User talk:EF5

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2024/March; 2024/April; 2024/May; 2024/June; 2024/July; 2024/October; 2024/November;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This user does not mind criticism. Feel free to let him know if he did something wrong.

This user is still learning the ropes on how to use Wikipedia, so he may have multiple errors in edits.

This user was a bite victim, hence knows the pain of being bitten and WILL NOT bite other users.

Andover EF3

Not to try to ruin your work, but how does an EF3 qualify for a Wikipedia article? The Clarksville EF3's article was merged back in 2023. Cutlass ^Ciera 19:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This has been a major point of discussion recently for the project, but intensity does not determine notability. This tornado received widespread coverage, and thus warrants an article (a rare case for an EF3, if I must say). The Clarksville deletion discussion was mainly merged because of WP:TOOSOON concerns, although the Andover tornado happened in 2022 and has received substantial coverage since. :) E_F⁵ 19:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) — Hey Cutlass, I can help explain some as well. The Clarksville EF3 was merged back in not because it would not be notable, but rather because it wasn’t notable. That might seem a little confusing on the wording, so let me explain a little more in depth.

The Clarksville article (created by me actually) was created mere days after the tornado. One key aspect on the notability guidelines is lasting coverage/lasting impacts. 3 days is not enough time to prove lasting coverage/impacts.

The Andover tornado, however, occurred over 2 years ago. Just a quick Google search of “2022 Andover tornado” pulled this news article as the top result, which was published May 16, 2024. Aka, the tornado is still relevant enough to get news article related to it even 2 years later.

Likewise, if I do the same search for “2023 Clarksville tornado”, the most recent news article related to it is from February 4, 2024, less than 2 months after the tornado. That isn’t to say it is not notable, but notability has not been established, even 11 months later, due to no lasting coverage. Who knows, maybe that tornado will be the subject to research published in 3 years which would help give aid to an article on it in the future. But, as of right now, even I would not support an article for the Clarksville tornado due to no lasting coverage.

The “Lasting Coverage” test is an easy way to tell if a tornado is notable. For me, following the Clarksville tornado article attempt/subsequent deletion discussion, I changed my own personal guidelines. (1) I do not consider any tornado for an article for at least 3 months, which is how long it takes for NOAA to publish finalized damage surveys/reports. (2) The tornado has to either not be apart of an outbreak article or has to have a long section in the outbreak article (“Split” justification). (3) A Google search shows some coverage which could be argued as being Lasting Coverage.

If all 3 of those points pass, then I start a draft on a tornado article. I do not move it into mainspace until I am happy with it and honestly I think it is GA material. Even some of my GA tornado articles have been challenged for “does this even need to exist”, cough 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado cough. Consensus remained that it passed all the necessary check marks to be a stand-alone article, and you can see the subsequent lasting coverage mentioned in the Aftermath section of the article.

Hopefully that explains some on why Clarksville does not have an article and this tornado might. If you have any questions for me, do not hesitate to message me! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add, since there was an EC, your reasoning in the Clarksville nomination, To have its own article, I think a tornado should have to cause 10 or more injuries in three communities and 10 or more deaths in total also isn't true, as some tornadoes (I'm working on a draft for an EF2 tornado right now that caused no deaths or injuries, but is notable because of coverage) are notable despite killing nobody. The Andover tornado passes all three points set by WeatherWriter above, ~~I can make a table if you'd like~~. See below. :) E_F⁵ 19:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thank you. The main reason for my statement there was because it seemed like there was a unwritten precedent that people would only create articles about tornadoes if they were obviously notable (such as the Tuscaloosa-Birmingham EF4), but since more people are editing tornado articles recently, people are now creating articles on notable topics that might have not been created previously. Thank you for the clarification. Cutlass ^Ciera 19:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, I've made a table anyways :)
Points	Quotation	Pass?	Reasoning
1	I do not consider any tornado for an article for at least 3 months, which is how long it takes for NOAA to publish finalized damage surveys/reports	Y	Event happened in April 2022, unless I've been living under a rock it's November of 2024, over 2 years later.
2	The tornado has to either not be apart of an outbreak article or has to have a long section in the outbreak article	Y	No section to be merged into. Tornadoes of 2022 wouldn't fit, as the article is long enough to have it's own article.
3	A Google search shows some coverage which could be argued as being Lasting Coverage	Y	Look up "2022 Andover tornado" on Google and this is the third result, published over 2 years after the tornado.
Overall	Passes all points.

I forgot to add one thing, @WeatherWriter: I found free images of the tornado! I'll be uploading the full 5-minute video on Friday, when I can get Video2Commons to work. :) E_F⁵ 22:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you've already got to it. That is an amazing video. :) E_F⁵ 13:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EF5 & Cutlass, the chart/process I mentioned above got me thinking. So, to help simplify my thoughts, I made my own flowchart. You can see it here: User:WeatherWriter/Tornado notability. That will hopefully explain everything you both would have questions about, in regards to whether a tornado should have an article or not…at least in my opinion/thought process. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! It'll be nice to use all these fancy tables when the next season rolls around, yours is very in-depth but straight to the point, which is good. :) E_F⁵ 23:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Nice username!

I was looking (too) at Special:Diff/1258478408 Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 23:41, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Makes it easy to see what I'm interested in. :) E_F⁵ 23:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Wayne Nebraska tornado October 4, 2013.png

Thank you for uploading File:Wayne Nebraska tornado October 4, 2013.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 04:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Chef at Pakistan

Teppniyaki@ I em super (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting consecutive edits.

I saw one little edit got through (and later fixed) when you reverted the vandalism at 2011 Super Outbreak. A good way to revert multiple consecutive edits is to simply open up the last clean version of the page, then edit and save. You might also considered getting WP:TWINKLE or a similar toolset. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'll use that from now on. I usually do what I call a "poor man's rollback", where you just edit an older revision and add one space somewhere, which effectively reverts all the vandalism in one click. :) E_F⁵ 00:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you into military history by chance?

Hey EF5 (amazing name by the way), I happened to notice last month that you created Italian campaign of 1796–1797 when I saw you pass a GAN on it! Congratulations on that! Besides some of the weather articles I edit/have created, I also edit a good amount in the realm of military history. Well anyway, I noticed a problem and I have decided to start the process to fix it. There are two articles, which currently exist in extremely bad shape, that I am going to TNT and combine into a new article. List of foreign military attacks on United States territory & Attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities are those two articles. Both relate to "attacks on the United States", which somehow is a redirect currently to the foreign military attacks pitiful article...which has I kid you not 1 reference...

The shear fact an article about "attacks on the United States" doesn't actually exist in 2024 shocks me. So, with that being said, I have started Draft:Attacks on the United States, which will take a long time to make (probably a month or two to make it good), where I am making the table of attacks along with a summary/details of those attacks. I have no idea how into military history you are, but you are more than welcome to help out with creating summaries and/or adding references for some of the information. So, feel free to help out if you have any interest. I am not rushing the creation of this article since I want to make it extremely good before moving it into mainspace. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd be glad! I'm running out of tornadoes to write about (the tornado sections have kinda screwed me over). I'll work on it today. :) E_F⁵ 13:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]