Talk:Brookings effect
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Brookings effect was merged into Brookings, Oregon with this edit on 3 April 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Move
Locally this is usually called the Chetco Effect. --72.173.170.41 (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Requested move 25 March 2022
- The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Merged to Brookings, Oregon#Climate. I made an attempt to distill the sourced information in this article into something that would be appropriate for the Brookings, Oregon page, but feel free to edit as necessary. (non-admin closure) --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Brookings effect → Chetco effect – One source has "Chetco effect" in the title; the other doesn't seem to use either term (but I might have missed something). KJ7RRV (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- @KJ7RRV: I believe this page actually warrants deletion. The main source used doesn't exist online and was almost certainly added by the author of the supposed paper the same year it was published. There's very little coverage of this type of Foehn wind otherwise, but NOAA refers to it as the Brookings effect while the USDA Forest Service calls it the Chetco effect. The other other cited paper makes no mention of the "Brookings effect", it just mentions the city of Brookings. It does detail the specifics of this Foehn wind but it does not give it a name. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Would those two documents be good sources? KJ7RRV (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe the page would be better as a section of Brookings, Oregon (or maybe Chetco River)? KJ7RRV (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think it would be best to have it as a sentence at Brookings, Oregon#Climate, Foehn wind, and it already has sufficient mention at Chetco River#Watershed. A full section gives it undue weight in my opinion. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so just one sentence is enough? This has major effects on the local climate, so one sentence doesn't seem like enough. KJ7RRV (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't looked deep into the subject so if you believe a more thorough explanation is warranted on those pages I don't have an issue with that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay, maybe a subsection of Brookings, Oregon#Climate? --KJ7RRV (talk) 02:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
This does seem like too much information for a subsection. Should I remove some of it? None of it really looks irrelevant, but maybe some isn't important enough to include? KJ7RRV (talk) 03:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)