Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Cold front

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Laos in topic Undercutting

Long lost article

[edit]

Just found this article during a search for articles that redirect into surface weather analysis. Unless I hear otherwise, I am planning on deleting this article, since Weather fronts contains much more information on the topic. Thegreatdr 15:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think these articles should stay, but they need to be expanded, as they currently are copies (or even less) of what is in weather fronts. However, looking at de:Kaltfront and similar articles, it seems like there is considerably more that could be said (and, in pictures, illustrated) that could make these into fully fledged articles. Rigadoun (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Arctic Blast

[edit]

Again, this article does not use a single word of "arctic blast," or even "arctic" and "blast" separately. Redirect does not help, and no article should require supplimentation by common sense. Please add something. I am guessing that a short sentence of definition is sufficient. For information on why this is important, please see discussion page on surface weather analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnu (talkcontribs) 06:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Undercutting

[edit]

The text says "While this concept is used to generally describe frontal precipitation patterns, it is technically incorrect", and gives a reference. But the reference talks about overrunning, and warm fronts, so doesn't have anything to do with this. All the diagrams I've found of cold fronts show undercutting - can they all be wrong? 95.131.110.124 (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm also confused and suspicious of the "technically incorrect" assertion. Given there is no supporting evidence, and its criticism is vague/imprecise, I reckon it should be removed. 2016-08-14.  Preceding unsigned comment added by Laos (talkcontribs) 14:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)Reply