

I am working on [[2024 British Columbia floods]]. I am hoping someone can help me by getting satellite imagery into Commons that I can use in the article. I have no experience uploading public domain images myself. I am especially interested in GeoColor imagery showing the extent of the atmospheric river during the day on October 19.

I have created the Commons category [https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3A2024_British_Columbia_floods&redlink=1# 2024 British Columbia floods] for this event. I will make a similar request for pictures in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia]].

Thank you. <span style="color:#006400">'''[[User:DJ Cane|DJ Cane]]''' <sub>''(he/him)''</sub></span> ([[User talk:DJ Cane|Talk]]) 00:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

== Proposal: Segmented meteorological synopsis / impacts ==

On large articles covering multiple days of weather, such as [[Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024]] and [[Severe weather sequence of July 13–16, 2024]], the 'meteorological synposis' is a section of the article that covers nearly everything in the articles (aside from non-tornadic effects and individual tornadoes) and has far exceeded its role as an explanation of a meteorological setup in most articles of this type. A fictional example below:

{{blockquote|'''Meteorological Synopsis'''}}
{{blockquote|'''May 7 event'''}}
{{blockquote|On May 7, an upper level trough brought high instability values to Oklahoma. Soundings indicated the presence of elevated CAPE and helicity values that would be supportive of severe weather. At 3 pm, the first line of supercells began and a tornado watch was issued. This line progressed eastward and continued organizing, and at 5:12 pm, a tornado warning was issued for Oklahoma city. An intense EF3 tornado moved through the outskirts of the city, injuring 4 and causing significant damage. Further north, severe hail over 3 inches was recorded.}}
{{blockquote|'''May 8 event'''}}
{{blockquote|On May 8, as the system moved eastward into Arkansas, etc.}}

Notice how the first section of it goes into the meteorological setup, the second segment details the evolution of storms, and the third is the impacts that almost never go into the Impacts section due to the way everything's organized. That's why I propose to segment articles not into broad Meteorological synopsis / Impact groups, but rather by day.
For instance, the above fictional article would have a table of contents that reads like:
* Meteorological Synopsis
** May 7 event
** May 8 event
** May 9 event
* Confirmed tornadoes
** Oklahoma City
* Impact
* Non-tornadic effects

Whereas, for my proposal, the article would be organized as:
* May 7
** Meteorological synopsis
** Impacts
*** Oklahoma City
* May 8
** Meteorological synopsis
** Impacts
** Confirmed tornadoes
** Non-tornadic effects
* May 9
** Meteorological synopsis
** Impacts

This will make the article much more cohesive instead of having to jump across the article to find events that happened on the same day but aren't the same type. [[User:GeorgeMemulous|GeorgeMemulous]] ([[User talk:GeorgeMemulous|talk]]) 15:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:I'm test-running this proposal at [[Draft:Tornado outbreak of November 2–3, 2024]]. Let me know what you think. [[User:Departure–|Departure–]] ([[User talk:Departure–|talk]]) 22:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[Climate of New York City]] ==

Make sure you watchlist the article, because barring some unforeseen occurrence, the .01” of rain in NYC will mark the driest month and October on record at that site and the article will need to be updated. [[Special:Contributions/107.122.189.83|107.122.189.83]] ([[User talk:107.122.189.83|talk]]) 23:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

== Good article reassessment for [[High-pressure area]] ==
[[High-pressure area]] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the [[Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/High-pressure area/1|reassessment page]]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 13:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

== [[2024 Northeast United States drought]] ==

Should that article be created? The drought is nearing historic levels. Pinging {{u|Hurricanehink}}, a resident of a drought infected area. [[Special:Contributions/71.246.109.203|71.246.109.203]] ([[User talk:71.246.109.203|talk]]) 21:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)