Talk:ARkStorm

California Mid‑importance

	California portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes 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.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Low-importance).

Disaster management Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plagiarism?

I just took a look on the summary of the effects of an ARkStorm included in the USGS publication. It looks like the description section of this article was outright copy-and-pasted from the publication, meaning plagiarism. If someone is interrested to, please rewrite this section. I may do soon if no one else is interrested in that. Ren97 (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USGS publications are public domain, so reuse of their text is legitimate if properly credited. --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not plagiarism (well, I did not intend it to be). I think that I did restate the info in my own words. Anyhow, the information is cited, so there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Exceptionally" = PUFFERY?

LightandDark2000 (talk · contribs), you added the word exceptionally to describe the intense rains of 1861-1862. I reverted with an edit summary saying "exceptionally" was not in the source, and constitutes WP:PUFFERY. Once you are reverted you should open a discussion on the talk page, in keeping with WP:BRD, but of course you know that. Instead, you have simply restored your edit. Please explain why adding your own assessment of the "exceptional" nature of this event is not WP:PUFFERY? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These storms only occur at intervals of a few hundred to a thousand years, and storms strong enough to trigger such catastrophes as the Great Flood of 1861–62 are exceptional in intensity. The ARkStorm of 1861–62 being dubbed as a "Megastorm" or something along that line also delineates the fact that this storm was unusually powerful. There are also several sources out there that echo similar thoughts, which should be sourced somewhere in these articles or in my sandbox. If not, it shouldn't take that long to locate such sources anyway. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why spend time saying it won't take long instead of just doing it? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ARkStorm. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. — Gorthian (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1,000 (°K)

The article could be improved by explaining the 1,000 or (K) part. Perhaps it might refer to a one-thousand-year storm(?), but does not say that. It does refer to a great flood, that then refers to occurrences in California every 100 to 200 years. [Perhaps the USGS should change it to ARccStorm instead]. Or perhaps jargon with the letter (K) just sounds more kool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor did respond by adding this information to the article. I've kept it in the article, but did some copyediting related to it. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RCP 8.5

RCP 8.5 is used in the table without definition or discussion. RCP is "Representative Concentration Pathway", which is a term associated with climate change prediction. Its meaning will be obvious to few readers. As I understand it, RCP 8.5 represents a worst case climate change scenario, in terms of societal behavior contributing to climate change. 204.237.49.191 (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accepting Risk

I question whether this section, as written, belongs in this article. Perhaps it could be improved in manner that makes it work. As it is, it seems a bit editorial and disembodied. The intent of including it can be inferred, but the linkage is not explicit. 204.237.49.191 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]