Jump to content

Talk:List of United States tornadoes from January to February 2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clay Tornado

[edit]

The storm reports for January 23 day list no tornadoes in Jefferson County. Instead they seem to indicate the Clay EF3 tornado occurred on January 22. So why is it listed under January 23? TornadoLGS (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It occured after midnight so it was January 23. I was watching on TV. United States Man (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing tornado - February 17

[edit]

The wording of one of the SPC storm reports seems to indicate that a tornado was confirmed in Louisiana from February 17 (calling it a "weak tornado"), but I haven't found anything on a rating and nothing about it is posted on that WFO's main page. Does anyone know where I might look for information on this? TornadoLGS (talk) 02:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reno County tornado rating

[edit]

Can someone provide a source for the rating on the tornado in Reno County, Kansas? The page currently referenced simply calls it a "weak tornado" without saying anything about a rating, while the Storm Reports from that date only say it was reported by a storm chaser. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A weak tornado is generally an EF0 and since it did no damage it probably was rated an EF0. There is no reason to make a big deal about this. Just wait a few months for NCDC reports. United States Man (talk) 12:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede or whatever you want to call it

[edit]

Okay, how's about we get a discussion up here about the lede rather than edit warring over it. I am personally with USM in thinking that these lists should not have detailed ledes. Perhaps the information currently placed in the lede could be put under a "synopsis" section as we do for the yearly articles, or that we could split the information into synopses for the respective months. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am with you. I keep trying to compromise, but they won't listen. I hate it when they come over here and try to run the show when we do most of the work around here. United States Man (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing though, it's not a meteorological synopsis of those two months, it's basic information that summarizes the page. As such, I--and three others--believe it is better fitted in the lede. I don't see what the problem is. And, by the way...*cough* WP:OWN *cough*. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't saying that I should be the only one that keeps these pages up, I was saying that I am (not counting TornadoLGS) the only one who keeps these up. But I do have help sometimes and I appreciate that. And this is a synopsis, as a synopsis is a summary (look it up). So your statement above, TAWX13, is wrong in assuming those are different.United States Man (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the information currently put in the lede of this list is more along the lines of what normally goes under the synopsis in tornado articles rather than in the lede. Looks like a synopsis to me. TornadoLGS (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As it is now, the lede provides a useful summary of the time period this article covers, giving readers an idea of what took place (without going too in-depth) and overall statistics related to the time period. Personally, I feel that it should be a model for other tornado list articles. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could agree to a new standard in that instance. However, I still think this is more detail than should go in the lede of an article like this, which is why I am for putting at least the bulk of it under a synopsis heading. TornadoLGS (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a section to split up the info is necessary. The info is not too in-depth to warrant its own section (nor is it excessively long) and a three paragraph lede for the number of tornadoes covered seems sufficient IMO. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted back as there is no consensus for it to be used as the lede. United States Man (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently opposed to the current one-sentence 'boilerplate' lead structure that these lists have. It's barely a comprehensive summary of the article. The lead was recently moved to a section titled "Meteorological summary," but I don't agree with that naming, since the content contains information which is not meteorological (monetary statistics, fatalities), which is why I would use it as a lead. Naming it "Synopsis" wouldn't help either, because a synopsis is a brief summary, which is what a lead is, so it would be redundant. As I've said before, WP:WIAFL says that the lead is "engaging [...] introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria," which is what the lead I had initially created does. By moving the lead to another section, we are forced to create another lead; I'm not sure how you would make such a comprehensive and engaging lead with information other than what is already being used. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 21:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly tired of the nonsense going on with this page. We've all made our points, no one seems to be willing to budge, and there aren't enough people to sway opinions on this. I think it's time to bring in others on this and get their opinion since the project is unable to do it alone. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. Since when is having a one-sentence lead okay for any article? Please see MOS:LEAD and MOS:LIST. Auree ★★ 23:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note I would, if User:Materialscientist approves, be willing to lift the protection, especially if an RFC is initiated. I would also remind everyone that edit warring is not necessarily only 3RR violations, and I would not hesitate to hand out blocks if even slow motion edit warring were to resume. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of that has been solved in messages on both my and TropicalAnalystwx13's talk pages. It seems I didn't take the time to see what was actually being changed and started a stupid edit war. It won't happen again. United States Man (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a protection lift (especially since some NCDC updates were caught in the edit war). And since TAWX13 and I have straightened things out, there is no reason to start an RfC. United States Man (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restarting the discussion

[edit]

Now that the page can be edited again, and heads have cooled off, it's time to revisit the discussion of this lead issue. My opinion on having a detailed lead for this list, per WP:LEAD, remains. The generic one sentence lead is a terrible way to start of the article. There is no need to say that "this is a list" when the article title includes the word "list" in it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The content in that TheAustinMan wrote in the first place would likely be better suited as a lede as opposed to a summary of tornado activity in the month anyways. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I oppose this and so probably will LGS. We will once again have no consensus and we will have wasted our time in another stupid argument. United States Man (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide an argument that supports why it shouldn't have a proper lead? Before you even suggest it, WP:IAR does not apply here as having a lead does not prevent you from maintaining or improving an article. As it stands, there is no sound argument against it, just personal opposition. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. Even I wouldn't use IAR in this situation. United States Man (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
US Man,Telling others to stop wasting their time is a good way to waste yours. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me (I am well aware of WP:NPA and WP:ASG), but do you have anything better to do than point out every little flaw that I have. You revert numerous edits and you even tried to get me blocked one time. Give it a rest. United States Man (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the information that went into that lead is of the sort that we usually put in the synopsis of tornado-related articles. And that's what it is: a synopsis of activity. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The synopsis itself is a summary, ergo lead material. This is a sub-article of the main Tornadoes of 2012 and it's meant to include tornadoes/detail that couldn't fit in the main article due to size restrictions. The writeup that TAM provided was a proper summary of the overall events in January/February 2012 and gave a sufficient introduction to the list. There is no reason to summarize a summary (having a synopsis section then summarizing that into a proper lead, which is still required). By cutting the middle man out, and just implementing the synopsis material into the lead, the information is more effectively relayed to the reader. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any page that can have a lead should have one. I see no reason the summary data was removed. I could see the argument that the previous "event summary" shouldn't be in the lead because of the sources, but that is a pretty weak argument. The event summary, by it's nature, is a summary, which is what a lead should be. WP:LEAD says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." And that is exactly what the summary did. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So why can we have a synopsis separate from the lead in the main yearly articles but not here? TornadoLGS (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can have leads and a separate synopsis. The problem is that the lead which I had created a month ago does not really work well as a meteorological synopsis, because, as I said in a prior discussion, the lead contains damage cost and fatality information. A meteorological synopsis is just that – a summary of meteorological information, which would include things like the individual storm systems that caused the tornadoes, and other environmental conditions. The lead which I made likely broaches part of that, but that's because there wasn't a meteorological synopsis by which I could base the lead off of when I first created the lead. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 14:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We dropped the "meteorological" part of that a while ago and just called it a synopsis or summary, with "event summary" being the most recent wording. I think the yearly tornado articles should be the model for this. The lead is short, usually no more than five sentences, and provides basic information such as the number of tornadoes and fatalities. The trends in activity and major events are then described in bit more detail in the synopsis. TornadoLGS (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The yearly tornado pages are not fully up to par with WP:MOS. The lead never properly summarizes the information in the article. Also, a five sentence lead is not appropriate for an article of that size and coverage, three to four paragraphs is generally needed. We're trying to improve the quality and increase the standards here. This is a sub-article of the main tornado page, so there is no need for a detailed section on synopsis. The lead written by TAM properly introduced the two months that this list covers and gave readers a proper overview, what a lead is meant to do. By moving that information into a new section, you would be forced to write a summary of that once again. This cuts out the middle man and makes things more concise. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of United States tornadoes from January to February 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of United States tornadoes from January to February 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_United_States_tornadoes_from_January_to_February_2012&oldid=1205057929"