This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Photography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography 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.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Do sources exist to justify the inclusion of the skyscraper standing over the ruins of Waco, Texas from 1953? Courtesy link: 1953 Waco tornado Departure– (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick check, I would say no. A couple of sources use the photo (which originates from this NWS webpage), such as KFox95 and KEYJ. However, they use it illegally due to Wikipedia. Both of those RS source Wikimedia for the photo, but we discovered last year the photo was copyrighted. I have not found a source discussing the photo itself. Just sources (illegally) using the photograph, which they 100% copied from Wikipedia, when we used it illegally for years. Not a seemingly iconic photo in the eyes of RS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. If it were up to me to decide inclusion criteria, we'd include it alongside the remains of Mayfield, Timmer's footage of the Greenfield EF4 destroying wind turbines (which I might add if it gets more coverage for its one-year anniversary), and perhaps the F6-adjacent Pampa, Texas tornado. Departure– (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only actual criteria is the photo or video itself being the topic of media. Not just usage. High usage typically will create something specific about the photo/video itself. But if there is no RS discussing the photo/video itself, then it does not quality. Any of those you just mentioned may indeed qualify for the article, but you should have a source specifically about the photo/video, not just a source using it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's at least two so far about Reed Timmer's Greenfield drone, but for most of the others sources are about what they show. Except Pampa. I just don't have the physical material for that one. I know Grazulis was all over the videos about that one. Departure– (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these are just ripped from lists of "moments from YYYY we won't soon forget" etc style stories. Are these notable in of themselves? Is an image I haven't seen before or since really "notable" for appearing in that one story? The article doesn't say it is, it just says that the underlying story mattered in the context of the year. Departure– (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This list feels a little bit scattershot, as it both contains photos that are undoubtedly important to the field of meteorology, such as the first image of a hook echo, as well as photos that seem to only have a tangential relation to meteorology, such as the ai-generated image of Donald Trump wading through floodwaters.

I'd like to propose criteria for images to be added to this page (in addition to the usual notability criteria):

1. They directly depict meteorological events or their effects.
2. They are notable specifically for their contribution to meteorology or the broader understanding of the weather and its effects, as stated by RSes.

Additionally, keep in mind WP:10YEARTEST and what WP:LISTCRITERIA says: "Criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence...List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper." I.e., just because a photo has weather in it does not mean it is relevant for this article.

Pinging @departure- and @WeatherWriter as interested parties. 9yz (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with setting those criteria points for the page. For example, those criteria points would exclude Migrant Mother (notable enough for its own article), which has RS indicating it is one of the most iconic photos of the entire 20th century and how it is related to "extreme weather". The photo does not depict a meteorological event itself. For reference, this page is for photos where RS has discussed the photo itself. Most weather events are heavily photographed (ex: the entire lifetime of the 2013 Moore tornado is on video from numerous people and TV stations). But, certain weather photos become iconic themselves and are discussed by reliable sources themselves.

So, my "proposal for criteria", which is actually the criteria right now, is a secondary reliable source, discussing a weather-related photograph itself and not just the event in the photograph. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well then I suppose the question is which direction do we want to take this article? Because it could be framed in two different ways: "images notable because of how they relate to the science of meteorology" and "notable images that depict weather". It's my opinion that the former is a more interesting article and more in line with the title, but it could go both directions.

I agree that Migrant Mother should be included in the article, and that was my intent in including "effects" in my criteria. Perhaps we could change it to "...effects on humans and the environment" (or some variation thereof)? Because using the current criteria any notable image that depicts weather in any context should be included in this article. (Which would technically mean any photo that includes the sky or rain?) 9yz (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The thought was more along the lines of "notable images that depict weather", as you put it. Meteorology is the scientific field name for the study of the weather. The list was created as a meteorology version of List of photographs considered the most important, but more subject-specific, since meteorology is one of the few fields that is often widely photographed. Every tropical cyclone is viewed from space, approximately 90% of the world's yearly tornadoes are photographed (leading to the field of storm chasing) and the aftermath of nearly every weather event is always discussed by reliable sources. So, this list was more to show which photographs or videos are the notable of the millions of meteorological photographs every year. That is why the criteria, in my view, was set simply at a reliable source discussing the photograph/video itself, and not the weather event in the photograph/video.

Here is a good example: File:A tornado near Anadarko, Oklahoma, on May 3, 1999.jpg, a photograph used on 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak, is one of the most widely used photographs in history, with over 500 news articles using it, including The Smithsonian and even numerous agencies of the U.S. government (NASA, EPA, NSF. However, the photograph is never discussed itself.

Now, during that same tornado outbreak, same day even, Tammy Holmgren huddled with her two daughters under an overpass as a tornado approached (on the list currently) was taken. That photograph is actually directly discussed by news sources, for instance in this article titled, "The story behind a famous photo during a historic Oklahoma tornado outbreak". The photograph is not as widely used as the tornado photograph, but the photograph itself is considered famous, not just the tornado being photographed...or...in the case of the widely used photograph...the fact it is in the public domain as it was taken by a member of the U.S. government on official duty.

That was my intention with this list. To create a list of photos related to the topic of meteorology, which they themselves are recognized as being important, historic, iconic, ect..., not just the event being photographed. Hopefully that gives a better explanation as to why I believe the criteria should remain simply that RS discusses the photograph, and not just uses the photo. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another example would be the 2013 Moore tornado's widely used photograph (File:May 20, 2013 Moore, Oklahoma tornado.JPG; over 400 usages from reverse image searching), which is not on this list...but the famous award-winning photo from it's aftermath (Cobb family staggering out of Briarwood Elementary School; has a Wikipedia article) is on the list, since sources (like The Independent, discuss the photograph itself, not just the tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:43, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I understand more where you're coming from now. But if the page's scope is going to be broader than "images notable because of how they relate to the science of meteorology", we should consider changing the title to something a bit broader because "in the field of meteorology" implies that all the images have scientific value, which I don't think is the case. Just spitballing some ideas here:

• List of weather photographs (simplest)
• List of photographs of the weather (not inclusive enough)
• List of photographs of the weather and its effects (too complicated?)
• List of weather-related photographs
• List of important weather photographs

Love to hear your ideas for a title.

Even with broadened criteria, I still disagree that certain photos currently included should be. Namely, the photos of lighting behind Donald Trump and behind the Gaza Strip. This is because the weather isn't part of the story of the photograph. Note how the captions are always some variant of "lighting strikes behind..." but for other, more relevant photos, the captions are along the lines of "x happens because of y weather event". The weather needs to contribute to the story, not just the aesthetics of the photograph. Hope that makes sense. 9yz (talk) 00:33, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@9yz: The article has been renamed. Does this title work? Note, "meteorological" is more precise than "weather", since it also would capture forecasting-based notable media. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disagreement between editors regarding whether the original photograph of "Hurricane Shark" is a notable photograph and whether or not it should be included in this article. The editors in favor of its inclusion include myself and Wildfireupdateman (editor who added it to the article) and the editor in disagreement with its inclusion is 9yz, who described it as "not notable". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the image is notable, but not for the purposes of this article. The original image is notable because of how close the shark was to the researcher. It's not at all relevant to meteorology. As for the edited images, I'd argue they're not notable to meteorology specifically because they didn't really happen. The whole point is that they're fake, which removes any scientific value they may otherwise have. It'd be more relevant to a list article about notable fake images (which actually sounds like a great idea and I might write that).

Hurricane Shark does mention a real instance of a hurricane shark, which might be worth including in this article?

(I'll also quickly remind you of WP:NOTAVOTE re: editors in favor of adding) 9yz (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a disagreement between editors regarding whether or not a photograph by Doug Mills, showing a lightning strike behind United States President Donald Trump should be included or excluded from the article.

I am in favor of the photograph being included in the list of notable media for meteorology. The New York Times, CNN, NBC News, and The Atlantic selected the photo as one of the best photographs of 2020 and of Trump's first presidency.^[1][2][3][4] That is a lot of RS specifically discussing the photograph itself as an iconic photograph. Therefore, it should in included in the list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to write out a long thing here because I think we should resolve the Inclusion Criteria discussion first, but I'll just say that while many RSes say it is a notable image, it's not notable for its contributions to meteorology, therefore it should not be included.

Also, there's two images at question here: the NYT and CNN articles show a low-angle photo by Doug Mills, and the NBC and Atlantic articles show a eye-level photo taken by Saul Loeb. They appear to have been taken at the same time, however. 9yz (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]