Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.


Format Issue Status?[edit]

Hey all, back from an unannounced break. Before my break, it looked like there was overwhelming support to go back to the old format, but now it looks like everything is dead in the water. What happened? I cannot make sense of the discussion. If most users want the old format, don't we just go to back to the old format? I don't understand what is getting in the way, and would really appreciate it if someone explained the current situation. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Personally I opposed the new format at first, but have come to enjoy it better as I've used it frequently over the past months. I did not even know there was a discussion to revert back to the old format to begin with, so maybe that may be a point; that said discussion was maybe not more extensively encouraged throughout the Severe Weather Project. Mjeims (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoInformation12: despite my idea to request formal closure in a week for the big discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles, Jasper Deng argued that a week would not be long enough ("Something this contentious ought to stay open for discussion for much longer than just a couple of weeks"), so an RFC was started. Right now, there is over a 2/3 majority for the old format (11 to 3), but like always, Wikipedia bureaucracy put a temporary hold on the idea and we have an RFC set to expire on June 7. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the old format idea brought by @TornadoInformation12 is a great idea. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing though. The current format appears to have been used for years. The by month format hasn’t been used since 2010. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:8DA2:1017:AC5D:DA4A (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone can explain what the “old format” is; that would be great. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:8DA2:1017:AC5D:DA4A (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because I haven’t noticed any changes between the 2022 format and 2023. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:8DA2:1017:AC5D:DA4A (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the format was changed in 2023, and several users expanded the new format up to 2010. Look at Tornadoes of 2007 for the old format in usage. It works better for an encyclopedic format. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree with the 2007 format 100%. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland?[edit]

Can someone please start looking into sources surrounding a strong long-tracked family of tornadoes that resulted in a tornado touchdown in the Baltimore metro area; and a particularly strong tornado around the Gaithersburg area just north of DC. Please? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's early yet. Damage surveys are still underway. Keep an eye out for statements from the Baltimore/Washington NWS office. Though I don't think the Gaithersburg tornado was that strong. From early damage pics I don't anticipate a rating higher than EF1. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It had a PDS Tornado Warning on it at one point. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I’ll keep an eye out. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tornadoes also affected several other states. Surveys are also planned in parts of Virginia and West Virginia as well. I am also aware of Tornado Warnings in Delaware too last night. But I haven’t checked the NWS Philadelphia/Mount Holly website yet. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Highest rating was a high end EF1. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And two things @TornadoLGS, number 1, I already know about the IEM, I’ve used it before (including on other Wikipedia articles). Secondly, a friendly reminder that you forgot to time stamp your signature. Remember it’s four tildes, not three! (Three tildes only generates your username.)West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a good place to look is the Iowa Environmental Mesonet. They archive statements that don't always appear on the NWS main page. Mainly we look for public information statements (PNS). You'll see we make heavy use of it on the monthly tornado lists. As to the PDS warning, we have had those, and even tornado emergencies, associated with weak tornadoes. TornadoLGS (talk) Timestamp of that comment was 20:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC). Timestamp added by West Virginia WXeditor (talk). [reply]
But let’s please stay on topic. That way this discussion doesn’t get closed. Keeping in mind that @Ks0stm already closed one discussion because it was turning into a forum; and I (as an IP) closed another one for the same reason. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it was kind of borderline. But I wanted to balance things since there sometimes is a tendency to jump the gun on the significance of events, though this one clearly fits in. Also the three "~"s was just a typo. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 3rd South Africa tornado[edit]

Should it have an article? It is notable, killing 11, displacing 1200, and occuring at an unusual time if the year. The section on this page is also getting lengthy. I think it should have a separate article, what do you all think? Weather article creator (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the section is six sentences long and has only one source, not what I would call lengthy. It would need more than that for an article. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I agree with @TornadoLGS on this. Only one source; that is most certainly NOT enough to warrant a standalone article. There really needs to be at least half a dozen sources before I would even consider writing an article about this. Any standalone article attempt would potentially get PRODed, AfD’ed, tagged with a bunch of templates, etc. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Make semi-protected?[edit]

The editor who originally asked for this page to be semi-protected is a confirmed sock puppet of Lokicat3345; a user who is currently banned from Wikipedia last year due to persistent disruption and vandalism. This page is NOT being persistently vandalized at the moment and therefore does not need to be protected. If a legitimate need for protection were to arise; we can start a new discussion. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I know this isnt done often, but with vandalism being more common, should we consider making this article semi-protected? Weather article creator (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If vandalism increases, that would be a good idea. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, @Weather article creator is a confirmed sock puppet of @Lokicat3345, what a shame. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see recent vandalism on this page anyway. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be Lokicat’s calling card. He likes to glorify drama. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Tornadic research (How to best format)[edit]

So I think the new tornadic research section is a good idea, but I got to thinking and want some thoughts on which is the best format.

  1. As is, meaning a except of the History of tornado research yearly section (noting that article is only probably 10% done, ballparked...only the larger-research stuff is in there for pre-2022)
  2. Only yearly respective-related entries

Now here is the dilemma with both of those options: With the first one, info from past years is included, due to research on past tornadoes being published this year. The second one is what I was originally thinking, but specific tornado studies are relatively rare (I think only a dozen have been published on AMS for 2020-2024 tornadoes). however, majority of research is wide-spread style. For example, the tornado alley shift paper published this year through AMS.

So yeah, really any thoughts or suggestions would be helpful. Like I said, I sort of prefer the 2nd option (not a true excerpt, but yearly-related stuff), however, the lack of individual "2024" (or "2023" or "2022" since those are also somewhat filled in) research is very obvious, since most of the entries and AMS papers aren't true case studies, but rather true academic papers. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, the current (option 1) version might be good as well, since it shows what was actually published or what did occur during the overall tornadic year. But then again, past, non-related year (in this case, non-2024) tornadoes are mentioned. Yeah, I need others to chime in on this. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pings for the regulars and recent editors on this article: TornadoLGS, ChessEric, WestVirginiaWX, Penitentes, IrishSurfer21. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally not a fan of this concept, so I'm going to stay out of it for now. ChessEric 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im not sure I am a fan of it either since after all we cannot cover all of the "Tornadic Research" done, within a year or relating to a particular year for obvious reasons, including Wikipedia not being notable. I also feel that the section contains original research such as there being a nine day case study on a particular tornado. If it is too stay then it needs to be reduced just to the most notable pieces of research, cut down on all the Twitter ref and focus on the most notable research of the year.Jason Rees (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might go with option-1 since many studies are not tied down to a specific year and may include things like long-term climatology. That being said, if a particular tornado had notable research published about it, it would likely be worth mentioning in the section for that outbreak (and/or the article if there is one). TornadoLGS (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started a draft article (Draft:List of case studies on tornadoes) with the 2020s being an article article (List of case studies on tornadoes (2020–present)), so specific/individual tornado notable research is going to be in those articles, listed by the tornado they are associated with. Pretty much, if it is listed on those lists, it has some notability as it is published research on a specific tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think option 1 is a good idea after having carefully reviewed it. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories