Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles

There is consensus for all three points suggested below. There is consensus against the alternate proposal suggested by Hurricanehink. I will note that WP:BLUDGEONING exists. Also, some comments noted that keeping the status quo would require volunteers and changing a lot of articles; that argument was discarded because of WP:COMPLETE. Wikipedia is not a democracy and WP:Consensus does not necessarily require a majority. However, if a significant majority of editors agree, it requires a policy mismatch or one side's arguments to be significantly weaker to overturn it. This was not the case here. While there were some editors who disagreed with subpoints of this proposal (and a few more who disagreed with all three), the larger proportion of editors preferred a revert back to the old system. As such, there's consensus for all three points listed below by WeatherWriter. (non-admin closure) Soni (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Recently, from the two discussions (one a few sections above this one and the other on Talk:Tornadoes of 2024), I have a proposal for the new layout, taking in feedback from those involved in those two discussions.

  1. Change (revert) the layout from the currently used By Continent (example: Tornadoes of 2023), to the original By Month (Example: Tornadoes of 2008).
  2. "(United States)" will be added to U.S.-based events, which was not done in original By Month layouts.
  3. U.S.-only things will be left out of the infobox at the top of the yearly page (Infobox example Tornadoes of 2023). However, monthly U.S. totals can (and should) be mentioned at the beginning of each months section. Information regarding other countries or regions (example: number of European tornadoes or number of China tornadoes) during the month should also receive a sentence at the beginning of each months section.
In short, a small "monthly global summary" opens the section.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

(Moved from above for RFC tag. Ignore.) — Since there is two discussions (on two separate talk pages) regarding this topic at the same time, I wanted to make this discussion and ping all users involved: (courtesy pings: @ChessEric:, United States Man, HamiltonthesixXmusic, TornadoInformation12, DJ Cane, Hurricanehink). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 11:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

(Moved from above for RFC tag.) — Based on the feedback, two things were clear: The old layout (By Month) is definitely the preferred layout to most editors. However, the reasoning for the layout change to begin with involved fighting U.S.-centeredness in articles, that is where point 2 and 3 come in. In pre-2023 layouts (before any changes), U.S. monthly totals were mentioned as the opening to each month, however, no other countries were mentioned. Also, "(United States)} was never used in pre-2023 layouts as well. To me, this proposal for a layout seems to solve issues brought up in past discussions, while also being the layout the majority of the community wants. Thoughts? Supports? Opposes? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

  • Support Dont see any issues with this. Noah, BSBATalk 13:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I can see I’m going to be shouted down here but appreciate @WeatherWriter trying to find a common ground. I am a weak support for 1 and 2 but am an oppose for 3. On global articles, US data should be presented the same as global data. Thus, if other totals aren’t included in the box, having a US totals box is something I can’t support. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 15:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    Comment: Posting my reply in another thread here because I think most of the content is relevant for this discussion. Note that it is a direct reply to someone and references comments from that discussion.
    Please review previous discussions here and here for a primer on why I originally recommended we change to this model and what steps and compromises occurred to get here.
    I fail to see how splitting by region first then date makes it clunky. I would argue that not doing so is worse from a readability standpoint. The target audience of Wikipedia is not weather nerds or experts in the field, but everyone. Jumping around from continent to continent mixes vastly different events and climatological regimes unnecessarily and waters down the differences between different events/outbreaks.
    What exactly about splitting by region makes it more clunky and decreases navigation quality? What specifically are you looking for that isn’t presented? You mention a nice summary of events. That’s here, and not only is it here but it is presented in a more intelligent form by grouping by region. The original system wasn’t working well for international coverage, and nothing in this or other discussions points toward the page having been made worse.
    Finally, not only are US tornadoes given appropriate coverage here relative to global frequency (the amount of coverage hasn’t changed), they are at the top of the page and are not mixed in with foreign events. It’s surprising to me that editors find this to be undesirable. This is, notably, against Wikipedia precedent for other global lists which are typically sorted alphabetically. I don’t think it’s wrong to put North America and the United States at the top (due to climatology and data availability), but it is worth noting. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 15:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) — @DJ Cane: US total’s box? I think you misread what the third point was suppose to be. If you look at Tornadoes of 2008 (perfect example of the old format), you can see how the very top infobox has “Tornadoes in U.S.: 1,692”, “Damage (U.S.)”, and “Fatalities (U.S.)”, while if you look at Tornadoes of 2023’s top infobox, it only has “Fatalities (worldwide): 116”. That is part one of the third point: i.e. no U.S. stuff in the top infobox. (Matching the Tornadoes of 2023 infobox).
The second part is to have global monthly summaries. Going back to Tornadoes of 2008 example, take a look at Tornadoes of 2008#April. The entire section starts out There were 189 tornadoes reported in the United States in the month of April, all of which were confirmed. Basically, the second part of the third point is to keep those, but expand them to include other countries. Hopefully that makes a little more sense as to what the third point is. Since you were one of the main editors on board for less-U.S. centerness, I am thinking you just misread it, since the third point is an actual “less-U.S. centric” point. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
You’re right, I did misinterpret it and as such switch to weak support. Not because I think this method is better, but because I think this is a reasonable compromise. Thanks for the reword. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 17:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Tentative support – these three points seem like a reasonable compromise, and top-level ordering by month remains a decent manner of organization. However, I'm a little confused by the degree of consternation caused by the current format. It's not all that drastically different from the previous format, all considered; the events occurring in the U.S., for instance, are essentially still all together, presented in chronological order, and labeled by their date of occurrence, as was the case previously. I'm not seeing the clunky and difficult-to-navigate nature of the current format that have been brought up over the past few months – can someone enlighten me as to what the particular issues here are? —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 16:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
After mulling over the proposed changes, I have changed my stance to oppose (#2 and #3 are contingent on #1, so oppose all by default). I echo what I wrote when the changes were originally proposed, and what I wrote below. In particular, regionalizing tornadoes and outbreak information by continent enables better contextualization of events, as broader summary-level descriptions of weather patterns and tornadic activity are more applicable by region than globally by month. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 00:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I figure that I'm in the minority, but I want to echo what DJ Cane (talk · contribs) said. My main issue is that most yearly tornado articles are overwhelmingly biased towards the US, which makes sense considering the number of editors from English-speaking countries (including the US). Using Tornadoes of 2008 as an example, the amount of information dominated by the US is obvious. The synopsis has three paragraphs covering the US, as if that was a proper synopsis of worldwide tornadoes in 2008. Under events, it only lists US tornadoes in the first section. I compared the amount of information about the US vs the rest of the world. There is more than ten times the amount of information about the US than the rest of the world - 7,761 words versus 642. That means the US is more than 93% of the yearly worldwide coverage. And that's already with having US monthly articles. Now, one might say, "but the US has more tornadoes than anywhere else." OK, but does it really have 10 times more tornadoes than the rest of the world? And even if it did, in the interest of balanced coverage, is that fair to have 93% of the content? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
If I may propose a counter point: Articles overwhelmingly biased towards the U.S. is not from the number of English speaking countries. In fact, it shouldn’t even be from the fact the U.S. gets 10x more tornadoes than any other country (also that is from WMO). Based on the strong community consensus which decided WP:TornadoCriteria, if there is more U.S. info on an article, that is because more notable events occurred in the U.S. than other countries. The only way to reduce that is to restrict the U.S. inclusion criteria even more. However, I do not think that would happen, given the discussions to create the criteria in the first place. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
What are the number of tornadoes for non-US countries though? Is there even anyone going out of the way researching tornadoes outside of the US? Yes, the US has 1,200 a year, but Europe has 300, Canada has 230, China has 100, Australia has 30, Japan has 20, South America and Asia get some. Even though the US gets more, there are already tons more articles focusing on US tornadoes. What I think we need to is to provide a better global perspective in the yearly articles, but just listing the summaries by month isn't going to make things better from a global perspective. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I think we will have to respectfully agree to disagree on that, which is perfectly fine. Currently, there is eight editors in support of going back to the "By Month" layout over the "By Continent" layout and you (so far) are the only editor in opposition to that. If I may ask though, why would a "By Month" layout be U.S.-centric over a "By Continent" layout, since the same number of U.S. sections vs Non-U.S. sections would be present in both layouts as dictated by WP:TornadoCriteria? To me, the "By Continent" layout would seem actually more U.S. centric than the "By Month" layout, as it specifically lists all U.S. tornadoes first (as North America is listed first) rather than all the other countries or in chronological order. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Because if we just go by month, no one will notice if there's nothing included for any non-US areas. Organizing by continent will at least have a section, even if it's blank, identifying a major part of the article that is missing. Right now, we could have a fairly full yearly article that is almost all US. That's unacceptable to me, and I'm American XD ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Support – I agree with the ideas proposed, the monthly layout of the page was easier to navigate and much more convenient to easily access the more detailed monthly tornado lists for the US, and by adding a sentence for how many tornadoes were confirmed in other continents/major countries, if there were any, as well as adding "(United States)" to the end of the different US tornado events, it sufficiently makes it less US-centered, giving some attention to the other parts of the world that have experienced tornado activity, while not entirely changing the layout to an unstable one that editors have been having problems with (e.g., formatting errors for the North America events). ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 21:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose #2 Maybe it's just me, but it feels like every tornado section having (United States) added is a lot of extra clutter to fight US-centeredness in an article that will always naturally have a lot more US content than anywhere else in the world. I'd rather have the specific states or the region of the US listed if something needs to be listed in parenthesis, because just "United States" doesn't give any additional info on where the storms are located compared to the previous format (where no country in parenthesis indicated USA). It doesn't quite feel like slapping a bandaid over the problem, but I'm not sure how better to describe it. Support #1 and #3, because those are good changes in my opinion (#3 does a good job of tackling US-centeredness, imo). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The arguments all seem to be WP:IDONTLIKEIT without concrete arguments. I mostly agree with Hurricanehink here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Why are you dismissing the fact that the current format leaves gaps in the structure and information of this page? If you are concerned with combating US-centeredness we have Clause #3 aiming to create nonUS information sections as well, but shorter to fit the dearth of available information. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    I've seen it mentioned, but what exactly are the gaps in the structure and information in the current format? Consider Tornadoes of 2023 compared to Tornadoes of 2010, for instance; I'm not seeing much of a substantive difference in structural or informational gaps. In fact I would think the current format is better for leaving open the possibility of discussing environmental factors, trends, patterns, and other statistical information, since those are more likely to be geographically rather than temporally organized. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 13:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Gaps are useful for readability. WP:WALLOFTEXT exists for a reason.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    @TheAustinMan Most editors and visitors for this page want to change the layout to the previous layout with some new modifications regarding recording tornado events outside the US. That way, we can preserve readability and the statistics already included from European and Asian events.
    @Jasper Deng Not sure what your position is exactly, aside from you providing an WP:ILIKEIT argument for HurricaneHink. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    @HamiltonthesixXmusic: Your response does not answer @TheAustinMan:'s question of what information is missing from the new format.Jason Rees (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Calm down, Jason Rees. Simple mistake on my part.
    I was referring to the lack of updated information on the European and Asian tornado counts for this year, due to the lack of editors willing to work with the new format. So far, the European/Asian section lacks detailed sections such as the ones about US tornadic events, such in rating classifications, injuries, relevance/news sourcing, and images. We still haven't even finished finalizing the March/April tornado count in Europe, so this is obviously a large problem we never should have gotten into in the first place. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    The "structural" issues I see are mostly article-composition related. The flow of this layout as compared to the old layout (pre-2023) is less orderly and more complicated, with the lack of a linked table of contents for chronological purposes, as well as having overly long written sections and short ones in close proximity to each other. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    How is organizing by continent more complicated? If the info isn’t there, then that becomes more obvious with the continental listing. It’s like organizing by tropical cyclone basins. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Hurricanehink You aren't wrong in your idealistic argument. Organizing by continent does not make the tornado page more complicated, and it could be more useful. The problem is that no one is willing to work with it, and our page views have dropped compared to last year. In fact, the continental-layout failed to really take the US-centered bias from this article, so these proposed reversions could perhaps adjust this goal for a more realistic result. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 02:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    Also, you can't really compare global tropical cyclones to global tornadoes due to the differences in available data & information. Tropical cyclones are tracked year-round across the world via satellites and by multiple weather agencies (NOAA, NWS, JMA, JTWC, etc). Hence, widespread information and updates on tropical cyclones throughout the world. But regarding tornadoes, only the US and Europe have actual tornado databases. Asia has a very limited database to work with (mostly China - no other countries with consistent tornado information) and Africa and South America have none at all. So when you want to organize tornado layout by continent, you are making it harder to source information here and thus lowering the quality of the content we produce. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    @HamiltonthesixXmusic: A very quick Google tells me that there are tornado databases in South Africa, Japan, New Zealand, Australia and Fiji, while im sure if I dug deeper we could get a lot more sources for tornadoes around the world together. I also came across this blog post which backs my thinking about tornado databases existing up. As a result, I personally reject the argument that we are making it harder source information and are lowering the quality of the content we produce just because we are organizing by continent.Jason Rees (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    See how detailed those databases are and if they are suitable for all the tornado articles created (going all the way to 1980).
    Anyways, I am done arguing with you. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    @HamiltonthesixXmusic: I am trying to work out my position and responded to your position with a calm and reasonable question, in order to try and figure out my thinking on this proposal since we go by consensus and not necessarily what the majority wants.Jason Rees (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    Is the consensus not majority-driven? What in the world are you talking about? HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Pertinent to this discussion is the Wikipedia policy for Consensus neither requires unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Further, just to add a bit to this discussion, I already said tornadoes should be organized by continent, but I want to go further, that tornadoes should be organized at the local level, such as country, or even more local in the case of U.S. states, and likely Mexican/Indian/Australian states, Chinese provinces, etc. I believe if all of the articles were created, then users would get used to such a format. Major outbreaks usually get their own articles anyway. This would prevent having to list every single outbreak by month, or even every tornado, in the parent Tornadoes of YYYY list. They would all be mentioned in their regional articles. It would take a long time, but I think that is where the project is heading inevitably. I believe that provides a solution for how to organize the information, which seems to be the main concern. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
This is too idealistic. We have seen editors unwilling to frequently update tornado information for continental lists and sections, it will never work with all regions across the world.
Also, you and Jasper Deng seem to be the only editors against the reversion to the previous layout. There are eight editors in support of reversion, it’s by no means a close decision. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 10:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@HamiltonthesixXmusic: Read the link that @Hurricanehink: provided to you as you will find that the consensus is based on the quality of an argument rather than whether it represents a minority or a majority view.Jason Rees (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - The main argument presented to revert to the old format is the quality of the article suffering due to a lack of editors willing to update sections outside of the United States, however, these quality issues would still be present if we reverted to the old format. As a result of this and seeing other articles that people are supposedly not willing to work on, I lean towards opposing reverting the format to what it was.Jason Rees (talk) 12:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I am going to oppose your opposition; the whole point of reverting is to get rid of the extra section that no one wants to edit and update. If no one wants to update the European section since April, why don't we just delete the whole thing??? HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
The solution isn't to delete the information. It's to make it easier to navigate and contribute. As for me being too idealistic, yea, I've seen how Wikipedia has evolved over the last 19 years. More articles, more structure, and more discussion generally leads to more productive outcomes. The issue earlier was organizing the information. Having a blank section is allowed, and it makes it easier to see what information could be added to give the article a more global point of view. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I took a quick look at the linked discussion you provided - your own argument was that ALL tornado articles (including tornadoes of the 20th century!) should have their layouts changed to this global layout. Now, you have your ideals set. Try and find anyone willing to edit that many articles.
It is much easier to go with the previous format, because it worked well without conflict for so many years. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Basically, I agree with your idea that global events should be recorded and given a section. But I do not think it can accomplish that ideal AND maintain quality with the prevalent unwillingness of us editors to actually work on this massive undertaking. It is not realistic at all. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's that unrealistic, and I'm not telling anyone that they have to edit. It seems that the impetus of this discussion was the discussion before this "Tornadoes of XXXX - Article format of 2022 and earlier", in which an editor already changed over the format going back to 2011. Wikipedia doesn't have to be perfect now, but it's already good thanks to so many editors, who are going to keep on doing their thing regardless of the outcome of this discussion, since most of the action happens in the individual outbreak articles (whether in the US or elsewhere honestly). Going back to old ways might seem easier, but if it had its flaws, shouldn't we find a different way forward? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was also partially thinking, we have lost several good editors throughout the years and with the recent influx of inexperienced editors, changing to a new, completely different layout too soon was a mistake. You make good points, it just doesn't address my personal convictions and that's alright.
Perhaps we should take a more middle approach with this layout issue. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
So you are describing an inherently undemocratic process? I am at a plain loss with your words. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Correct, Wikipedia is not a democracy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Slight support 1 and 2, support 3. - The older layout was much more easy to navigate (as many editors have pointed out). #3 is different, as while U.S. stats are definitely higher, majority of the [Tornadoes of ####] articles are heavily biased toward a US-centric view and need to be changed to at least a slight extent. They all help tackle the US-centered problem, though. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 00:31, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

As I am one of the dissenters to the proposal, I want to find a solution to the valid concerns from various editors, seeing as the above discussion seems to have died down without a consensus. Some of the main points of discussion seem to be wanting United States monthly totals. I still don't see anything wrong with that personally, just that I'd rather see that a yearly level listed as a table, and maybe even a breakdown by each category. In the interest of fairness around the world, we have the same tables for each country, where we have the total. It seems that the information organization is the main concern, and I want to acknowledge that without doing a complete reversal to listing all events by month. By keeping it in the format where it is organized by continent, we still have the geographic consistency, while still making sure the article isn't clunky. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Two things: One, had you not started this, I was going to put a formal request for the discussion to be closed today, as today was the 1-week mark since the discussion started, so I guess we have to put that on hold now. Two, a yearly table by country would not work due to there being three (four in reality) scales used to measure tornadoes: F, EF, IF, and TORRO and the F/EF, IF, and TORRO have three different steps (6, 9, and 12 respectively). Too much of a pain.
In the original proposal, the process to list monthly/yearly totals per country (not just the US) was to add a sentence at the beginning of each month's section, meaning the yearly totals per country are listed in the article lead and the month totals per country are a small "lead" paragraph at the beginning of each month.
As for this proposal, if I am interpreting it correctly, you want to (1) keep the By continent format and (2) have a massive bulky chart either before the by-continent sections or at the very bottom, rather than a short few sentence paragraph explaining it? So, I am going to have to be a strong oppose to this, as bulky charts just create way too much space in articles (example being on List of European tornadoes in 2022#European yearly total, which is outdated as is and needs a lot of work/redone to begin with). A four sentence paragraph in a by-month section is way better than a large chart that would either (1) single the US/Canada out to begin with due to those countries using the EF scale/CEF scale vs other countries using the F or IF scale or (2) just be miserable to maintain and/or create. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Small comment – Respectfully, I think there was a clear consensus on the first proposal, with 10 editors in support of all three proposals, 1 in support of point 1 and 3, and 3 editors in complete opposition.
In summary:
Point 1 – 11 editors in support of By Month layout vs 3 editors in opposition of By Month layout
Point 2 – 10 editors in support of adding "(United States)" vs 4 editors in opposition of it.
Point 3 – 11 editors in support of adding US & international totals at the beginning of each months sections vs 3 editors in opposition to that.
Even though Wikipedia is not a vote/democracy, that seems like a clear consensus even after a week discussion. So I would also disagree with your statement that the discussion "died down without a consensus." The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Correct, each country would have its own table listing tornadoes by month. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that is a very big oppose to that then. You do realize that more than 40 countries (on average) see tornadoes every year? 40! We do not need to fill that article with 40 tables. And no, I am not exagerating that point. Look at List of European tornadoes in 2022. 22 European countries had tornadoes. That is right there 22 tables, not even counting anyone outside of just Europe. Like I said, way too much work when literally a few sentence paragraph can do just the same. Your proposal is basically this: Instead of a 3-5,000 byte-size thing to summarize monthly totals, we need 50+k bytes-sized tables. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose this alternate proposal as unnecessary. United States Man (talk) 02:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Replacing the current nonsensical layout with this alternate proposal is like putting lipstick on a pig. Makes the whole navigation scheme so much worse with so many additional tables and sections. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'm striking the proposal. I don't want to hold this up and push my views any further on this matter. There's more important fish to fry. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Support: I might not be too familiar with the format; but after looking at the 2008 example verses 2023; I like the monthly format better. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes Improvement Time!

Hello there! I am sending this alert to all members of the WikiProject Weather and editors who have recently edited in the realm of tornadoes.

There is a large and important discussion ongoing, with the goal to completely overhaul and improve the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. The previous improvement attempt back in 2022/2023 gained almost no participation. This alert is being sent out so these discussions hopefully gain a reasonably-sized participation, so the F5/EF5 tornado article, one of the most viewed weather-related articles on Wikipedia, can be improved for all readers!

If you wish to participate, please visit: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Snowstorm lists for other southern states and regions?

Any thoughts on creating snow articles for other states and regions such as Texas and Georgia, and perhaps regional areas such as Southern California, San Francisco Bay Area, and other southwestern desert areas? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I’d also suggest making a Snow in Hawaii article too. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I think rather than creating a Snow in Hawaii article the appropriate place to cover it would be a Mountain Snow section in Climate of Hawaii#Precipitation. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 14:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I’m all for that too. But I’d like a list of major snow events. In particular, the 2019 snowstorm that sent a dusting of snow down to 6,000 feet on Maui. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Are there enough unique significant snow events that would be too cumbersome to put in Climate of Hawaii? Every blizzard warning up in the mountains causes headlines to drive clicks but that doesn't mean they need individual coverage on Wikipedia. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 21:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
They don’t issue Blizzard Warnings for Hawaii anymore. The weather service put a stop to that because of the media attention. Moving forward, they’ll issue a Winter Storm Warning and a High Wind Warning and mention the possibility of blizzard conditions. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I've thought about this, as a parallel to the Snow in Florida article. For what it's worth, that article was once titled "List of snow events in Florida", which was a little clunky, but perhaps something like "List of Florida snow events" would be more natural? And I bring that up because a similar article could be made for other areas. I think it should be handled at a state level, so it could cover the most significant events, plus a general climatology. A "List of Alaska snow events" wouldn't be that useful listing every single event, but if it covered climatology and significant events (like the 1963 event that was apparently the snowiest day in US history) that would be more useful. Some places are better equipped to handle snowstorms, so those should be the lowest on the to do list. But lists for California, Texas, and Georgia would all be useful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Especially states like North Dakota or Alaska would be right at the bottom of the list if they’re even on the list at all. Only major blizzards would really need to be listed there. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. The project is headed toward having lists of every weather type for every area. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I would agree with that. Even to a lesser extent tropical cyclones. I think a list of tropical cyclones affecting West Virginia (and other states) would be a good idea too. Even though we don’t get the same hurricane experience that Florida gets. West Virginia has gotten some nasty floods from tropical storms, the occasional windstorm (see Hugo and Ike), tornadoes, and let’s not forget about the time it snowed in October (Sandy); flood lists for each state, as of this writing, we’re two days away from the 2 year anniversary of the deadly Eastern Kentucky floods. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Coastal Warning Display Tower

I am raising the same issue here as is displayed on this talk page (please make any replies there) to raise awareness of the issue. The article (mentioned in the title) has ZERO citations, there’s barely anything written, and I am seriously contemplating PROD-ing or AfD-ing the article if something isn’t done. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 02:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have also posted this message on our parent project’s talk page too. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 02:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Twisters (film) has an RfC

Twisters (film) has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding the inclusion of fire tornadoes in “Tornadoes of YYYY” articles

It has recently been brought to my attention by @ChessEric that there is a dispute whether or not to include fire tornadoes in “Tornadoes of YYYY” articles. They have been included before in articles such as Tornadoes of 2020 and were included in Tornadoes of 2018 before the dispute was raised by ChessEric. The dispute raised is that since most fire tornadoes do not form in the exact manner as supercell tornadoes they should not be included. The article fire tornado itself barely offers descriptions of notable fire tornadoes. Should fire tornadoes be included in “Tornadoes of YYYY” articles/split into their own section on these articles similar to the “Tornado Research” section recently added, or should an article split be made to Fire tornado such as “List of fire tornadoes”?IrishSurfer21 (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That was not even a fire tornado; it is a fire whirl, which is essentially a dust devil of fire. It doesn't go in there. ChessEric 02:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
This issue has been a while coming. Fire tornadoes are not particularly well understood, which means they defy easy classification. Some fire tornadoes have been filmed and reported on, but never surveyed; some have been surveyed and rated, but never given an NCDC entry; still others have been entered as "fire" or "wind" events instead of tornadoes. I have the beginnings of an article, including a list of confirmed fire tornadoes, at User:Penitentes/Fire tornado (draft) if that's at all helpful.
But as Eric says, many phenomena that the media calls "fire tornadoes" are just fire whirls. Fires contain rotating components at pretty much every scale, only the largest (the ones that are connected to the pyro-convective plume a wildfire generates) are actual fire tornadoes as the science understands them. — Penitentes (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I personally included fire tornadoes in the List of California tornadoes, so I think they could be included in the yearly weather article provided it was as noteworthy as other events; that is, it was deadly or particularly destructive. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 02:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:List of Illinois tornadoes

I am currently working on developing Draft:List of Illinois tornadoes, any help is appreciated. I have already reached out to WikiProject Illinois on the matter as well.  :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 1982 Pacific typhoon season

1982 Pacific typhoon season has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

PD-NWS Violations Update #1

I am providing members of the WikiProject of Weather along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an update to the discussions regarding the PD-NWS image copyright template.

For starters, no "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred. All that means is the template is not formally deprecated and is still in use. However, Rlandmann, an administrator on English Wikipedia, has begun an undertaking of reviewing and assessing all images (~1,400) that use the PD-NWS copyright template.

What we know:

  • Following email communications, the National Weather Service of Sioux Falls has removed their disclaimer, which has been used for the PD-NWS template for decades. This means, as far as the National Weather Service is concerned, the following statement is no longer valid: By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others. Currently, the PD-NWS template links to an archived version of the disclaimer. However, the live version of the disclaimer no longer contains that phrase.
  • See this deletion discussion for this point's information. NWS Paducah (1) failed to give attribution to a photographer of a tornado photograph, (2) placed the photo into the public domain without the photographer explicitly giving them permission to do so (i.e. the photo is not actually in the public domain), (3) and told users to acknowledge NWS as the source for information on the webpage. Oh, to note, this photographer is a magistrate (i.e. a judge). So, the idea of automatically trusting images without clear attribution on weather.gov are free-to-use is in question.
  • The Wikimedia Commons has a process known as precautionary principle, where if their is significant doubt that an image is free-to-use, it will be deleted. Note, one PD-NWS file has been deleted under the precautionary principle. The closing administrator remarks for the deletion discussion were: "Per the precautionary principle, there is "significant doubt" about the public domain status of this file (4x keep + nominator, 5x delete), so I will delete it."
  • Several photographs/images using the PD-NWS are currently mid-deletion discussion, all for various reasonings.
  • As of this message, 250 PD-NWS images have been checked out of the ~1,400.
  • The photograph of the 1974 Xenia tornado (File:Xenia tornado.jpg) was found to not be in the public domain. It is still free-to-use, but under a CC 2.0 license, which requires attribution. From April 2009 to August 2024, Wikipedia/Wikimedia was incorrectly (and by definition, illegally) using the photograph, as it was marked incorrectly as a public domain photograph.

Solutions:
As stated earlier, there is no "formal" rulings, so no "formal" changes have been made. However, there is a general consensus between editors on things which are safe to do:

  • Images made directly by NWS employees can be uploaded and used under the new PD-USGov-NWS-employee template (Usage: {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} ). This is what a large number of PD-NWS templated images are being switched to.
  • Images from the NOAA Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT) can be uploaded and used under the PD-DAT template (Usage: {{PD-DAT}} ). A large number of images are also being switched to this template.

For now, you are still welcome to upload images under the PD-NWS template. However, if possible it is recommended using the two templates above. I will send out another update when new information is found or new "rulings" have been made. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I’ll add that PD-UsGov-NOAA and PD-NEXRAD are also safe to use. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
(For images that meet the criteria) West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Jasper wildfire#Requested move 6 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jasper wildfire#Requested move 6 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 07:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2024 Wayanad landslides

2024 Wayanad landslides has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

A few Chicago-area drafts

I'm working on 3 draft articles centering on the Chicago metropolitan area right now, so feel free to help out. The drafts are:

Oddly enough, these all happened in June of their respective years. I'm certain that the Naperville–Woodridge tornado is notable enough to make it to mainspace, having attained WP:LASTING coverage with local news stories painting it as a big story still. The other two might go into joint articles for Draft:2022 Great Lakes derecho and Draft:Tornado outbreak of June 13, 1976, as they weren't the only events of those days, but I'll still work on them as Wikipedia has a bit of a drought of coverage for individual tornadoes that weren't F5s, and as practice for future weather articles. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

The Naperville seems to have been part of a broader outbreak that extended into Canada, with 16 events overall. How would you feel about a bigger article, like June 2021 Great Lakes tornado outbreak? Even the NWS treats it as part of the outbreak. I'm not sure what the notability criteria is for a single tornado, but I'm not sure the Naperville one qualifies. If it's mostly for its significance in terms of Chicago tornado climatology, may I point you to the recently-created List of Illinois tornadoes. Some Chicago-specific climatology could be useful there. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
My reply to that is that the Quebec tornado might warrant its own article, as EF2+ tornadoes seem to be quite rare in Quebec. However, aside from that EF2 and the EF3 in Naperville, the rest were weak (EF0/EF1) and likely don't warrant an overall outbreak article. The Naperville-Woodridge tornado is also still receiving news coverage as recently as 2 months ago, so it isn't completely forgettable like even the QLCS tornado mania during the July 14–15 outbreaks across Northern Illinois. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
For sure, I'm just thinking it might be easier to flesh out the article if it covered a few tornadoes, including another notable one part of the same system. Although if there is enough aftermath (which there could be since it's still in the news) then that further establishes the case for notability for the individual tornado. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Fahrenheit degree vs Fahrenheit scale - Wikidata

Not sure if this project is appropriate for handling this. If not, please forward to the right place or people.

On Wikidata, there is a distinction between degree Fahrenheit (Q42289) and Fahrenheit scale (Q105525247). Unfortunately, Wikipedia pages are all assigned to the former, regardless of what they describe. Usually they are both about the scale and about the degree. This needs cleanup. I see two ways of handling this:

Option 1: sort by subject

Every article needs to be assigned either to degree Fahrenheit (Q42289) or Fahrenheit scale (Q105525247) based on the name or main topic. If the same article also describes the other item, the other item should be assigned an appropriate redirect to the article. (For example, Fahrenheit scale (Q105525247) should be assigned the Fahrenheit scale redirect.)

Option 2: create a new item for lumping everything together

Create a Wikidata item like "Fahrenheit scale and degree" and move all Wikipedia articles there. (Unless an article talks only about one of the concepts.) Redirects should still be assigned to degree Fahrenheit (Q42289) and Fahrenheit scale (Q105525247), like described in option 1 above. --Tengwar (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2013 Washington, Illinois tornado#Requested move 20 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2013 Washington, Illinois tornado#Requested move 20 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 06:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

CoCoRaHS as a source for precipitation records

Hi all, I'm wondering whether CoCoRaHS records would be acceptable as a source for precipitation records. For example, the precipitation total for Hurricane Hone at Template:Wettest tropical cyclones in Hawaii could be increased to 34.37" at Volcano, Hawaii based on CoCoRaHS data, but I'm unsure if CoCoRaHS is considered reliable enough. Thanks! Jokullmusic 22:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

My view is that anyone can contribute to CoCoRaHS data, simply due to the nature of the program. I see it as generally unreliable in of itself, being a self-published primary source. However, I don't see why rainfall amounts from CoCoRaHS confirmed by the NWS or other relevant bodies couldn't be cited as fair secondary sources. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
My personal view is that taking data directly from CoCoRaHS is a no no since it would be us directly analysing it. If WFO Honolulu includes it in their post storm report or the WPC (@Thegreatdr:) includes it then we can include it.Jason Rees (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this take. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 14:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks! Jokullmusic 03:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Question about MOS in tornado / weather event ledes

I notice there are two distinct styles of introducing a tornado or other weather event in their lede. I'll illustrate it here with a hypothetical EF5 tornado in New Ulm, Minnesota before sunset on June 14, 2025 (please note this is purely for illustration purposes and is by no means a prediction).

(Style 1) The 2025 New Ulm tornado was a catastrophic and violent tornado affecting the cities of Springfield and New Ulm, Minnesota on June 14, 2025 . . .

(Style 2) On the evening of June 14, 2025, a catastrophic and violent EF5 tornado affected the cities of Springfield and New Ulm, Minnesota. It was the . . .

Which of these styles is preferred, and is there any desire to standardize all short-scale weather articles into that style? GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The second option is more elegant. But I'll point to MOS:AVOIDBOLD, which I think is useful here and even uses a natural disaster as an example. Underlined emphasis is mine.

"If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy.

The 2011 Mississippi River floods were a series of floods affecting the Mississippi River in April and May 2011, which were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century.
Major floods along the Mississippi River in April and May 2011 were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the U.S. waterway in the past century."
— Penitentes (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
This is what I had figured. I only bolded it to be consistent with Option 1; most I've seen in Style 2 are indeed not bolded. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Cool. I think the second option is pretty much always better; very rarely is a weather event (other than wildfires and tropical cyclones) actually given a moniker that is less clunky than just describing the event as in the example above. — Penitentes (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to also bring up tornadoes or weather events where the locations are not named in the title, for instance, if the 2021 Naperville - Woodridge tornado was titled the "Father's Day" tornado (which it could have been called, but currently doesn't have a widely used name in media coverage).
Some examples below.
(Style 1) The 2021 Father's Day tornado was an intense EF3 tornado affecting the communities of Naperville and Woodridge, Illinois. It was the . . .
(Style 2) On the evening of June 20, 2021, an intense EF3 tornado, often titled the Father's Day tornado,[1] affected the communities of . . .
I'd like to get the community's input on this example as well. Most newer tornadoes are named after where they hit nowadays, even something like the 2020 Nashville tornado that struck on Super Tuesday 2020. However, a lot of older tornadoes and a few outbreaks aren't, such as the 1925 Tri-State tornado and any and all super outbreaks. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC) GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

List of tornadoes striking airports

Would this topic be notable enough for its own article? I'd start a draft but I'd like to know beforehand if it has a fighting chance of making it to mainspace. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Certain places, you'd almost expect the airports to be struck, like in the midwest or Florida. It seems rather niche to focus only on airports, unless the airport was used as climatology for a certain area (due to their longtime weather records). There are lists of tornadoes in various states, like List of California tornadoes or List of Illinois tornadoes, so you would definitely have a chance of a successful article if you did a list for a state that doesn't yet have one. Here is the list of requested lists for certain areas, including in the US, and other parts around the world. I think any of those would be more useful than a tornado that happened to cross an airport. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I personally think that, while niche, it wouldn't be too hard to fill out since 2020 at least. Just this year, I can name off the EF2 in Rome, New York, the EF0 in Rosemont, Illinois, and the EF3 in Omaha, Nebraska, all of which hit airports. For reference, this would be filled out about as fast as List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of large cities, counting regional, municipal, and international airports. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
That's the thing, the list would have to accomplish two things. First, you have to show that there is established literature on the subject, that is, tornadoes striking airports. Is there anything that unusual or important about that specific factor? You could also do tornadoes hitting sports stadiums, or college campuses, but unless there is a decent bit of information on that that topic specifically, I don't think it's worth making such a list. I honestly don't think it could survive AFD. I'm not even sure if List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of large cities could survive AFD (indeed, there was an AFD back in 2017 that was 2 votes for deletion to 3 for keep), but that's for a different discussion. Is there a reason why the focus is on airports in particular? There are a lot of airports in the world, after all, not just in the United States (the three examples you gave). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I understand that. At this point I don't think I'll make the draft, after all.
By the way... I'm going to start a talk page at List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of large cities about changing the focus of the article. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry if what I said dissuaded you from editing in any way. I hope you find a topic you want to explore and that it's a useful one too! I'll follow the discussion on the other page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

PD-NWS Violations Update #2 (Key To Read Third Section)

I am providing members of the WikiProject of Weather along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an new update (2nd update) to the discussions regarding the PD-NWS image copyright template.

On the Commons, an RFC discussion is taking place to figure out how to manage the template. No "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred, so nothing has changed. That is not a surprise as the RFC is still ongoing.

What is new?

  • The entire Template:PD-NWS has been placed inside a "License Review" template, which is viewable via the link aforementioned.
  • Most of the photographs which were uploaded to the Commons originally under the PD-NWS template (approximately 1,500) have been reviewed. Out of those ~1,500 images, only about 150 are requiring additional looks. Most images have been verified as free-to-use and switched to a respective, valid template.
  • As of this moment, approximately 50 photos have been nominated for deletion (results pending).
  • A handful of images have been deleted (either confirmed copyrighted or under the Commons precautionary principle.
  • One image has been kept following a deletion request under the PD-NWS template.

How to deal with new photos?

Given all of this, you might be wondering how the heck you use weather photos while creating articles? Well, here is what you can do!

What about third-party photos?

In the case of third-party photos...i.e. ones not taken by the National Weather Service themselves...there is an option which was discussed and confirmed to be valid from an English Wikipedia Administrator.

  • KEY: Third party images of tornadoes & weather-related content can potentially be uploaded via Wikipedia's Non-Free Content Guidelines!
  • Experiments/testing has been done already! In fact, I bet you couldn't tell the difference, but the tornado photograph used at the top of the 2011 Joplin tornado was already switched to a Non-Free File (NFF)! Check it out: File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg! That photo's description can also be used as a template for future third-party tornado photographs uploaded to Wikipedia...with their respective information replaced.
  • NFFs can be uploaded to multiple articles as well!
  • The absolute key aspect of NFFs is that they relate to the article and are not decoration. For example with the Joplin tornado, the photograph: (1) shows the size of the tornado, (2) shows the "wall of darkness", which was described by witnesses, (3) shows a historic, non-repeatable event of the deadliest tornado in modern U.S. history. The exact reasoning does not have to be extremely specific as Wikipedia's NFF guidelines "is one of the most generous in the world" (words of Rlandmann (not pinged), the administrator reviewing all the PD-NWS template images).
  • Tornado photographs will almost certainly qualify under the NFF guidelines, especially for tornadoes with standalone articles or standalone sections.
  • NFFs cannot be used when a free-photograph is available, no matter the quality, unless the section is about that specific photograph. For example, the photograph used at the top of the 2013 Moore tornado article is confirmed to be free-to-use, therefore, no NFFs of that tornado can be uploaded on Wikipedia. However, the "Dead Man Walking" photograph could almost certainly be uploaded as an NFF to the 1997 Jarrell tornado article as that photograph is the topic of a section in the article.
  • NFFs currently on Wikipedia can and should be placed in this category: Category:Non-free pictures of tornadoes.

Update Closing

Hopefully all of that information kept you informed on the Commons copyright discussion process and how you can still create the best articles possible! If you have a question about something mentioned above, reply back and I will do my best to answer it! Also, ping me in the process to ensure I see it! Have a good day! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Merging vs. breaking out storm articles into/from parent articles

I reviewed 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado at FAC, and commented there that I thought it should be merged into the parent season article, Tornado outbreak sequence of April 4–7, 2022. I know I've seen some storm articles merged into their season articles -- Tropical Storm Erick (2007) used to be an FA, for example, but was merged into 2007 Pacific hurricane season in 2013. Does this project have any guidelines on when splits or merges should happen? I'm considering nominating 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado for merging but wanted to check with this project first since I suspect there must have been discussions on this sort of thing in the past. Pinging WeatherWriter, the nominator of that article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t need merged. It was broken out due to coverage vs the rest of the outbreak. That single tornado’s article is about 22,000 bytes in size while the outbreak article is 115,000 bytes. The outbreak article is for 89 tornadoes. The “small” (quotes for a reason) section in the outbreak article for that tornado is 5,700 bytes long. Roughly, if you subtrack what is duplicate/near duplicate from the two articles, you are left with about 16,000 bytes worth of content. So that is about 16,000 bytes of content that would be merged…meaning the outbreak article would be 131,000 bytes. Out of that 132,000 bytes, over 16% of the article would be about this single tornado. Note, a merge would mean over 16% of an article related to four days worth of tornadoes…with 89 total tornadoes…would be about a single tornado. That is why it was split out. I have been creating GA-worthy articles for tornadoes when they start reaching 10+% of a large outbreak’s worth of content. One tornado should not be over 16% of an article which is about 89 tornadoes. Right now, due to it being split out, it is actually 5% of the total article. The strongest tornado of the year should have additional coverage (obviously based on RS), but 5% for an article about 89 tornadoes sounds a lot better than over 16% coverage. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I am just mentioning this as how it is. If one tornado is indeed the “main” tornado that defines an outbreak, it should not be split out. But instead, the outbreak article is renamed. A good example of this is the 2020 Nashville tornado outbreak. The 2020 Nashville tornado, despite not being the strongest tornado of the outbreak, is 20% of the entire article’s length. Due to it being the tornado of the Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020, consensus formed to rename the article. A similar thing exists for the 1953 Waco tornado outbreak. So, if a merge was ever done, given that single tornado would be +16% of the entire article length, the entire article should be renamed, which consensus almost certainly would not fall behind, as other notable (and well RS-covered) tornadoes occurred that day as well. Basically, there isn’t any clear-cut guidelines on when to split vs not split, but my personal “go-to” is that 10% mark in terms of byte-length. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

A common discussion in merge discussion is counting the size in bytes (which includes references and coding) versus counting the number of words (readable prose). The outbreak sequence article has around 7,500 words, including 672 words (8.96% percent of the article as is). The 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado article is only 1,273 words, which includes the lead, the synopsis for the event, aftermath, and image captions. If you add the ~600 new words by merging, then the parent article would be 8,100 words, with about 1,200 words dedicated to the EF4 tornado, or 15% of the total word count. I don't think that's unreasonable for the only EF4 of the event, so I agree that a merger is appropriate. The benchmark I think about is the 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak and the 1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado, which has lengthy analysis and coverage of the single event. That doesn't seem to be the case for the Pembroke tornado. In general, I don't think individual tornadoes should get their own articles if they're part of a bigger outbreak, unless they're extraordinary on their own. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Instead of pouting, you could work on something that's important enough that won't be merged, such as the outbreak article that the article is the merger target. This isn't targeted toward you WeatherWriter (talk · contribs). You don't own the article, but at the same time, your contributions are generally appreciated. Try putting that editing energy toward something more important, which will likely mean that even more people will appreciate your edits. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
I’m not pouting. In the last 2 months, non-Weather editors have done a 180 to weather articles. Nothing personally against Mike Christie, but at the same time, my dumb choice to do an FAC brought non-weather editors to the article. A lot of out tornado photos are going to be gone from the Commons due to non-weather editors, several long-time weather editors (myself included) are too tired/busy to make articles. Just really annoyed that we have no clear-cut guidelines and everything has changed dramatically in the last 2-3 months. Now, one of things I was proud of is being more or less deleted. Yes, I know it isn’t deleted, but I was proud of getting that article to GA status…now y’all are about to take that pride 100% away. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
That's part of the process, figuring out better guidelines so they're in line with longstanding Wikipedia policies. It wasn't a dumb choice to do an FAC either, since you felt it was a good article. I'm sorry you went through that effort and now you're finding out that your work might not be kept on Wikipedia. That does suck, and there are a lot of users who can probably relate to that feeling. At the same time, there is a right way of doing things, and sometimes that takes figuring things out, even if that includes input from meddling outside editors :P If you want to salvage as much as you can, then you can help participate in the process of making the outbreak a featured article. You're already invested in that topic. I don't think it will be that difficult, considering you've already tackled the most important part of the outbreak. Try not to be discouraged though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and proposed the merge, here; please add !votes and comments there. WeatherWriter, Hink says above that plenty of other users can sympathize with your situation, and I agree. Plenty of the articles I've created have been deleted; it's annoying, but you might think about it as a graduation process -- it's certainly part of how I learned the rules here, and it was no fun for me either to realize I'd wasted my own time on some things. I've been here a long time and I think I understand the rules but I still had a new article of mine taken to AfD not that long ago. It happens. And don't feel like your content is at risk of being destroyed; if the merge happens much of what you wrote will survive in the target article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussion about AccuWeather's damage estimates

I started an RSN thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#AccuWeather for damage estimates about the efficacy of AccuWeather's damage estimates in the context of Wikipedia. Feel free to participate. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Regenerating Storms

I'm proposing that {{Infobox tropical cyclone}} be modified to have formed1, dissipated1, formed2, dissipated2, and formed3, dissipated3. It'd be rendered as "Formed", "First dissipation", "Reformed", or something like that. The idea is to better show the durations of storms that regenerated, like John. What do we think of this idea? Jasper Deng (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I can see it working in the NHC areas where regeneration happens all the time, but not in the non NHC areas where systems are more likely to be carried as a tropical depression etc.Jason Rees (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Don't we treat dissipation as being the dissipation of the extratropical cyclone after the fact (as in Hurricane Wilma) and not when it loses tropical characteristics? John as a disturbance never died. I think the existing infobox is fine, we don't need to address every nuance in the infobox. It is meant to be an at a glance summary. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 18:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Not quite. A system retains a low-level cyclonic circulation if it undergoes ETT. John didn't do that–its LLCC completely dissipated and it opened into a trough. That's why its (first) dissipation was declared with a "Remnants of John" and not "Post-tropical Cyclone John" heading.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I still think this is overly detailed for an infobox. That information belongs in the prose. Note that even as a trough, John was still a weather disturbance and the vast majority of people associated the system's impacts with that name. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 13:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Saying it "belongs in the prose" on its own is a non-argument. It is more important to be correct than to be brief, and I would not say the "vast majority" of people associated the intermediate rains with "John". Also, John is just one example. Another is Harvey of 2017. Making data structured this way will also facilitate its import into Wikidata; prose by definition is not machine readable, unlike infoboxes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@Jasper Deng: Infobox tropical cyclone is no longer used so I assume you meant this for {{Infobox weather event}}? Noah, BSBATalk 19:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I mean infobox weather event.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd be fine with this being an option. Noah, BSBATalk 00:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Copyright of content from National Weather Service

Per the discussion at Commons:Requests for comment/Third-party images published by the National Weather Service, many files from the National Weather Service have been determined to have potential copyright issues. In particular, only some files submitted to the National Weather Service have actually been released into public domain. This means a lot of other files are at the risk of deletion from Commons; some may need to be transferred to Wikipedia for fair use.

@Rlandmann has put together a list of all known Commons files obtained from the National Weather Service. The author and provenance of some of those files have yet to be determined. If anyone here knows more about those files, then please share what you have. We appreciate any assistance! Ixfd64 (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Ixfd64 -- slight correction -- that list isn't all known Commons files obtained from the NWS (that would be a list of over 12,000 files!) Rather, it's a list of all known Commons files obtained from the NWS whose copyright status is currently under question.
Most of these are on the Commons via a purely innocent mistake of thinking that their publication on an NWS website meant that they had necessarily been released into the public domain. A very small number are blatant copyvios, and the copyright status of others is ambiguous for a range of reasons. (And Commons policy defaults to delete unless their free status can be demonstrated beyond significant doubt, via evidence) --Rlandmann (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:List of US tornado records by state

I promise this isn't WP:LISTCRUFT as specific as it might sound, but I've started work on a list of tornado records based on the states in which they occurred. Feel free to contribute. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That really seems like listcruft. For example when I worked on List of California tornadoes, I had a lot of difficulty finding out the costliest tornado in the state. It seems like a random one in 2015, but I wasn't able to find proper sources for that. I mention that because I don't see any sourcing in the list, and that's probably going to be difficult going state by state. I do think there is a need for tornadoes by state, like List of Arkansas tornadoes, more than having a records list. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
This is mostly so tornadoes that have WP:NWEATHER's statewide record get a place, and plus, everything will be verifiable in time. I'm mostly waiting for the NCEI database to come back online. The only part of WP:LISTCRUFT this might break is the first, that being obscurity, but even then I'm sure there are way more lists that get a pass (cough cough Category:Lists of National Register of Historic Places by county for every single county in the USA, most averaging under one view per day, cough cough). GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree we should have those records, but it's going to be difficult doing every state without having lists for every state. I think you're kind of doing it backwards. If that list was just something like List of US tornadoes by state, I could get behind it. Such a page would have the individual lists for each state, and then could also have a table like this, which would be a useful comparison for, say, the deadliest in each state, or costliest, or strongest, or largest. But just having it as a page on its own seems a bit too specific IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I understand your position. Perhaps it isn't going to be its own standalone page in mainspace, but I'll keep it in draftspace until the aforementioned list gets created. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I have to agree on @Hurricanehink on that. Although in lieu of making separate records articles. You could always put any known state tornado records in the state tornado article. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Excessive Rainfall Outlooks

Per @ChessEric’s reply on the List of SPC high risk days talk page. I would like to propose creating a list of WPC high risk excessive rainfall days. We don’t get that many of them and they weren’t introduced but maybe a decade ago. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 13:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Has this particular thread been abandoned? Because no one has replied to my excessive rainfall outlook question. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 04:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

New tornado articles and the news

I was wondering if it's a good idea to change the project's ideas for notability for new tornado articles that are considered newsworthy. The example I'm immediately going to point to is the 2024 Greenfield tornado, which took until 8 July 2024 to exist in mainspace. SirMemeGod nominated a previous mainspace article for deletion on 30 May: This article was created way too prematurely. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur tornado for a good example of this “too soon” policy.

WP:TOOSOON is an argument I see all too often when it comes to articles on recent individual tornadoes and I'm getting a little sick of it, especially here. The tornado had already killed 5 and was in the news cycle for its DOW-measured windspeeds of 263–271 mph (423–436 km/h), not the devastation to Greenfield. If BEST (the FARM research project that put the DOW fleet in Iowa that day) wasn't happening in 2024, it wouldn't have an article, but since it was, we had factual evidence that it was much more powerful than its assigned rating. Don't rush to delete articles is part of WP:DEADLINE, which also applies, as everyone knew that it would get news coverage for its DOW measurements eventually, and sure enough, by 24 June 2024, the DOW team calculated the figure of 309–318 mph (497–512 km/h) inside the tornado.

Although Greenfield wasn't as sensationalized as I would have expected, it also did have significant news coverage after it happened. This leads me to my point. If, say, an EF5 tornado moves through a city, and DOW catches 320mph+ wind measurements / calculations / whatever, under the current guidelines, the article is likely to be deleted until well after it occurred. My proposal is to institute a specific set of in-project guidelines for notability so that way a repeat of this situation doesn't occur.

From my understanding, the articles for 2013 El Reno tornado and 2021 Western Kentucky tornado are the best examples of tornadoes that were obviously notable enough for an article. They had a concrete death toll, record-breaking qualities, and were significant in the weather community. 2023 Rolling Fork-Silver City tornado and 2021 Tri-State tornado were both created well after they occurred. If a tornado is in the news cycle, just the one tornado, and it has record-breaking qualities or a high death toll or something else about it, like Greenfield did, then it shouldn't wait to get an article, after the significance is established.

I propose the following guidelines for establishing the notability for articles on recent (i.e. less than 1 month since they occurred) tornadoes to avoid the old WP:TOOSOON deletion arguments and all that. Note that not all of these criteria must be met.

  • 1. The tornado causes over 20 deaths. (i.e. 2021 Western Kentucky tornado)
  • 2. The tornado impacts a smaller-scale location, where significant devastation occurs. (none have happened recently, but think the Indiana State Fair stage collapse of 2011 if the tornado was confirmed, or the 1967 Belvidere tornado which caused 300 injuries at a school. If the only notable impact is at the location, then the article should be about the impact there, not the tornado itself.)
  • 3. The tornado causes a significant amount of damage or devastation in a city of over 25,000. (i.e. 2011 Joplin tornado. The population figure is arbitrary, as is the amount of damage, but Joplin would still have been worthy of its own article before surveys were complete and before the death toll was calculated.)
  • 4. The tornado sets a record for path length, path width, or another objective indicator. (i.e. 2013 El Reno tornado)
  • 5. The tornado has a measured or calculated wind speed of over 300 mph (480 km/h). (i.e. 2024 Greenfield tornado)
  • 6. The tornado is rated EF5, IF5, F5, or equivalent. (i.e. 2013 Moore tornado)
  • 7. The tornado receives significant news coverage from non-weather and international sources. (i.e. 2021 South Moravia tornado. This is a catch-all clause that can save any tornado article as it is the clearest example of setting notability. However, the articles must be on the individual tornado, not on the parent outbreak.)

Some other notes:

  • Any records must be confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt to have been surpassed. Wind speed measurements or calculations should be confirmed by the agency that produced them, and any calculated figures must be calculated by an expert and not synthesized by Wikipedia editors. (WP:SYNTH)
  • The tornado does not need to have a final NCEI event database entry to have its own article.
  • Tornadoes rated EF5 or equivalent must be confirmed by the relevant agency that rates them.

Tornadoes that meet any of these criteria will be spared from WP:TOOSOON deletions, as they will have clearly shown their notability already. This is assuming, of course, that everything is confirmed by independent coverage; if it is only assumed that the criteria are met, then a TOOSOON AfD can go through.

Some examples of tornadoes that don't quite meet these criteria:

  • 1. 2023 Rolling Fork-Silver City tornado. It only caused 17 deaths as a high-end EF4 tornado.
  • 2. Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023#Belvidere, Illinois. I'm referring to the EF1 tornado that caused the collapse at the Apollo Theatre in Belvidere, Illinois that killed one. It falls short of the objective devastation I propose, and doesn't even have its own section.
  • 3. 2023 Little Rock tornado. Yes, over 600 injuries were reported in a major city of 200,000, however that number fell steeply to 54, with only one indirect fatality occurring.
  • 4. 2021 Quad–State tornado. If we listened to the initial reports of what would be the Tri-state and Western Kentucky tornadoes, this would have had a path length of 230 miles. While perhaps the Western Kentucky part did set a record, it wasn't the figure of 230 that would have easily beaten the 1925 Tri–State tornado.
  • 5. 2024 Harlan, Iowa tornado. Before Greenfield, this was a big news story in the weather community with wind speeds of 224 mph (360 km/h) calculated at ground level. That's IF4 on the International Fujita Scale and not quite newsworthy in this context.
  • 6. 2023 Keota, Iowa tornado. This had an EF5 DI on the preliminary Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT) that Wikipedia editors use so often that was confirmed to have been an error. It was, however, confirmed to have done exactly one point of low-end EF4 damage, which does technically make it violent per the EF scale.
  • 7. 2024 Hollister tornado. It was the subject of much local coverage that stated it was "the most powerful tornado of all time" but of course it only did EF1 damage and all we had to go off of was radar. Its parent outbreak doesn't have its own article, and when Trey Greenwood did an analysis he found that it was not the most powerful tornado of all time and indeed probably wouldn't even have been a violent one.

I know this is a lot of text, but these guidelines will help us if an individual tornado gets nominated for ITN (most likely, I'd be the one to put it there), or if it gets enough news coverage that readers would go out of their way to find an article on it specifically, independent of its parent outbreak. Let me know what you think of this proposal. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging a few editors that I'd guess would be interested in this sort of thing: @ChessEric @Sir MemeGod @Hurricane Clyde @Tails Wx @TornadoLGS @WeatherWriter @Алексеев Н. @Hoguert @Hurricane Noah
Summary: I've written a proposal above concerning WP:TOOSOON nominations in WPW space. If agreed to, tornadoes meeting any of the 7 criteria outlined above will be exempt from TOOSOON nominations. However, they still must have reliable sources proving they meet the exemption and can be deleted for other reasons; this is merely a way to have articles about new tornadoes that have a high-impact or newsworthiness, such that they can appear on ITN or elsewhere, where traffic to the individual tornado's article warrants it to be independent of its parent outbreak. This does not affect any existing articles, but will affect any future tornado articles about tornadoes that are created under one month after they occur. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree to all the suggestions except 4 and 5. Also, I think the Little Rock tornado could have its own article. The 2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado article is not needed though. ChessEric 03:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I will formally have a vote later tonight, but I will note that a certain set of articles can't be "exempt" from a rule (with extremely rare cases obviously). TOOSOON is 100% a relevant policy, and a WikiProject can't overrule that. I'm even going to be bold and say that the Greenfield tornado doesn't meet LASTING, but that's just my opinion and I won't start a second AfD because I'm not dead-set on deleting a well-written article. Anyways, that's aside from the point. :) SirMemeGod  19:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Also courtesy ping @United States Man: and @TornadoInformation12:, since I know they'd be interested. SirMemeGod  19:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Comment This isn't meant to override TOOSOON, rather to better define it within the project space. As it is, one of the main reasons the Greenfield tornado was voted to be deleted was it didn't have an NCEI entry, even though it had plenty of news coverage establishing notability. This proposal is meant to counter that.
Also, LASTING isn't a formal reason to delete I'd think. Moreso, a reason to keep articles that cause events beyond them to happen. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
LASTING is under WP:NEVENT, a formally-designated policy that can either be used as creation or deletions. I had just said that to add, it wasn't really anything of note (also don't worry, I won't target the Greenfield or Elkhorn articles). :) SirMemeGod  19:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I would actually support having an exemption to WP:TOOSOON for high impact tornadoes. Especially ones that would be candidates for ITN.
But I also think tornado outbreak articles (only for outbreaks that have already happened) should have some clarification as to when TOOSOON applies (although maybe not an outright exemption). Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
But I’d like to also add to the above and courtesy ping @Hurricanehink and @Ks0stm as well; since they participate in weather-related projects. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 21:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Yea this all makes sense on an individual basis. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Support, I'm also getting sick of TOOSOON used as an argument as well regarding tornado and weather event-related articles in general. Guidelines above are well-said and I don't see a problem with them at all along with the examples noted above. ~ Tails Wx 20:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to attach a table of tornadoes and their notability by this proposal, as well as general notability as gauged by my opinions and those of other editors.

Tornadoes since 2013 (updated 5 October 2024)
Tornado 20+ Fatalities Localized devastation Widespread devastation Objective record 300 mph recorded F5 / equivalent Significant coverage General notability Has an article
2011 Joplin tornado Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
2013 Moore tornado Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
2013 El Reno tornado No No No Yes Yes Maybe Yes Yes Yes
2013 Washington, Illinois tornado No No Maybe No No No Maybe Yes Yes
2020 Nashville tornado No No Maybe No No No Maybe Yes No
2021 Western Kentucky tornado Yes Maybe Maybe Maybe No No Yes Yes Yes
2021 Tri-State tornado No No No No No No No Yes Yes
2023 Little Rock tornado No No No No No No No Maybe No
2023 Keota, Iowa tornado No No No No No Maybe No No No
2024 Sulphur tornado No No Maybe No No No No No No
2024 Hollister, Oklahoma tornado No No No Maybe No No Maybe No No
2024 Elkhorn–Blair tornado No No Maybe No No No Maybe Maybe Yes
2024 Greenfield tornado No No No No Yes No Maybe Yes Yes

These are my view on these tornadoes, if you have a counterpoint to any of these entries feel free to reply. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

  1. ^ example
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather/Archive_5&oldid=1257824233"