Talk:Weather Machine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Weather Machine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Weather Machine is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 6, 2014, and on January 6, 2019.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 20, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
November 30, 2013	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Curly Turkey, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on May 19, 2013.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Sculpture

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sculpture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sculpture 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.SculptureWikipedia:WikiProject SculptureTemplate:WikiProject Sculpturesculpture

Visual arts: Public art

	Visual arts portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts
	This article is supported by the public art task force.

Weather: Met instruments Low‑importance

	Weather portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Meteorological instruments and data task force (assessed as Low-importance).

There is a request, submitted by [[User:--Another Believer _(Talk)|--Another Believer _(Talk)]] ([[User talk:--Another Believer _(Talk)|talk]]), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.
The rationale behind the request is: Featured article on English Wikipedia.

Can’t someone measure it?

Why does the article say the “height is reported to be between 25 and 33 feet (7.6 and 10.1 m)”? NickWikiAccount1708 (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One issue is that Wikipedia wants info from reliable sources, not self measurements. Jason McHuff (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, couldn’t someone measure it, verify it, publish it, post it on Wikipedia...? Goofy to me that the measurement is an estimate for a finite structure. NickWikiAccount1708 (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Light art?

I'm on the fence, if this is a lumino kinetic artwork that uses lights to display information, should Category:Light art be included? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Picture not fit for purpose

This picture clearly has insufficient contrast of subject and background: it adds no understanding to the article and does nothing to illustrate the article. At present, it serves no purpose beyond demonstrating the poor supply of better pictures, and the inexplicable willingness of Wikipedia to put something of this standard on the Main Page. No picture is better than a bad picture. Kevin McE (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Weather Machine is a contemporary work of art, which means our options are very limited (see commons: Category:Weather Machine). However, this image was kept after being nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons (see commons:File talk:Occupy Portland (Downtown PDX).jpg). You're right, this is not the best photograph for illustrating the machine/artwork, but IMO having this illustration is better than having none at all. The image at least shows some context w/r/t scale and where the machine is installed within the square. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its location within the square is relevant only to those who already know it: those who know that square. As to there being no alternative, we already have two much clearer images in the article, so it is nota case of this or nothing. I note that the rationale for keeping it is that as a picture of the Weather Machine, it is a pretty hopeless picture that scarcely shows it. That is an admission that it really doesn't merit the bandwidth. Kevin McE (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to disagree, and let's just let others weigh in. I've posted a note at WikiProject Oregon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say three pictures of the same thing, which all have to be fair use to an extent, is problematic as a side issue. From an article standpoint, it also adds little to have three pictures of it. I would suggest taking the one from the history section and moving it to this spot, and replace the history one with an image of Willard Scott. It would be relevant given the dedication, and that way not three of the same thing. If you want context, I think a map of the square and its location in it does a better job. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]