Talk:Mammatus cloud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mammatus cloud article.
Article policies
WikiProject Meteorology
 This article related to meteorology and/or specific weather events is part of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.

[edit] name

I'm guessing the name Mammatus is an allusion to "mammary"? If so, the article should say so (hopefully in a circumspect manner) :) -- Finlay McWalter 13:08, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've heard that that is where the name comes from, but I don't have a source for it. --CallmeNiel 01:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Me say, latin for udder, but I don't have a source for it. 91.153.58.207 09:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] changes to page

Vandalism at beginning of article:
"cumulonimbus clouds look like:pie,pie,pie,pie,pie,pie,pie,pie pie"
Went to edit this out of the article, but can't figure out where text is in the source as to delete it. Me confused.
- KM, 5/11/08, 3:21am EST


Hi,

Made some changes based on Schultz et al 2006:

  • took out colors that mammatus can take b/c that is highly dependent upon time of day, cloud type, surrounding weather, etc
  • quantified time scales rather than saying "minutes to hours"
  • took out "mammatus can only occur where cumulonumbus are present," because the most current definitions of mammatus suggest that this is not the case (Schultz et al 2006)
  • took ou the environmental conditions that were listed b/c I mention them in the "formation mechanisms" section
  • took out "an updraft then must occur, which shapes the mammatus into the pouch-like shape" b/c this is missing a lot of steps, which i explain in the formation section
  • took out the bit on storms producing the shear, b/c they often form in highly sheared environments anyway, and the main threat would be strong up/downdrafts.

--Leigh Jones University of Utah 19:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violation notice

added by 71.205.124.89 [1] {{copyvio|url=http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/cldtyp/oth/mm.rxml}}, [[User:82.73.104.72|82.73.104.72]] 08:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Copyvio notices are supposed to interfere with the reading of an article. In fact, you're supposed to take out the copyvio text and replace it with the notice. Moving them to the talk page only makes things more difficult for the cleanup.
2) I have removed the text that was inserted in violation of copyright by reverting back the article to a clean version. Sorry about the lost edits from other people, but that's how we've got to do it. Do not re-add the text. --Alvestrand 20:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If you know what parts are copy vio, just go delete them. Do not undo tons of good faith work throughout the rest of the article. Debivort 21:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason why the rules say "rollback" when you encounter a copyright violation is, I believe, because the other edits may have been influenced by the presence of the copyrighted material (such as by moving text blocks around). As administrator/copyvio patroller, I have no knowledge of the actual subject matter of the article, so can't decide whether or not this has happened. Please start from the clean copy and incorporate those changes that are needed.
The alternate procedure, which some admins do, is to delete all versions from the history in which the copyvio material was present. This also destroys intermediate edits, but without the possibility for other users to recover them. I chose not to do this.
I've re-reverted to the clean version for now. Please do an update, not a re-incorporation. The copyvio is pretty easy to spot. --Alvestrand 06:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
If the copyvio material is easy to spot, why not remove just it specifically? New material "influenced" by copyrighted material is not subject to the same copyright so that shouldn't be a problem. Debivort 06:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)