Jump to content

Talk:Snow in Florida

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listSnow in Florida is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on October 28, 2013.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 28, 2007Featured list candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 27, 2007.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that snow in Florida has been reported at least 34 times, including as far south as Homestead?

Intro

[edit]

It says:

Frost is more common than snow, requiring temperatures as high as 45 °F (7 °C), a cloudless sky, and a relative humidity of 65% or more.[1]

(My bolding). This wording seems odd. I assume the latter half of the sentence is referring to frost conditions, not snow. Shouldn't it read '...temperatures no greater than 45 °F (7 °C)'? Or if it's trying to emphasize that 45 is an unusually high temperature for frost, read e.g. 'Frost is more common than snow, requiring a cloudless sky and a relative humidity of 65% or more, though it can arise in temperatures as high as 45 °F (7 °C)'. Also, does it require this or only involve this? (E.g. I assume frost can occur even if there are some clouds.) Ben Finn 14:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry, my fault. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I corrected the accumulation of 1993 Superstorm. There were maximun 2 inches in Florida, not 4 nor 6. These accumulations were referred to more northern states like South Carolina and Alabama as you can read in the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.12.67.199 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your correction, as NCDC says that up to 4 inches occurred in Florida. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image Image:Tampa Snow.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Snow event in North Florida Jan. 12 or 13, 2009 and increasing snow frequency?

[edit]

AccuWeather.com shows that Lake City, FL has a 25% chance of snow in 24 hours (as of 8AM EST Monday, Jan. 12, 2009). Also, is it because of a higher population, or is Florida getting more snow events than it used to in the past several years?

The reason there are more reports of snow in Florida in recent years is because of the increasingly well-documented weather, as well as the growing population. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12/28/2010 Snow reports at Tampa Executive from AWS cannot be cited

[edit]

This entry and citation: December 28, 2010: Light snow was reported at Tampa Executive at 1AM and 5AM local time, following a rare freezing fog event around midnight. [26]

Was this report on Weatherunderground from an automated weather station? I believe it is, and if so, it cannot be trusted to accurately differentiate between fog, drizzle, mist, and snow. They are notorious for reporting snow when it isn't snowing. I would not cite this event as an official snow report unless there is more data to back it up, such as a special weather statement or public information statement from the NWS that confirms there was a valid snow report.69.153.141.54 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Jasons[reply]

1981 missing

[edit]

Snowflakes were reported in the Miami area in January 1981 also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.27.200 (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was in Ft. Lauderdale going to college in January of 81 & it snowed 1 1/2 inches & covered A1A enough to cause multiple accidents! 50.110.59.140 (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a source for this? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. The Bushranger One ping only 03:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of snow events in Florida → Snow in Florida – There are many reasons why "Snow in Florida" is a preferable title to "List of snow events in Florida". According to our policy on article titles, the title of an article should be as concise as possible, and "Snow in Florida" is by far the more concise title. Our policy on article titles also states that article titles should be consistent with each other, that titles should "follow the same pattern as those of similar articles". There are no other articles that follow a "List of snow events in x" format, but there is an article called Snow in Brazil. Furthermore, Snow event redirects to Snow, an article that does not even mention the term "snow event". Policy also advises us to use the most common name as the title of an article. Searching on Google Books, "Snow in Florida" gets more than 700 times more hits than "Snow events in Florida". Finally, there is no requirement for list articles to have titles that include the word "list". On the contrary, in cases where there is no title conflict with another article, it is encouraged for lists to omit the "List of" portion of the title in favour of conciseness (ex. 300 save club, Appy Awards, Bayreuth canon). Neelix (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, when I first made the article, I had it at "Snow in Florida". At the time, I think there was an article on "Snow in Australia" that I based the title off of. If I recall correctly, it was moved because of they wanted to indicate that it was a list, so they wanted "list" in the title. I think that's the only reason. No objections here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also support this move. Snow in Florida is a far better title. United States Man (talk) 03:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Neelix, you removed multiple dead links in various edits in July 2012, but general Wikipedia policy is not to remove dead links merely because the URL is not working, unless they are verified spam ones, useless, or you are absolutely certain that the ref cannot be found. You can check the Internet Archive and WebCite for archived links, or search for relocated urls using the site's search functions or Google.

In this edit, you removed a sentence and dead link, but after using the site's search function, I've found the relocated url, so I've put the content and new citation back in (old citation had errors). And another dead link you removed has archived versions here. I've re-added some of the wikilinks that you removed, and linked them from the appropriate text or to the see also section, since they are relevant and useful to readers.

Also, Marketdiamond next time can you completely fill in citations like these? You've been here since 2005; I thought you would've known how to properly cite refs by now. I've filled them in for you. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this message until now, M0rphzone. Thank you for adding the archived urls. I do try to only removed deadlinks when I believe them to be irretrievable; I am not very familiar with how to track down meteorological references in particular. There are currently several more deadlinks on this article. I have nominated the list to go up on the main page here. Any help you can provide in addressing the concerns that are raised there would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neelix, I've updated the dead urls in refs #12 and 14 with WebCitation archives. If there are no archives, you can try searching the site through a search engine (using the "site:" function) or the site's own search, or try using the given data in the cited sentence (date and location) to find the file manually. Example: for the NCDC data, you can use the site's IPS (Image and Publication System) interface to find the pdf scans for a particular location and date. For finding the original accessdate of a bare url, you can use WikiBlame to find the revision that added the url (make sure to force searching for wikitext). - M0rphzone (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point of view

[edit]

Are the entries supposed to be in present tense and written as if the events were happening at the time of writing? It might be better to write them in the past tense. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs, amounts

[edit]

In the monthly snowfall graphs, the units of the horizontal axis should be marked.

Is it really true, as the graphs seem to show, that the 21st century has so far seen 70% of the amount of snow of the whole 20th century? This huge increase seems eminently noteworthy, yet it does not seem to be mentioned anywhere in the text. 86.176.211.173 (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not since the methods of how we record snow occurring have gotten better since the early 20th century.Jason Rees (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those graphs seem to be the sum of the snow events mentioned in the text grouped by month. The problem is that this list is by no means comprehensive, mainly because it's much easier to find documentation of events in the recent past. I'm guessing that nobody scoured 100+ years of archives from every newspaper in the state (both defunct and still publishing) to find every mention of every snow event in Florida's history. But even if somebody had performed that monumental task, they still wouldn't have documentation of every time it's snowed in Florida. The state had a much smaller population until around the second half of the 20th Century, so some of these events took place out in the country and were not reported in any news source. If it snowed in New Tampa in 1925, for example, it likely didn't get a story in the next day's Tampa Morning Tribune because New Tampa was just swamp and scrub back then.
While the list is interesting, it's of questionable value because it can never be close to complete. Those graphs, however, are pretty much worthless and should be scrapped. imo. Zeng8r (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC),[reply]
The blurb at the top says that "prior to 1900" information for many locations is "sparse", which is fair enough. However it does not make any similar statement about the 20th century, leaving the reader with the impression that 20th century data is more or less complete. If it's as you say, and many 20th century events are likely to be unrecorded, then that ought to be mentioned. The graphs, as captioned, also give the definite impression of being complete data. If they are not then it's pretty misleading. 86.160.87.239 (talk) 18:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that they include all known snow events - which is, for obvious reasons, how weather and climate events are compiled. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously only known events can be listed, but something stronger needs to be said where the lists are believed to be very incomplete, in order to counteract the natural tendency to assume otherwise. 86.160.87.239 (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same thing, added a disclaimer. My neighbour would swear we're headed for strange days if he read this list. And he's not alone. Others may assume there's a 2012 message in the report numbers, but they're hopefully too fringe to warrant a disclaimer. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The graph discussion was raised 3 weeks ago without any major issue (the completeness of the lists is another issue - for which I make no comment) but they remained in the article. I came across this page by accident and was going to comment specifically about the issues raised about the graphs and that they seemed promlimatic, but someone already did. I decieded to be bold and action it. I also deleted out a commented out graph of snow by decade. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 28

[edit]

It was really cold in the Cape Canaveral area on January 28, 1986, but does anyone know if there was actually snow? I know there was ice, but I'm not sure about snow. A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update New Information

[edit]

This article is great! It has many facts (with supporting sources) and is very informative. I like how all the incidents of snow are in order by date so they are easy to follow. It allows the reader to see the true evolution and the frequencies in which snowfall has occurred in the state of Florida. I also liked how they included the exact cities in which snowfall was reported. This also helps the reader to recognize patterns in which areas of the state of Florida in which snowfall has been seen. This is very helpful for students using this resource to write reports on this topic. In general, I think this article is great and very informative. Nothing is perfect so I do also see some room for improvement with this article. The biggest improvement I can see being mad with this article is keeping the article accurate and as updated as possible. One thing I did notice was that the dates in which snow has impacted Florida stopped in January of 2016. With it now being April of 2016, more incidents with snow have been reported to media but not to this article so that's something that could be updated. For example, within the last few years, there have been at least five reports of snowfall that have not yet been added to this article. The best Wikipedia articles are those that are as accurate and are as up-to-date as possible. Also, some of the links for the sources are outdated, causing them not to work. This could make it difficult for users wanting to seek more information on the subject or for students writing reports that may need use those links for a bibliography or for citations. Overall, I think it was a great article that could simply use some more updating ;) Kcoburn2 (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Snow in Florida. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Snow in Florida. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Snow in Florida. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Snow in Florida. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Sarasota

[edit]

Snow In FL Jessemcneil 93 (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snow FL right now Jessemcneil 93 (talk) 03:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English

[edit]

Snow Sarasota FL now Jessemcneil 93 (talk) 18:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you got a reliable source for that or your other proposed additions? Jason Rees (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snow_in_Florida&oldid=1209989151"