Talk:Bulahdelah tornado

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

Australia

	Australia portal Bulahdelah tornado is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

The F5 rating

We might as well start this discussion and solve it once and for all.

For the present time, I went ahead and removed the rating information (about being an F5) and I have removed it from the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes as it is from a self-published source (non BoM meteorologist). Speaking of the F5/EF5 tornado list article, the Discussion about the list had a comment from myself and ChessEric about this tornado and per ChessEric’s comment, “I really don't know if we can even keep the F5 designation in the article on this tornado”.

So now for the nitty gritty part of the discussion. The source that was being used for the F5 rating ([1]) is by T. Eric Brown, a degreed meteorologist (major) and degreed historian (minor). The source is self-published, however, we do have self-published material from meteorologists (Like Dr. Grazulis) as sources for information. So the question is more about what to do in this situation. From what I can tell, T. Eric Brown is not an expert (unlike Dr. Grazulis) in the field, however, since they are a degreed meteorologists and historian, they do get some extra “weight” to have a self-published source be allowed. Any ideas on what to do? TornadoLGS, United States Man, Drdpw. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of the now-disappeared ExtremePlanet blog that was discussed a few years ago on the F5/EF5 list. It was self-published, but they guy seemed to know what he was talking about. It was decided that it was not sufficiently reliable. That being said WP:SELFPUB allows for material from established experts, which would certainly qualify Grazulis and Fujita. But there is still a big difference between simply having a college degree and being a well-renowned expert. The page does mention "experts" as believing this tornado to be an F5. So it may be worthwhile to contact Brown to ask for the sources on that. I'm not optimistic on that front, though, because the website hasn't been updated since 2015. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I triggered this discussion. I decided to back there because the F5 rating is still disputed. I think this tornado was an probable F5. The damage photos resembles me the 1999 Loyal Valley and 1985 Moshannon Forest, US tornadoes. The BOM in their database and analysis documented that the tornado caused incredible damage while rated it as an F0. Maybe it should moved to be Possible F5 damage list in the F5 tornadoes page? Алексеев Н. (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean moving it to Possible F5 damage list until its final classification. Алексеев Н. (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to see the context for the damage being called "incredible" since that is a subjective term that does not necessarily mean F5. Going based on photo comparisons would be original research. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]