Talk:2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Top‑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 articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Top-importance).

Alabama

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

Redirects

It seems we need to get a couple redirects over to this article that currently lead to the main outbreak page. These are the ones I've found so far:

If there are any others please post them here. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page.

There are articles about both this tornado and the December 2000 Tuscaloosa tornado. Would this warrant a disambiguation page for "Tuscaloosa tornado?" TornadoLGS (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "spc fatal":

From 2011 Hackleburg–Phil Campbell, Alabama tornado: "Annual Fatal Tornado Summaries". Spc.noaa.gov. Retrieved November 1, 2011.
From April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak: "Annual Fatal Tornado Summaries". Storm Prediction Center. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Retrieved November 1, 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties vs. Fatalities

The infobox in the article's upper right-hand corner states that the tornado caused 64 "Casualties".

However, the article itself states that: "Reports from Tuscaloosa indicated 44 people were killed, with over 1000 injured. Overall this tornado killed 64 people and injured more than 1500."

The word "casualties" refers to people who were EITHER injured ("wounded") OR killed ("fatalities"). So the number of "casualties" that were caused by this storm exceeded 1500, whereas the number of "fatalities" was 64.

The problem is with the template for the "infobox tornado single" : although it requests "total fatalities", it displays "Casualties".

I left a complaint about the template. We shall have to wait and see whether anyone actually does anything about my complaint.

Cwkmail (talk) 16:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the path of the tornado through Tuscaloosa is inaccurate. The intersection of McFarland Blvd and 15th street is not on the "southwestern" side of town. Instead, the tornado entered the southwestern side of town (near Kauloosa Ave), caused damage in Rosedale and on 35th street, moved through Forest Lake, then reduced the McFarland/15th Street intersection to rubble before moving on to Alberta City and Holt.

In addition, Holt should probably be labeled a "community" instead of a suburb, since it is not technically in the city limits.

Dakotareyne12 (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Line

Wouldn't it increase readability for the opening sentence to read "during the late afternoon and early evening of April 27, 2011, a violent..." as opposed to it being the other way around. Or to restate the event name: "The 2011 Tuscaloosa-Birmingham tornado was a violent....." I feel either of these options present the event better than what it is currently. --Wikiwillz (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason we have the current format is that the title of this article is descriptive, rather than an actual name for this event. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh that makes sense, thank you. Wikiwillz (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado image

There is a dispute about which image to use for the infobox image: File:2011 Tuscaloosa tornado.png or File:Tuscaloosa_tornado_damage_27_April_2011.jpg. (Courtesy pinging the two editors in disagreement: JoleBruh & United States Man. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think File:2011 Tuscaloosa tornado.png should be used. While it is a non-free media, it seems to fall accurately into Wikipedia’s use of non-free media as currently no public-domain image of the tornado exist as far as I am aware. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the editor here only became aware of the situation by watching my contributions and frequently reverts my edits and starts "discussions". There is no reason to remove the current image completely from the article and replace it with one that could get deleted. United States Man (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about removing File:Tuscaloosa 2011 Tornado Cedar Crest Avenue.jpg, moving the other two damage pictures down and replacing the top damage picture spot with the current infobox damage picture. That way, the tornado image can be used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping: Hey United States Man, if you feel up to it, would you like to give your opinion about my new proposal for image layout? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t remove any images. Just take the one that was in the infobox and move it down. I never support removing a long-standing image just to replace it with a new one. United States Man (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioProtIV:, just wanted to ask if you saw this discussion before you made this edit? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I saw this discussion when I did that, and I think it’s best for now to leave it as is while this issue is sorted out (also pertaining to its copyright status IIRC? since it’s non-free which USM mentioned in an edit summary before) MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something I think could be a compromise is what’s been done at the Joplin tornado, with a clockwise image gallery in the infobox. Would that be a better option? MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to that, but maybe a two-image infobox like the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado would work, which also has a non-free (valid per Wiki rules) image. Thoughts on switching to that? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]