This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change 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.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America 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.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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.
I saw on the NCEI billion dollar page that there was $8.9 billion due to heat waves. It credits it to the whole year but only mentions 229 deaths, the same as here. So should we cite this damage total? 108.170.65.170 (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NOAA treats it as a single event, and since this heatwave was the one that essentially caused the vast majority of the damages, the figure can and should be used for the heatwave. I've gone ahead and added the damage estimate. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good article nomination (?)
Discussion started bc of GA nominated by sockpuppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Uh, this should be a GA nominee. To most wiki projects, right now what it looks like is our WikiProject is spending more time arguing about colors then it is about getting articles to GA status. The article was nominated because it is nearly at GA level, and our WikiProject doesn’t have a lot of GA nominations. For our WikiProject to gain more respect, it needs to get more GAs. And if the colors are preventing TC articles from being GA, why not nominate an article that is about as far away from a TC as one can get? The nomination should be reinstated. 98.113.8.17 (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous unsourced statements and maintenance tags that suggest this article hasn't been updated throughout. In regards to the colors, how about the fact that most of the major writers are either in full-time jobs or college/part-time job at this point? Most are probably so drained that they don't want to write much else, if anything, that's academic-related. NoahTalk14:26, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what you said, there are zero maintaince tags, nor citation needed tags. (And one cn tag shouldn’t hold up a GA nomination either.) also, academic literature is a requirement for FA - not GA. If our WikiProject does not know how to get articles to GA, we will receive even more flak than forgetting to update our colors (which it appears has been going on 14 months, two reverted colors, one ArbCom case, two users indefinitely banned from weather articles…etc). If it’s really this hard to update colors, and you haven’t considered WP:DRN at this point…idk what to tell you. But we have an open GA oppertunity. The GA reviewer should get to decide the issues, not someone who heavily wrote up the article. As such the GA tag should be reinstated. 98.113.8.17 (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually going to address the concerns raised during the review? I don't want an editor to waste time completing a review if the nomination is just going to be abandoned. ---Another Believer(Talk)14:47, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is moot, as the GAN process no longer allows nominators who are not significant contributors to nominate articles. I have therefore removed the nomination. Even before the most recent change, a non-significant-contributor nominator was required to consult with those who were on the article talk page, and that wasn't done here—and the consensus is clearly that the article isn't ready, so the nomination should not have proceeded anyway. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a little difficult when the article is about as filled as it can be, and the contributors are WP:SQSing in regards to the nomination. Not to mention WP:OWN.98.116.45.220 (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Starting Larger Edits for Concision
Glanced at this article again and noticed it has an "excessive citations" flag, which seems appropriate since we're over 300. It looks like people have mostly added minor amounts of new info, without checking if it's overlapping with old citations. I started to clean things up but I didn't want to make extensive edits suddenly and unilaterally.
My plan is to begin by removing the long lists of citations after certain statements that definitely don't need them, probably starting in the heat records section.Louisvaught (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just finished the edits to get rid of the excessive citations. The article could probably use further editing, if someone can find singular citations for a lot of these lists of fatalities/heat records that would remove potentially dozens of almost-overlapping sources.
In addition, it seems to me like the article has many lists of things - such as local heat records - that are incomplete lists and don't add substantial info to the article, but require many citations. I'm of the feeling they could probably be removed, but I've already done pretty bold edits to this page so I left off at this point. Louisvaught (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
