Wikipedia - current storms, older ones, and WikiWeather

[Hurricanehink]

On this crazy day as we get into the heart of another wild hurricane season, I wanted to do a semi-regular post, advertising and giving a bit of a background report to Wikipedia's weather articles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Beryl_(2024)

First off, yes, of course there's an article for Beryl. One quick thing you might notice (or not). Due to a discussion, there will not be the current storm section, which also means that the article won't have to be updated every advisory. That's what the NHC is for, or in the other basins, the other respective warning centers.

In case you're curious about other activities, then you might be interested to know that there is now a WikiProject for all weather articles, with various sub-projects for the different weather types. There is an ongoing push to have lists for every area around the world. Some of the newer ones include:
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclones_in_Indonesia
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wisconsin_hurricanes

Similarly, there are lists for tornadoes in various places, including these lists created over the last year:
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australia_tornadoes
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Zealand_tornadoes
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Alabama_tornadoes
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_tornadoes
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Texas_tornadoes

Not every list is of the highest quality, however. But on that note, there is a new featured list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_tornadoes

I have been a Wikipedia administrator for over 15 years now, and I've worked with lots of different users, so if anyone here is interested contributing to Wikipedia, feel free to reach out to me, or you can ask here and I'll explain the process. For those who use Wikipedia, the 2024 AHS article has been edited by 153 people, the typhoon season by 28 different people, and the North Indian cyclone season by 8 different people. It's a large group of editors, but it's not infinite, and some of that work is just undoing vandalism. There's also a lot of work to be done on older and existing articles. For reference, there are 2,396 articles involving storms or seasons, which is the about half of the tropical cyclone articles on Wikipedia.

So with that, does anyone have any questions about how Wikipedia deals with tropical cyclones? And if anyone is interested, you just have to create a Wikipedia user name, then add yourself to the member list here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tropical_cyclones/Members

[Old-TimeCane]

Just added myself to the list (KGCaller). Not sure yet what I can or will do to help out, but definitely interested in doing so.

[Xyls]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wisconsin_hurricanes

I nominate this to be the most random list on Wikipedia.

[Hurricanehink]

As an update to the Wikipedia discussion, I thought I'd talk about a Wikipedian's perspective on the recent "WTF kind of storm is happening" that we all got to witness unfold over the last few weeks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Beryl

In case you haven't read the article yet, there is a very detailed article on Beryl, which I published with the article title "Hurricane Beryl (2024)". It was June 30th, and it was already a major hurricane. My involvement was minimal compared to the 260 other people who contributed to the article, updating it as information unfolded across so many different areas. One of the first discussions involved the article title. Upon publishing the draft, I wasn't convinced that Beryl was more notable than the Hurricane Beryl in 2018, even though the potential was surely there as long as the storm didn't fall apart. By July 1st, when it struck St. Vincent as a Category 4 hurricane, Beryl's notability was already well-established enough that a discussion began to move Beryl to the main article title. It might sound minor to some of you, but when searching for an article, it is important to balance a recentism bias with objective notability. By July 3rd, there was a consensus to move the article title, so strong that the user closing the discussion remarked -

The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:SNOW and reasonable arguments why speedy closure is warranted.

The policy of WP:SNOW is - "If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process."

Through the collective efforts of hundreds of writers, Beryl's article was updated day by day as its impacts hopped across the Caribbean. It was already a well-developed article, with a length of 2,900 words by the time Beryl made landfall. As most of you already know by know, the storm resulted in a prolific tornado outbreak, which already has its own article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Beryl_tornado_outbreak

In addition, the effects in Texas were so severe that some editors were bold and created an article specifically for Beryl's effects in Texas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_Hurricane_Beryl_in_Texas

I bring this all up to comment on the increasingly common occurrences of these once in a lifetime storms. As a longtime Wikipedian, I witnessed how many articles evolved for significant storms, only to see a lot of them end up far too short and with a general lack of citations. Surprisingly, to me, is that Beryl's article has citations for every statement in it. I have never seen that in a Wikipedia article, and I have a theory for why that might be the case.

There was one thing that was very different from Beryl, compared to other significant storms getting articles in real time. Due to a discussion with input from a variety of editors, there was a decision that Wikipedia articles wouldn't cover current information. Looking back on it, I think that was a fantastic idea, and perhaps it redirected that editor energy for a current event, which resulted in almost a competition of adding information, rather than the competition for being the first to update for an advisory. And with each advisory having watches/warnings, pressure, wind gusts, sustained winds, and projected track, there was a lot of information to update every advisory, only for it to be rewritten later on anyway, so why not cut out the middle man.

TL;DR, you should check out one of the best Wikipedia articles of a significant storm that just dissipated.

Edit: also, if you want to help, then be sure to donate, either your time and energy to Wikipedia and help add to the storm's aftermath. Or donate to a reputable charity, or even here to Storm2k, as a thanks for keeping this board active during major storms.

[tolakram]

I know this isn't you, I know there was a spirited discussion about colors, but cat 5 as purple just does not work for me.

[MEANINGLESS_NUMBERS]

I know this isn't you, I know there was a spirited discussion about colors, but cat 5 as purple just does not work for me.

https://i.imgur.com/CNFws3T.png

https://i.imgur.com/5WZdyDi.png

Wavelengths increase for TS-->1-->2-->3-->4 so that natural extension would be for Category 5 storms to be infrared.