Talk:Clear-air turbulence

Comments

Also refer to the "Richardson Number" which actually helps in forcasting the presence of CAT

I noticed conversational tone (heavy use of contractions) and inconsistent style throughout the article text (style of lists, lead, organization), which is why I marked it for tone/style. Midnightreport (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Confusion between CAT itself and its effects of aircraft

There are two closely related, but different, topics being confused within this article:

1. CAT itself, as an atmospheric and meteorological phenomenon;
2. The effects of CAT on aircraft.

I think we should try to separate them where reasonably possible. I could try to start, but I know virtually nothing about the topic. Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Clear-air turbulence → Clear air turbulence –

• The subject of the article is referred to as 'Clear air turbulence' (without the hyphen) throughout the article, so the title should be consistent with it. I've already sorted out the dab page. Giuliopp (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
• Without the hyphen, the expression is ambiguous between "clear-air turbulence" = "turbulence in clear air" and "clear air-turbulence" = "(air turbulence) which is clear". The meaning is more obvious with the hyphen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

So what exactly is the difference between "turbulence in clear air" and "air turbulence that is clear"? --Giuliopp (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – the hyphen is clarifying the structure and meaning of the phrase. It was a majority usage in sources through at least 1980, and still very common in more recent decades, as it follows the typical trend of sources dropping the hyphen from compounds that become more familiar or "permanent", especially among specialists to whom it is very familiar. But for the general readership, the hyphen still has value, and it is within WP style to use hyphens in such contexts to help the average reader, as opposed to the specialist reader. I'd fix the text to agree more with the title; do not add hyphen where the "clear air" stands alone as a noun phrase, obviously, but do where it modifies "turbulence". Dicklyon (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I fixed; only two were missing hyphen; also added one in lee-wave turbulence for the same reason. Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment / oppose. If the title is to be "Clear air turbulence", is the phenomenon air turbulence that is "clear", or turbulence that involves clear air? 213.246.91.158 (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The common name is clear air turbulence (no hyphen). We do not promote corrections to English usage however logical. Andrewa (talk) 04:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  If "clear-air turbulence" ought to be the title, isn't that making rather than promoting a correction? 213.246.91.158 (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  No, because when you say ought it's an appeal to some authority, but the relevant authority in this case is usage. Andrewa (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

  Well, I guess the ambiguity is between spoken and written usage. Over to the semioticians. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  I think you guess wrong, but this does get right down to the core issue here. There is no ambiguity. Nobody interested in this article is going to think that the phrase clear air turbulence means anything other than this topic, whether spoken or written, so the ambiguity claimed above is in practice artificial. Arguments based on such considerations were popular in the era of linguistic prescription, but are both obsolete in linguistics and rejected by Wikipedia policy. Andrewa (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  Starting to drift off-topic now, but I'm tempted to suggest that though this detail may amount to little in this case, elsewhere it might be more important and/or useful – when scan-reading, for example (self-reference noted – and again). So, for the sake of those occasions where it can count for something, I'd say it's probably worth trying to uphold in general. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 09:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, basically for Dicklyon's reasons. (Also note that Britannica includes the hyphen.) Deor (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The hyphen is needed for clarity. "common usage" should not be preferred over accuracy and clarity. Multiple adjectives properly require hyphenation or commas. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I only see one adjective.--Giuliopp (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.