User talk:WeatherWriter/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Your GA nomination of Battle of Kherson

The article Battle of Kherson you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Battle of Kherson for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edit on 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel

Hello, you recently added an edit where you made a claim that 3 Jordanians were killed, with a citation by twitter accout "Visegrád 24". However, on the article for that account, it says that they post misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war, and thus it is not a reliable or good source to use and that claim has no source to back it up. Please remove it as I have already done so once. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no discussion about their reliability. They have also been cited by reliable sources such as the Times of Israel and CNBC (per their Wikipedia article even). Please open an RSN to determine their reliability status. I will not be removing it as there is enough in their Wikipedia article to where one can justify the potential for them being a reliable source. Also see this NBC News article for further info on that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

While you may be right, Twitter should not be used in this case as a source as it is, so I think you should wait until a reliable non-social media source makes the claim. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

To note, social media sources are sometimes used and considered reliable sources. Example is BNO News, which is a Wikipedia reliable source that is 95% social media based. So again, without a RSN to determine reliability, usage by other RS is a decent indication it may be a "generally reliable" source, which doesn't require it to be perfectly reliable 100% of the time. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Given that your edit has now been reverted twice, what is your purpose in adding it a third time? Why are you so dead-set on having this in the article? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It is a source used by others & has not been deemed unreliable on Wikipedia. That simple. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

🙂 Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a tweet, it's a tweet making an exceptional claim and it's all that and more from an outlet Wikipedia defines as a nogoodnik. Not looking good. Plus, it makes the Jordanian Air Force look negligent; err on the side of not pissing off an air force, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

If you're changing a stat and removing a citation, like in 1974 Super Outbreak, it's not self-explanatory -- it needs an edit summary for other editors to fully understand the change. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 06:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for not leaving an edit summary. The tornado project reference was outdated as the book was more recent. The book says the updated total. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource

I'm considering writing a sort article for the Signpost about contributing to (English) Wikisource, which I've been doing on and off since this January. Since you're another Wikipedian who recently joined that project, I wondered if you would like to say a few words about your experiences getting started on Wikisource (learning curve, pros, cons, anything really). No worries if you don't want to. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure Cremastra, I would love to!

Getting started on Wikisource was so much different than getting started on any other Wikimedia project. Actually, I struggled to even really learn how to get started. Unlike Wikipedia, there was no “learn to edit” style of buttons to click. They just have a “Help” button, which then takes you to a very short beginners guide. In terms of getting started, it probably has one of the worst layouts for new editors of any project. After that, I discovered you actually need gadgets on, especially for new editors. Every pages has a “header” for basic information. However, only going into your preferences and turning on specific gadgets allow it to be automatically generated. So my first ever page was actually a weird copy/paste from an existing page, rather than a guided creation. Besides getting started, the process is fairly simple and it actually easier than creating English Wikipedia articles. As an editor who contributes almost entirely into weather-related articles, it is a huge perk to be able to have Wikisource articles. For any U.S.-weather event, the primary source is always the United States government, specifically the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Since everything U.S. government publishes is in the public domain, it can also be added to Wikisource. So now, weather-related articles can have links for readers to a Wikisource-version of the primary U.S. government sources for tornadoes, hurricanes, winter storms, floods, ect…

To conclude, Wikisource is a major perk for weather-related articles on Wikipedia and I would love for every editor on weather-related articles to use it, but honestly, the guide to newcomers needs a major revamp (maybe similar to have Wikimedia Commons’ newcomer process works) before I would personally sent a new editor there. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Hope that works! If you have any other questions for me, let me know! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

CT Eastern Europe or the Balkans

You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The People’s University for Palestine

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as The People’s University for Palestine, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Josethewikier (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

And contested. Lol. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Confused About Current Criteria Status

Hey sorry I haven't participated in the discussion as much, I got bogged down with work and life stuff. So anyway, I'm a bit confused about what the current status is for EF2 tornadoes that don't hurt anyone. Are we just doing the "soft" case-by-case approach where we just discuss it when it happens, and reach a consensus for each individual instance? The discussion has become so long-winded and convoluted I can't really make heads or tails of where things currently stand. Can you give me a "dumbed down" summary of what the current agreement is when it comes to no-injury EF2s? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

5+ EF2s for inclusion and then when an editor feels an EF0/EF1/EF2 was “high impact”. High impact can be included by anyone, and then once challenged, it discussed on the talk page.

That is the “dumbed down” version of it. The formal RFC to add both of those to the criteria is ongoing right now, but so far, everyone (so far 8 editors) seems to be in support of both of them with no opposition. If all goes well, May 23, those will be formal criteria to use on articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the info! That all sounds good to me.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Re: FAC

Hi there WeatherWriter, I'm glad to be of assistance in helping you get a featured article.

• Immediately, I notice that the lead is too short.
• You say in the lead that Thomas P. Grazulis was a tornado expert, but you don't say his relationship to the information here. When did he assess these F ratings? In addition, the article reads as if it was told by Grazulis, since that's the first thing that I read after the lead. I would expect a section on meteorological synopsis.

There is 0 meteorological synopsis history on the event as far as I am aware (none from the U.S. Weather Bureau, NOAA, or Grazulis). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• "That said, the National Weather Service (NWS) office in Birmingham, Alabama, published a list of tornadoes, which occurred in Alabama, during 1945." - is that true? The website most certainly wasn't in 1945.

The NWS website cited there, which exists in at least 2023/2024, does state those ratings for tornadoes in 1945. I do not know how else to phrase that, so any guidance on phrasing how the NWS (sometime since the Internet has existed) rated those tornadoes back in 1945 on the Fujita scale would be helpful. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Why is there a sub-section for February 12 event, when all of the events were on the same day?

Standard process for tornado articles. We do that in modern-day events as well (Tornado outbreak of March 13–15, 2024 is an example). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• The article is formatted like a list, but it's abstract in how it talks about some of the lesser significant events. Like, you say "The tornado started", "This brief intense tornado struck a cluster", and "The tornado destroyed". I'm being nitpicky here, but you came to me for my advice, and one of my main rules for writing is avoid using the passive voice. You used phrases like "A home was leveled", by what? If you want some variation to saying tornado, you could always say "twister". But you should least say something like "The tornado" did something

I will take a look at the article and see how to remove some of that passive voice. You are right though, I did use a lot of it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• " The U.S. Weather Bureau documented that this long-track tornado killed 40 people and injured 200 others." - did the tornado kill 40 or 11?

They said 40 in a formal publication, then months later, said 11. That phrase is because the original official publication said that. Same idea as when NHC said Ian was Cat 4, then months later, Cat 5. The difference in this case though, is that the "40" was not preliminary, but the actual official release, which was later formally changed months later. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• There should be a source at the bottom of the table for all of the events. Otherwise, where is the source for all of the tornado widths, F ratings, all that.

Just a question, do the sources for the summaries not count as that as the sources citing the tornado summaries are the sources for widths/deaths, ect...? I can certainly do that if you think it would be beneficial, but I am not sure if that would be considered overlinking to others. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Are you sure about the number of railroad cars derailed? I came across this source after a quick Google search.

Wow, you just found a source discrepancy! Grazulis was the source for the number of train cars derailed, but that newspaper article says differently. I will add that information to the article tomorrow and note the difference in sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Speaking of sources, are you sure you've gotten as many sources as possible, and used as much useful information? As I noted earlier, there wasn't a meteorological synopsis.

See note earlier about that.

• "5 miles (8.0 km) " - why do you have 8.0? Your other usage of km doesn't have the .0

I actually have no idea and I have no idea how to fix that. It straight up is "{{convert|5|mi|km}}. Template being weird? Honestly, not sure. If you know how to fix that, please let me know. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• "The tornado started 5 miles (8.0 km) southwest of Montgomery, Alabama and moved northeast, towards Montgomery where it would brush the western edge." - that's three references to the cardinal direction. Maybe split it up a bit and add the time of day here? Also, the material you have in the second paragraph seems more appropriate for the first paragraph, like the length of the tornado path, and width.

Paragraph split was done by a GA reviewer last year when the article was up for GA. I would probably want someone else to mention the paragraph splitting before changing it, only due to the fact it was split to get to GA status. The cardinal direction thing though seems odd now that I think about it. Also there isn't a time of day listed. One thing I can say is this is a tornado from 1945 and the information about it is no where close to what NWS or NHC would produce in 2024 for tornadoes/tropical depressions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• "The tornado leveled two government or U.S. army warehouses." - that seems a bit odd to be the second thing you mention in the section. I would think the first paragraph would be a summary, before getting into the impacts.

GA-reviewer split for that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• "were ripped and tossed about like match boxes" - who said this? You have a random quote in there without attributing it.

There is a citation immediately following the quote. I can add who stated the quote though (Associated Press with no direct author name), however, I am unsure the best way to state it. Maybe this?

"A freight train was also struck, where, according to the Dothan Eagle and Associated Press, 50 cars "were ripped and tossed about like match boxes".[3]"

Any thoughts about the wording for it before I add it to the article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• For all of the fatalities in Montgomery, you don't really go into much detail about any of them. Were they all in people's houses?

The info about the fatalities was in this part: After hitting Montgomery, the tornado struck Chisholm, Alabama, where it caused catastrophic damage. Thirty homes were completely swept away in Chisholm. All the fatalities from this tornado occurred in 15 homes within a 20-block radius. That is all the information about those exact deaths as well from Grazulis, U.S. Weather Bureau, and Rich Thomas.

• You describe the tornado as "devastating" twice in the lead, but don't provide much context. Are tornadoes are in Alabama? Had Montgomery ever been hit by a tornado? Was this event the deadliest in its history?
• I see a lot here that could be potentially useful. Rich Thomas, the author, is also cited below, and in this random source
• This site says Montgomery County tornado deaths are rare, and that this event was indeed Montgomery County's deadliest, as well as other deadly events since then.

Added! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

So that's a lot right off the bat. I wonder if the FAC was perhaps a bit premature, but I don't want to tell you what not to do. Let me know if you have questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: some information has been added based on your comments! I really thank you so much for the comments and I know you were being nit-picky on purpose. FAC's involve the nit-picky details. Hopefully I was able to explain some of them and I also left a few questions. Since your comment was more in a bullet-list format, I hope you don't mind that I replied individually to them under the bullet point. I really do thank you for the comments. One other thing: Would you care if I leave a transclude-link to this talk page discussion over on the FAC page? Before your reply, someone else had already commented on the FAC page, so trancluding this discussion over there would probably be useful. But, I wanted to ask before just doing it. Again, thank you for the comments and maybe (just maybe) I can get it to FA-status. (fingers crossed). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Done! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Please Don't Add This Photo To Sulphur

The photo that keeps getting added to the Sulphur section is NOT a confirmed photo of the Sulphur tornado. There actually isn't a single source saying it is from Sulphur, so I don't know where people are getting the idea that it is. The one you posted claims it was taken near the town of Byng, Oklahoma, and yet I found two more instances of the pic posted that same night, claiming to be from Ardmore, Oklahoma (shared below). If it was taken near Byng though, it would mean it is more likely a photo of the Holdenville EF3, as that town is closer to Byng than Sulphur. In any case, this all way too speculative for Wikipedia and we have no way of knowing where this photo was actually taken, and we shouldn't be having this issue to begin with, because we aren't supposed to pull random pics from social media that we cannot 100% verify. We can't just guess and hope we get it right, so stick with pics from the DAT or the NWS. We are going to get misattributed photos and false info published if we aren't more careful. Now if we find proof that this photo is from Sulphur, we can add it back, but for now it is a random unverifiable photo from social media that shouldn't have been added in the first place.

PROOF: 1.) https://twitter.com/dylantbrown/status/1784433337823621608 2.)https://twitter.com/JeffreyMHough1/status/1784555615013990792 3.)https://twitter.com/NeckerZak/status/1784421774563631487

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Well can you speedy deletion request it then? Non-free media guidelines mean the image must be used on an article. Also you are right that it isn't the confirmed EF3 photo, as SW of Byng (per RS media/NWS surveys) had an EF1 and the EF3. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure I'll take care of it now.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Orphaned non-free image File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization

You withdrew your RM (requested move) at Talk:List of tornado outbreaks by outbreak intensity score, but then you keep capping it. I've undone that. Let's discuss more if you don't see how MOS:CAPS applies here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

And for a topic that's not yet likely to pass WP:Notability, you're sure playing it up. Dicklyon (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Fine, I promise to drop the issue. I will say that my respect for you plummeted as, to me, you are ignoring sources (and even removing one that disagreed with your capitalization). However, I am tired of fighting it. You win. Sources do not determine what is or is not capitalized. Wikipedia does by interpreting the English language. Either way, you win and I will not edit war to capitalize it nor will I start a discussion over it. I am dropping the stick and backing away from that issue. With that being said, I feel this is warranted as I want to part ways fully: Respectfully, stop fucking contribution watching me. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Not watching your contribs, just following up on WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. You can see that most of my edits are just that, over many topic areas. And your impression that "Sources do not determine what is or is not capitalized. Wikipedia does by interpreting the English language" is contrary to what MOS:CAPS specifies. Dicklyon (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

And how did “Outbreak Intensity Score” get listed on that database as a supposed “miscapitalization”? Did you add it there? Also on my statement, I stand by it as you are ignoring RS and saying RS does not determine it. I’m done fighting, but my statement stands as it, per your own remarks. You do not truly believe in MOS:CAPS based on your statements. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Eh, forget it. Debate and discussion over anyway. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar(s) for you!

		The Multiple Barnstar
		I've never done this before, so this template took way too long to get right. All I want to say is: 1. You are an amazing helper all-around. I've met some good people, some bad people, but you are definitely one of the friendliest. Without hesitation, you helped me heavily on 1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado, which did not go unnoticed. Thanks so much! :) 2. You know the rules better than anyone else. I've seen it time and time again, where you will correct somebody's mistake (or mine), link them to a "WP:" and explain what happened. It's a very good way to connect with others without angering them, and I salute you for that. Thanks again! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Also to add a note on the Jarrell deletion discussion, everything that was mentioned under reasoning has been fixed and rewrote. Feel free to delete this portion of the message if you'd like :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

FAC

Hey there, I just wanted to remind you about the FAC you asked me to help with ;) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow, thank you so much for reminding me. I 100% had forgotten about it. I went ahead and replied to the few newer comments you added on May 5th. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You work so hard on your edits and I'm sure that you have made a change to the knowledge widely available by the public. <3 /plat

.allthefauna (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1960–1969)

Hi WeatherWriter, I see you started Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1960–1969) in September 2022, and last made some very minor edits in September 2023. As a Brit, this is not a subject I know anything about, but is there any reason this has not, or should not, be published? Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The format parameter in citation templates

The format parameter in citation templates such as {{cite web}} refer to the File format of the work referred to by url; for example: DOC or XLS; displayed in parentheses after title. They are not meant to encode information about the type of medium like a press release (e.g., your edit here). Use the type (or medium) parameter for that information. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 16:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that info. Sadly, "Type" or "Medium" doesn't even show up in the webcite template format, which is stupidly weird. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Primary source inline" template at 2024 in climate change

I've noticed your additions of the "Primary source inline" template in 2024 in climate change. Your explanation is that links to original studies "acts more as a self-published sources, not a secondary reliable source."

However, in cases of scientific studies, it's actually best to link directly to the study as a primary source rather than depend on a secondary source's interpretation; see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. This is why I think your primary/secondary distinction is misplaced. If, on the other hand, your actual concern is about the reliability of the source or study--that's why I try to always state the source in article text, to place the source in context.

Can you reconsider those templates? Thanks. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying remove the sources, but add a secondary source. Linking to primary sources is perfectly acceptable, but the articles quality would be improved by adding an additional secondary source. Basically something to show the primary source topic is actually notable enough for the article. On various weather articles, there has been discussions on what is/is not primary sources and to me, something like the WMO quote, which is the entire section, is sourced entirely by WMO. Basically, the tags are for adding/finding additional sources, not removing the primary source. Hopefully that explains why I added the templates. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09: Basically instead of (CONTENT)[1], with [1] being the primary source, it should be (CONTENT)[1][2], with [1] being the current/primary/self-published sources and [2] being a secondary source to back up the primary source. That is why the "non-primary source needed" templates were added. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, we don't need to prove something is notable/important/reliable in the content itself, or the footnote itself. But in cases in which there may be some question, I'll give it a whirl. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Actually, we sort of do. Per WP:SPS, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources (bolding my doing). Even if it is from a well regarded expert or expert organization, if the study in question is notable, someone is bound to talk about it in a secondary reliable source. I would say after a month after primary source publication, if a secondary reliable source isn't found, then I would honestly remove it as being not-notable for the content in the article, especially since all of the things I tag do fall under SPS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

In the "Climate change in 20xx" articles, almost all the entries I've made have been discovered by reading general news sources that quote scientific journals that they link. I source the content to the scientific articles, of course, since they're the ultimate source. It shouldn't be difficult to find the articles that pointed me to the (primary) scientific articles. I think it's largely an unnecessary extra step in almost all cases, but if you point out specific items of concern to you, I intend to look into them; so far, there have been only two. —RCraig09 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, if you think it is unnecessary, then that is fine. Personally, if I was reviewing 2024 in climate change for a GAN or FAC, the four things I tagged would be places I would have issues with. I believe you that you find the scientific articles via news sources. Like I said, I am not saying you should stop that. But if it is a primary/self-published case study/report, you should cite the case study/report as well as at least one news article. I will give a specific example from the 2024 article below:

2024 in climate change#Summaries – "19 March: "The climate crisis is the defining challenge that humanity faces." —Prof. Celeste Saulo, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, in State of the Climate 2023.

Why is Celeste Saulo notable? Why is that quote notable for climate change in 2024? Who said it is a summary of climate change in 2024? It may seem dumb/too technical, but that is why that second clause WP:SPS (bolded above) exists. Right now, that section is a quote from WMO about climate change, sourced by WMO. I.e., WMO quote sourced by WMO. That is the exact same thing as taking a quote from Greta Thunberg and citing only the tweet posted by Thunberg. No context, no reasoning, no actual evidence to support why that is notable. That is what I mean.

Look at the first point in the "2024 in climate change#Measurements and statistics" section. 5 February: a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences proposed adding a "Category 6" to the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale to adequately convey storms' risk to the public, the researchers noting a number of storms have already achieved that intensity.

That wikilinks to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, which explains that it is a peer-reviewed journal, meaning not published by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of Wisconsin–Madison, which are the author affiliates. The WMO quote is published by WMO. No citation says why that is notable for the article or why that statement matters. A wikipedia editor just saying it matters/adding it with only a source from the quoter is borderline original research. That is why secondary sources are needed for primary/self-published sources.

To add on to that, a better example is the May 8 point by Ember. Why is Embers report important? If the answer is "Well it related to climate change", then that is original research. A secondary source is needed to say why it is important. Hopefully that explains my full reasoning on why the templates were added. Personally, as it stands now, I would delete all four of those points as no supporting evidence says they (they being the specific reports/case studies) are important to climate change in 2024, except the self-publishing organizations themselves. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

References

• @RCraig09: brief summary which should solve all questions if I interpret it correctly: You stated, "almost all the entries I've made have been discovered by reading general news sources that quote scientific journals that they link." If that is true, then someone else says that the report is important; "someone else" being whatever general news source you found mentioning it. All I am asking is that if it is a self-published source, meaning if the author affiliation is the same as the website and/or publisher, then also tag along the news source citation. If it is from a peer-reviewed journal, no additional sources is needed. I think that summarizes all the points into a neat "too-long, didn't read" format. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Wowzerz! I appreciate the concerns. But the "20xx in climate change" series merely documents what was happening, or what was published, in a certain year. The quotes in question, and the sources in question, are not offered for the truth of their findings or to claim they're particularly important, but to document what was said and claimed, and when. I've been careful to place the quotes and findings in context by clearly stating the source in narrative text, in keeping with the general approach to alert readers when something is self-published. Those who follow climate science know the noteworthiness of each paragraph; almost all the entries I've made are the result of news articles published the same day or the very day after the technical article being linked. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep! Like I said, the easiest way to solve any concerns is to cite the scientific article and tag along whatever the news article is. Having two citations at the end of an entry is not a bad thing. Doing that alone solves every concern I have had regarding the “self-published/primary sources”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@RCraig09: I just did one example of what I mean. Take a look at 2024 in climate change#Summaries. The WMO statement is sourced by WMO as well as The Weather Channel. The second source I added is a secondary reliable source that is not affiliated with the author/person making that statement. That is all I mean. That section now is solved and good and there is no further concerns with it. That is all I mean. If you find a scientific article via a news source, just add the news source as a citation as well. That way, it is clear and obvious to other editors why X report is important. Hopefully that clears up what I was mentioning you should do going forward. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

1997 Jarrell tornado image

Please IGNORE the | discussion linked here that I started because I did not know this at the time; but I started a discussion on the wrong file. Please direct any comments on the dead man walking tornado to the actual deletion discussion | linked here. And also, please ignore my struck out comments on that discussion. Apparently I didn’t know until just now that there were TWO pictures taken in the exact same spot, by the exact same person, and presumably by the exact same camera. Just at different times. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Follow up question: as per @MemeGod27’s request for someone more experienced. I am asking you on his/her behalf. Would an ArcGIS StoryMap produced by the National Weather Service be sufficient public domain rationale? Especially if it is directly linked from a .gov url as an event summary produced by the National Weather Service? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The website of the source is https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/05696a8e01bc4e91a0a941290a62e86d by the way. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thumbnail for Poison.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thumbnail for Poison.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a somewhat abandoned draft article you can help me with.

I invite you and anyone else who wants to to edit Draft:list of particularly dangerous situation watches. It seems as if that article has sorta been forgotten about. We’ve only gotten down to 2020 (for completely listed) and if I recall, the entries only go back to 2019. There’s still a lot more in IEM archives. Your help at expanding the list to mainspace ready format would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter, please see the article talk page for more information. Don’t reply here. Thank you. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Lincoln, Nebraska EF3 tornado

File:Lincoln, NE EF3 tornado.jpg

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Lincoln, NE EF3 tornado.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/2023–2024 Sundhnúkur eruptions

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:2023 Grindavik eruption.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 02:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Do not disregard consensus to not use video thumbnails in infoboxes

In case you had forgotten, there was a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_February_27#File:Poison_Song_Cover_Image.jpeg regarding using Hazbin Hotel video thumbnails as cover artworks in which the consensus was to not use them as cover artworks. You even acknowledged the consensus and restored the thumbnail over an actual Spotify cover artwork of a remix. It does not matter if you use image=, which is an alias of cover=, or that other editors restored the image to the infobox on the other articles—since you have these articles watchlisted and you know consensus disapproves, you should have reverted the editors doing so and pointed them to the consensus. @Sergecross73: as an admin involved in that discussion. Ss112 03:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

In reply to this, as I already said, WeatherWriter, you acknowledged the consensus and still decided to replace the cover with the video thumbnail anyway, even if you weren't the first editor to move it there after the consensus. That is in effect you moving the image as you restored it being there after it was removed by another editor. "Per consensus, there is NO covers". Yes, because at the time there weren't any. I'm sure if editors there had been made aware there was a 300×300 cover artwork used on Spotify for a remix of the song, that would have been preferred over a video thumbnail. Ss112 03:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ss112: Before accusing me of breaking that discussion, you should have done your research. I did follow the discussion. I did not add the image into the infobox as a "cover". If you actually bothered to check, you would see that User:71.89.173.107 changed it to an infobox image. I expect an apology, unless you do want to claim these soundtracks have covers, despite you saying in that deletion discussion "the songs do not have individual covers". By reverting my change, you restored content from an editor who directly claimed the image you restored was the "cover". So please, do not accuse me without getting your facts straight. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

As an additional note, as I have been told by other editors throughout my time on Wikipedia, is it not my job to fix every "error" I see. In fact, I did not realize "image=" was the same as "cover=". The discussion said no covers and the no "cover=" parameter. I never changed it. In fact, I listened to the deletion discussion, as per your own words, the songs do not have covers, so I reverted someone who claimed a song had a cover. So not, I did not do anything wrong. I do appreciate you letting me know "image=" is the same as "cover=", as "image=" was not even mentioned in that deletion discussion, so I was unaware they were considered the same. I shall keep that in mind going forward and revert anyone who changes it to "cover=" or "image=" parameters. But I do expect an apology for the blatant accusation that I added it as a cover, when I clearly didn't. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I did have my facts straight. You restored the image to the infobox by reverting an edit, which is what this diff literally shows—"YT thumbnail is more detailed than Spotify thumbnail". It doesn't matter that you were not the first one to add it there (and I didn't say this)—by reverting the usage of the other cover, you replaced it with the thumbnail, which is against consensus to use in the infobox. As I literally just said, at the time I was unaware of there being a remix cover. If I was aware, I would have absolutely preferred that be uploaded instead. That is a cover—of a remix, which can be denoted in caption=. Video thumbnails are still not covers and should never be used. Ss112 03:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The songs were on spotify at the time. I did not violate the discussion and I will hold to that. The discussion never discussed "image=", only "cover=". This is the first time I am hearing about "image=" being the same as "cover=". On top of that, as I clearly showed above, I did not change it to "image=" in the first place. In my eyes, I did nothing wrong. I believe the notification that "image=" is the same as "cover=" was valid, but you really worded it very poorly, as an accusation more than a "hey, don't do that". I appreciate the notification, but I did nothing wrong. I also find it funny how you only messaged me and not the editor who added the image to the infobox in the first place. I still believe this was an warranted message that was poorly written into an unwarranted accusation. I shall be disregarding everything else mentioned here except for the fact that "image=" is the same as "cover=". I will ensure no one adds "cover=" or a "cover" (as I was before) and "image=", now that I am aware they are the same. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The consensus was to not use the image in the infobox at all as it's not a cover artwork. As for I also find it funny how you only messaged me and not the editor who added the image to the infobox in the first place, the IP editor who added the image back to the infobox on "Poison" hasn't edited in close to a month. There would be no point because they've probably moved to a different IP and wouldn't see it. But speaking of doing one's research, I don't think you did yours: I did message the user who restored the thumbnail to the infobox on the other three Hazbin Hotel song articles: see here. Ss112 04:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Appologies. Directly, I was referring to the IP-user btw. Either way, discussion solved. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

This whole mess about the current storm section seems to have started because you wanted to make sure things were properly cited. I have to applaud that effort, since that seems to be where the current consensus is, that there shouldn’t be external links, especially when we can easily cite things with an actual reference! So I’m sorry if things got heated, and perhaps I wasn’t the most level-headed. Tbh, there’s a heat wave where I am today, so I probably spent too much time today rushing to add to the discussions. So cheers to your efforts trying to make this website a better place. We need more people like you. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Vandalism of Stonehenge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vandalism of Stonehenge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandalism of Stonehenge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to climate change, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this! I had yet to receive a CTOPICs notice regarding it, so I appreciate you giving me it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:List of weather events considered the most significant

Hi WeatherWriter, I really think you need to look again at this draft as it just seems very subjective and something that doesn't really belong on Wikipedia in its current form. For example, in this edit summary you think 2023 is complete but yet you have failed to include the costliest tropical cyclone on record in the Southern Hemisphere. I also believe that Cyclones Freddy, Judy, Kevin, Storm Daniel as well as a whole load of other weather events that would meet your very subjective criteria of four yearly-based assessments if you did more digging. I feel that you’re onto something by identifying the important weather events each year, which probably belong in something like Weather of 1999, which will need to get created eventually.Jason Rees (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

When I said 2023 was "complete", that was actually because I did a lot of digging. I found a total of 7 yearly-based assessments. I cited six of them (visually looking at the seventh one) before calling it "complete". It obviously isn't complete, since I could have missed a study. The key is Wikipedia is always needing work done. Out of those 7 assessments (one even from the UN), only six events were mentioned by four of them. Sure, Storm Daniel seems notable (and it is), but the yearly assessments I found in 3 pages of Google searches only had 7 actual non-self published assessments. That "complete" note was more for me so I could move onto other years/other assessments and not spend over a week on just 2023. The list is no where close to being published, but I want to get other years started/completed before I circle back to the more recent years. Also, it is modeled off of List of photographs considered the most important, which also uses the same basic idea. On that articles talk page, they are having a discussion about whether to set the criteria at one, two, or three surveys. So far for the weather list draft, the current criteria is one all-time assessment (someone looking all throughout history/multi-decade), two decade-based assessments (like "Top 10 events in the 2010s") or to cover the more recent years in the 21st century, four-separate RS-based yearly-assessments.

Like I said, it isn't actually "complete", just more of a note that I am moving onto 2022 or other years/other decade/all time assessments and not spending more time at the moment on 2023. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The point wasn't about it being complete since as you say Wikipedia will always need work to make it more complete, but more about it potentially failing an AFD because it potentially fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRIT. This is because there will be lots of weather events that will pass your very subjective criteria regardless of if you set the bar very high at 10-separate RS-based yearly-assessments, especially when you consider that reviews of the year gone by are good filler for newspapers over the holiday season.Jason Rees (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree that it possibly fails INDISCRIMINATE, since the criteria would be clear. Also, with regard to LISTCRIT, I would this part of it is the key: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item. Instead of setting an arbitrary value of "four", it could be "several", with talk page discussions related to additional items or something like that. I think the list overall would be a good idea since the basic idea is a list, based on reliable sources, which events are cited the most for being the most important/notable/signficiant/deadly, ect... I would say even more important, the sources (the current 5 for 2023), aren't just a list with no info. The sources actually explain why each event is notable. For instance, only one of the seven mentioned Cyclone Mocha was one of the top events of the year. That said, five of the seven mentioned the 2023 Canadian wildfires as being a top event of the year.

I do see what you mean though. Just a thought: Based on what you said of like the yearly weather of year articles (like Weather of 2023), instead of a stand-alone list, would you think a section for the most significant events of the year in each of the "Weather of YYYY" articles would be better?

I really wanted to do the list (stand-alone) since there is a very similar article for photographs (and weather is a highly talked about/photographed thing). But if doing yearly sections would be better than a stand-alone list, I will take that into consideration. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars

The article List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There doesn't seem to be anything that makes this grouping of tornadoes special, that they are also (among other means) observed by mobile radar is not a defining characteristic, and is in many cases sourced to the most basic sources (twitter/X, primary sources like NOAA).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

File you uploaded as fair use is actually a free image

Just letting you know that File:2024 vandalism of Stonehenge.png is actually under an Attribution license on their google drive, so I uploaded File:Vlcsnap at 0010-VIDEO 19062024 JustStopOil Stonehenge.png to Commons. - Sebbog13 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

List of antisemitic incidents in the United States

Hi. Another editor already removed the information you added to this article; they considered it a BLP violation and I agree with them. Please be much more careful with BLP information, and more discerning regarding sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies: What edit is this referring to? I don't even remember editing that article? It isn't even on my watchlist, so I must not have edited it recently. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait, now I really am confused. Looking back, I edited the article two times on January 3, 2024. My first edit (still exists), was reverted by an IP-address user who reverted that addition as their very first edit on Wikipedia. My reversion to restore the material is what was removed and what I presume this is regarding? Due to the mass removal, I am not even sure when it was removed, but the first large removal seemed to be April 23, 2024.

So yeah, I sort of want an explanation for this accusation, since as far as I can tell, an edit I made (which still exists in the article history) back on January 3, 2024 was not reverted until late-April 2024 (meaning it had silent consensus), and I get an alert over six months later that you agreed with the IP user and then you remove only one of the two additions of the information from the article history? Honestly, without some timeline and overall clarifications, I am just going to disregard this entire alert. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Disregarding it would be foolish. You added some incident based on what appears to be a social media shaming site, which identified someone and mentioned the school they graduated from. You had a second source--a tweet, now apparently deleted. Those are not valid sources for a BLP, and the alleged assailant shouldn't have been identified in this way. But thank you for pointing out that you had already inserted that material: I revdeleted your first edit as well. The IP was correct. Drmies (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply and additional explanation. I won’t fully disregard this. However, it does seem odd that this is the first time I’m hearing about this in over six months. Like, really odd. I don’t feel the need to escalate this, but to me, it feels somewhat like administration overreach. What went overall unchanged for months was just suddenly deleted and 100% removed from the article history, with 0 talk page discussions or alerts for over half a year. Something honestly just doesn’t feel right, but whatever. I don’t edit that article anyway. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not the first time: this was the first--which you undid without a by your leave. So you were alerted but chose not to address the problem. This was the second, though you weren't technically alerted to it. Both edit summaries were valid. No, it's not odd for something to go unnoticed for a while. Removing BLP violations by revdeletion is something we admins do routinely. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado

The article 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado and Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado

The article 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado for comments about the article, and Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I hope you aren't disappointed by the FAC, no matter what ends up happening. You have created a resource that is already one of the best ones available online, no? And it's just one article out of thousands (if not many more!) I hope you got good experience out of working on it. Certain types of articles are easier to get featured, like the ones that have a lot more information. By writing the article, you also helped provide coverage for an older historical event, and you should be proud that you did that. Please don't feel defeated. I think you're a valuable contributor, and I hope that we can continue working together to make this the best damn weather encyclopedia that ever existed! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Hurricanehink! You really did a lot to help improve the accuracy of the article as well by reviewing the FAC. I appreciate the words of encouragement, because I really was feeling down. I really appreciate the really detailed review. As you said, we are working to make the best thing we can, and it takes all of us to do that! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. You also have the unfortunate task of working on something that not a lot of people have written about. Storms like Hurricane Katrina have the opposite problem, almost too much information. Sometimes older storms fall into the realm of "well it's probably important enough" but it might be a bit of a niche local event. I have to commend you for doing something from so long ago. Often, those topics get ignored. But you know my pitch, that we need to have yearly articles going back at least to 1900, to get a better sense of it all. Crazy even that there isn't even a Tornadoes of 1945 for you to link the tornado outbreak article to! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up to primary vs secondary

I didn't feel like cluttering the 2024 AHS talk further so I thought I'd post this here instead. To quote Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:

• A primary source consists solely of original materials that are close to an event. For weather, this would be direct expressions/consequences of a weather event. For a hurricane, this would include stuff like satellite imagery, reconnaissance aircraft data, wind/rain data from ground weather stations, and storm surge data from tide gauges. Other weather-related primary sources would be things like weather maps or model outputs.
• A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, e.g. a NHC forecaster interpreting satellite images via the Dvorak technique to give an intensity estimate in a NHC advisory, or a NCDC storm event report that has summarised ground damage and linked it to a meteorological synopsis. In this vein, NHC advisories and reports would be secondary sources, provided there has been some sort of analysis done on the primary data.

As you can probably tell from the examples I listed above, NOAA sources would be primary or secondary depending on what exactly the source is about. Stuff like NHC TCRs would be secondary, but things like TAFB weather maps or NWS weather station raw data published by NOAA would be primary. Whether it would be good to cite a primary or secondary source would again depend on context: if an article on a location's climate needs a climograph, I wouldn't see any issue with citing NOAA climate tables (a primary source) to make that climograph. Meanwhile, if someone tried to add to Beryl's article that a 126-knot SFMR was recorded yesterday citing an archive of aircraft recon HDOBs, that'd be a situation where I'd ask for a secondary source e.g. a NHC discussion (where the forecaster may have tossed the value out due to being rain-contaminated/part of a mesovortex/etc.).

Whether a source is reliable (in the Wikipedia sense), meanwhile, is orthogonal to whether a source is primary and secondary. Primary sources can be reliable (e.g. rain gauge at a NWS station) or unreliable (measuring cylinder in someone's backyard). Similarly, secondary sources can be reliable (NHC) or unreliable (F13). Generally secondary sources are more reliable than primary sources since there's at least some level of analysis/quality control done in secondary sources, but whether that analysis is good or not depends on who/what's doing it. Hence why policy states Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense.

These days I think it's safe to say I wouldn't prefer mainstream media as sources on niche or technical subjects. They tend to keep getting things wrong, e.g. not distinguishing between 10-/1-minute sustained winds and gusts. Especially after the recent aviation turbulence incidents where a descent rate of 2,000 ft/min is somehow newsworthy (though that's not really weather related).

Just my two cents - I think some people would like to see one more degree of separation from primary to secondary, but this is where I stand. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Bare URLS

Hey, just so you know for the future, this:

• The NHC's latest public advisory on Potential Tropical Cyclone One

isn't technically a bare URL. A bare URL would look like this:

• https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT1+shtml/172335.shtml?

Your post at ANI should have been about the WP:ELBODY guideline rather than Wikipedia:Bare URLs. If you encounter a problem like this in the future, then I suggest that you try the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Vandalism of Stonehenge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vandalism of Stonehenge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vandalism of Stonehenge (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Screenshot from Hazbin Hotel Season 1 Episode 5 (Alastor).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot from Hazbin Hotel Season 1 Episode 5 (Alastor).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that, legit assumed it was a promotional still based off the search. Then again I wasn't even able to find a proper press kit for this thing which is kinda standard one would assume? I do think both it and Charlie's articles need proper character artwork over a screenshot, or at least a screenshot that's been cleaned up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

In appreciation

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this barnstar in recognition of your high quality work on Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 leading to your first run at FAC. I look forward to seeing it back there, hopefully with a better outcome. Keep up the good work, it is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1764 Woldegk tornado

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1764 Woldegk tornado you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dora the Axe-plorer -- Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Apology for faulty argument on the inclusion of the 2021 W KY tornado into possible F5/EF5 section of EF5 list page

This may seem random, but I'd like to apologize for the inaccurate argument I made when we were discussing whether or not the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado should be included in the "Possible F5/EF5 tornadoes" section of the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. During the discussion, my final reasoning for being against the tornado's inclusion was "...it moved through forested areas along its ENTIRE journey, so it all came down to contextual evidence of the tornado being EF5, not from not hitting anything (Chapman EF4) or the question of whether EF5 winds may have occurred (Vilonia EF4)." However, while editing the section for EF3 tornado in Western Kentucky from the Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024, I noticed that one of the DAT photos showed cycloidal scour marks were left in large farm fields. I decided to do a check of the terrain that the 2021 EF4 Western Kentucky tornado went over and found that the vast majority of it was over farm fields, especially along the beginning of the track, which made my argument invalid. I, therefore, would like to apologize for making a faulty argument, which made it harder to get a consensus for the discussion. I'm not sure if it would have swayed my argument to support the tornado's inclusion, but I still wished I would have checked first before giving my final answer. ChessEric 19:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh don't worry about that ChessEric! I was wrong on the thinking for the list anyway. I'm trying to get more hard criteria in place for that list as well as WikiProject Weather in general. We have way to loose guidelines that make discussions like what we had two years ago nearly impossible to end. It seems like every month, we have some big discussion that references some past discussions and we either have a different outcome or the same outcome. That is probably unhealthy for the WikiProject and why we probably have such a small editor base. Others are turned away so easily because of random debates. The main problem: We have no hard criteria for really anything. Maybe (just maybe) we can start to actually get criteria in place. We did really well as setting up WP:TornadoCriteria, but that only covers Tornadoes of YYYY articles. Anyway, enough of my rambling. Don't worry about anything from over a year ago! Let's focus on the present and maybe (just maybe) Wikipedia will be a better place. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey! I got the chance to atone for my mistake! Yay! XD ChessEric 22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you help with Hurricane Beryl tornado outbreak?

The NWS SHV continued to put out new PNSs for the tornado outbreak spawned by Hurricane Beryl. I would add them, but I got COVID and its kicking my a**. Can you help please? ChessEric 23:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Dang that timing. I think you messaged maybe 2-3 minutes after I decided to stop checking Wiki for the evening. The answer is of course yes. That said, I think Tim already added them. I’ll double check the recent PNSs from Shreveport to make sure they are all added though. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Commons deletion discussion

Any advice you can give me on how to handle one editor who is bound and determined to delete every single NWS image without any support? The editor won’t listen to my explanations. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that you are referring to the Charles City (and thousands of other images, apparently) deletion discussion that involves Rlandmann and Pierre cb, and I will soon be attempting to get multiple third parties involved as deleting thousands of images is absolutely absurd. I may also shoot the NWS an email about the copyright status of the image itself. (Also I'm aware that I'm not WeatherWriter, I'm just throwing that out there). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

To start with, please do not attack the other two editors, as you did in your edits at the talk page. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

For the next part, I don't see where it is canvasing to ping users to the talk page who made similar edits. All three users had reverted you, so it is an understandable ping. Not only that, but you ask users to check the talk page when they revert: If you revert this user, please monitor that articles talk page in case this user opens a discussion. There is also the SUBSCRIBE function. Point being, there are multiple legitimate ways for a user to participate in a talk page. Including pinging a user who edited the article to the talk page, which I don't see is listed as a form of canvasing.

Finally from my perspective, it wasn't clear to the three of us that you were trying to source a different sentence. (Assuming in one case.) The whole time until your last comment, I thought you were trying to source President Joe Biden ordered an independent review of security at the rally. That was why I linked you to the most recent press releases instead of a specific one as I couldn't comprehend your edit. If I had known that you were citing the wrong sentence, I would have spoken up, but it wasn't clear enough.

If you really think it is canvassing, you should consider ANI, but you might want to ask a third-party about their perspective of the discussion before you go down that route. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Super Goku V — I was planning to entirely ignore this discussion since I already left the discussion on the talk page, given the issue was solved. However, I just found out you removed two of my statement as direct “personal attacks”. I want to really understand how “take a chill pill” is a personal attack. Like, I really want to see what exact personal attack that phrase is a violation of. I am 99.99% sure it isn’t, given WP:CHILLPILL exists. That was my last message, where I already had stated the discussion issue was solved & that I had made an error. For real, I need to see your explanation of what PA I did with saying “take a chill pill”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I just found out you removed two of my statement as direct "personal attacks". I apologize if there was confusion, but I thought that it was clear from the first paragraph that I did take action. If not, then let me know that I wasn't clear enough.

Chill pill is a comment on a contributor, not on the content. While you seem to believe you said it in good faith, you said it to someone whose tone was not angry or upset. I judged it under Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done as a result. If you disagree that much with me, then feel free to restore it and I won't revert it. But I will make it clear that I am convinced you crossed the line:

"Excuse me??? LOL! [...] This honestly deserves a nice big “What the fuck are you on?” reaction. Yeah, you got canvassed here and have absolutely no idea what the reasoning for this discussion being opened was [...] please drop out (WP:DTS) and let the non-canvassed editors reply…please and thank you! Like please, you were canvassed (acknowledged it even), so just don’t reply." "[...] since they accused me of bad-faith editing + got canvassed here." "You should probably use some WP:COMMONSSENSE, [...] If you noticed what this discussion was about, you would have probably figured out it was meant for the sentence directly before that sentence: [...] Yeah, you probably should have figured that out. You also accused me of bad faith editing. [...] The discussion is already over. [...] For real, you should have figured that out from this discussion, [...]"

I would consider this to be mocking another user, accusing another user of being on a substance, falsely accusing another user of being canvassed, falsely making claims about that user, etc. If you disagree, you might want to ask a third-party about their perspective of the discussion.

That was my last message, where I already had stated the discussion issue was solved I wasn't convinced that the discussion had ended as you had said. Prior, you clearly stated that you were going to ignore Adolphus79 and then didn't. I was not convinced that you would not reply again. Thankfully, I was wrong about that. (Additionally, I have re-subscribed to this in case you reply again.) --Super Goku V (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I did cross the line on the main text block. We will have to 100% agree to disagree though on: (1) users being canvassed, given they got pinged specifically to the discussion on unrelated issues regarding me and happen to reply about 30 minutes later and (2) "take a chill pill" being a PA. Those two things we have opposing views. I agree with you on every other point you made. The chill pill comment, to me, seemed warranted, given they also did accuse me minutes beforehand of bad faith editing. The canvassing comment I 100% will standby. As an editor who was directly involved in an ArbCom canvassing case (warned for it myself actually over pinging editors mid-discussion), I cannot say it was not canvassing. I'm not even carring about that issue anymore nor that article (I even unwatchlisted it last night). Those pings were entirely unwarranted and I will standby that, given how involved I was in that ArbCom canvassing case. You can disagree with me, but I was warned at ArbCom for doing exactly what happened yesterday, so I will call it what it is: canvassing. Well, I'll let this get archived on my TP archives now. Discussion in my book is closed and solved. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what ArbCom case you are referring to, but agreeing to disagree is fine. Again, [i]f you really think it is canvassing, you should consider ANI. You are more experienced than I am and I will say that I can be wrong on multiple aspects of this. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Can you help me with my article?

I made an article about the Yazoo City tornado im wondering if you could help out to see if i made any mistakes or something like that 2010 Yazoo City tornado Hoguert (talk) 16:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure! I will take a look at it this afternoon! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

thank you Hoguert (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1764 Woldegk tornado

The article 1764 Woldegk tornado you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1764 Woldegk tornado for comments about the article, and Talk:1764 Woldegk tornado/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dora the Axe-plorer -- Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Note on moves

Hello. I noticed that you recently made a page move involving Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, but did not move the corresponding talk page at the time. I have moved the talk page following a technical move request by a third user. Going forward, when moving articles, please make sure to also move the corresponding talk pages. If you are unable to move the talk page for some reason, please remember to file a technical move request so that we don't have split titles between an article and the corresponding talk page.

Cheers!

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk Say what now? (lol) That might be a first for me. I move pages all the time using the move button at the top ("tools" tab) and that's the first time I've heard of the talk page not being moved. Do you happen to know what I did/may have clicked? Just asking, because if there is something I clicked that does that, I want to know to make sure I don't click it again. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

There is a chance that you were unable to overwrite the talk page at target, though this would normally leave a warning. Alternatively, there is a checkbox for if you want to "move associated talk page", which could be manually set unchecked by accident. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh that's so weird. My edit history shows I move the article twice in the same minute, to the same title, with the same edit summary. Now I'm curious what the heck happened. Technical glitch maybe? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

If you are talking about these two edits, that is normal and expected behavior, and not the result of a technical glitch. One of the edits moves the existing page. The other edit creates a redirect (r from page move) that points to the new page's title. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah ok. I'll just be more careful and double check my next few page moves to make sure the talk page actually moves with the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Are all .gov images PD?

Hey there WeatherWriter! You're the first person my primitive brain thought of when asking this (funny enough), but are ALL .gov images public domain? I'm trying to find one for Pedro Fire, but don't know if all .gov images are in the public domain or just the NWS ones. Thanks! :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Answer gets weird. So if it is made by the federal government (part of List of federal agencies in the United States or a direct subpage like Independent agencies of the United States government), then it is automatically public domain. State governments also use .gov URLS, and every state government has different copyright rules. The Commons has a page regarding this: Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States.

To help out, all of the references for the Pedro Fire seem to be from the California state government (fire.ca.gov), so per Template:PD-CAGov on the Commons, it appears everything from fire.ca.gov is public domain.

Hopefully this helped explain some. Only a few states (like 5 I think) have public domain publications. Every other state is copyright protected. However, the true U.S. federal government is always public domain if they made the image/item in question. NWS is the odd-ball who allows non-U.S. government photos to be on U.S. government websites. If you find some specific question, I can try to help find that info out for you, but that should hopefully be enough to answer the question you had. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait, maybe not on that public domain-ness for fire.ca.gov. I just realized the California State Fire Marshall (per that PD-CAGov template) is copyrighted. This is going to take some research to figure out. I typically steer clear of state-government stuff, since copyright is always weird (due to each state having unique guidelines and rules). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Yea, copyrights in general are just extremely confusing. Thanks for responding so quickly aswell! Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 04:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your work in being proactive in reaching out to relevant users on their talk pages to alert them about discussions and other changes related to projects they are active in. It helps keep the project(s) organized and coherent! DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 16:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Photo of the 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Photo of the 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

They closed as delete

They closed that discussion as delete. I have opened a new section on Commons village pump to facilitate the discussion on the PD-NWS template’s future. You might want to send out another alert to WP: Weather. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Greenfield tornado

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Greenfield IA tornado 2024.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Heads up

If you see an unfamiliar username start commenting on future discussions. I am in the process of changing my username from WestVirginiaWX to Hurricane Clyde. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Help requested

It appears that almost every violent tornado is getting an article nowadays, including ones that don't need them. I've now found several articles that were written up over the Summer and am no longer willing to fight them. However, the really need to be rewritten, so that they meet are current written guidelines and readers can understand them. Can I get your help please? ChessEric 17:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah of course ChessEric! Shoot me a link to ones that need rewriting. A while ago, I made a list of stand-alone tornado articles (User:WeatherWriter#Naders). If you see I am missing one, feel free to add it. But yeah, shoot me a link to those that need rewriting. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There are going to be a number of them because I deem all the ones that weren't written by me or you to need to be rewritten. I'm sorry if I seem like I'm trying to be high and mighty, but I always tried to mirror TI12 when writing sections and feel like I'm the closest to him when writing them. This is why I always go back and rewrite things. I deem you to be the closest to me in that regard, which is why I'm asking for your help. I'll link you the ones I think need fixing. ChessEric 19:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You can start with this one. ChessEric 19:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

You can also help me to get the new editors to learn how to make refs, enter things into templates, and use long dashes in titles instead of short ones. I'm going to have an aneurysm trying to keep track of this stuff. These articles are coming out at a rapid-fire pace and not all of them are needed. For Christ sakes, I got rid of the section for 2016 EF4 Katie tornado because of how short it was, and someone made an article for it. Do you think we should start shutting down some of these articles being created? TI12 and US Man would have an absolute fit if they saw all these. ChessEric 19:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

"Shutting down" maybe isn't the right phrase. But, I'm glad you mentioned some of that. If they are too short, then rather than an AFD, a merge discussion should probably be started. Here is my personal take on how to do individual tornado articles (I am one of the more "lenient" WP:Weather editors):

• The article would be/is at least 4 paragraphs (good ones) in length and it isn't in an outbreak article and no "aftermath" info. EX: 2012 Center Point–Clay tornado or 1973 Central Alabama tornado. This one is an article by shear length of impacts and/or large-scale coverage.
• The article would be/is at least 4 paragraphs (good ones) in length and is it isn't in an outbreak article and has LASTING impacts/coverage via an aftermath section. EX: 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado or 1764 Woldegk tornado. Article is based on LASTING impacts/coverage.
• The article would be/is at least 4 paragraphs (good ones) in length and is part of an outbreak article and has LASTING impacts/coverage via an aftermath section. EX: 2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado (borderline) or 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado. Article is based on LASTING impacts/coverage and most likely length of details on the tornado.

I say good paragraphs, as I more or less look at the byte size rather than actual size. For example, the 2023 Rolling Fork article is 51k bytes, while the outbreak article is 109k bytes. That is a huge percentage difference. Same with the 2024 Greenfield tornado article, which is 24k bytes while the outbreak article is 88k bytes (with the list removed). Some of the articles created maybe need to be merged back into the outbreak article, but I would look at what percentage that tornado would be of the outbreak article. I do differ from, for example US Man, on that process. For me, at that page-length (20k-ish bytes), the article would be long enough to have a shot at GA status. Chances are, at that length also, it is probably 10-15% or more of the article outbreak, meaning one tornado is 10-15%+ of an article about say 50-60 tornadoes. That is how I look at it for individual tornado articles. 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado is probably my best example: Tornado article size is 20k bytes with the outbreak article (which still has a section for the tornado) is at 115k bytes. That is 115k bytes for 89 tornadoes. A merge of the article back into the page would make that single tornado roughly 15-16% of the whole outbreak article.

(2016 Katie talk): Realistically, once a good check and fixes are done over say the 2016 Katie tornado (10k bytes only), it could probably easily be merged back into the outbreak article (67k bytes). Even at first glance, that "aftermath" section for the tornado isn't a real "aftermath" section, with a large chunk of that being removed more than likely. That whole section is nearly 50% of the bytes of the article. Removing that takes the article to 5-6k bytes, which is not even C-class and no chance for a GA. That is one would I would support a merge back into the outbreak article, due to lack of article size and lack of clear LASTING impacts/coverage.

Rant Over: Hopefully that whole thing explains my process and how I would handle individual tornado articles. Some probably need merging back into an outbreak article, others may just need a good rewriting...along with more research/LASTING coverage/impacts being mentioned. I wish we could hold almost like a "class" on how to write solid articles on tornadoes and tornado outbreaks. That would solve so many problems 😅. Would you like me to start on the 2016 Katie tornado or the 2011 Shoal Creek Valley-Ohatchee tornado? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and here is a neat trick to check sizes ChessEric: Type {{section size}} at the top section of any article talk page. That will show you every section and how many bytes it is. The larger percentage the section is of the article's total size, the more red it will highlight it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I just mentioned Katie; I wanted you to do the Ohatchee one. However, you can do the Katie one if it's that short. Also...wow. I didn't expect a long answer. LOL! Also, your right; "Shutting down" wasn't the right phrase. I was in a rush and that was the first thing that came to mind. Thanks for the tip by the way. It will be useful to me.

As a side note, all the new articles that I have been seeing are in the 2010-present timeframe and are likely not on your list. I fixed up the 2011 Lake Martin tornado and 2015 Garland tornado articles in the midst of me working on the 2024 Elkhorn–Blair tornado articles, but it's going to take me awhile to get to the other ones, especially with my final semester of college starting tomorrow. One more thing I will note is to be cautious about talking about tornadoes weakening and strengthening when they're over open terrain (i.e. 2024 Greenfield tornado). It's nearly impossible to know if that is actually occurring when they aren't hitting anything. ChessEric 22:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I found this conversation and I will add a few that need a looking at. I was responsible for the creation of 2016 Katie tornado (which isn't my best work, but it does meet the "criteria" that "everyone" agreed on), 2015 Garland tornado, 2013 Granbury tornado and 2011 Lake Martin tornado.

1. 2023 Wynne–Parkin tornado

2. 2013 Washington tornado

3. 2014 Pilger, Nebraska tornado family (which needs a RM, the title is not good)

Also a note, all of these articles are coming from one user, who I have already given a note to as there are a lot of grammatical issues within these articles. I can also help with whatever. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 13:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

That is true. I will say Sir MemeGod, the 2016 Katie tornado is one that, in theory, could, have an article. However, length is the main thing for me. It isn’t a “bad” article, I want to make that clear. Really two things: (1) It isn’t layouted the best, which added unnecessary “detail” (not the right word, but “unnecessary length” isn’t the best either) & (2) the extra length, when realistically removed, will shrink the article maybe to Start class or a low-level C-Class. To me, it doesn’t have the ability to reach GA-class, which is the main thing. Some of that just happens to be how little it was talked about/researched. Basically, from a quick glance, it would seem to be similar in length to 2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado (a GA-class article). However, what makes the real difference is the “aftermath” sections. During a good solid cleanup/rewriting of the article (which is necessary anyway for GA-nominations), I think most if not all of the 2016 Katie’s aftermath section would be removed and/or incorporated into the tornado summary section. That would leave no real “aftermath” section.

That is the main thing with the article. Not really a lack of notability/ability to be a true stand-alone tornado article (in my mind), but really a lack of Wikipedia-ability to be a stand-alone tornado article. Little bit if a difference in that aspect. Personally, I would want to give it an article. But, without some more research to make a good “aftermath” section, it wouldn’t qualify for one. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:04, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

One more thing; please ping Cyclonebiskit with these recent issues we've been having here. His expertise in the absence of TI12 and US Man would be much appreciated, even if he isn't around much anymore. ChessEric 20:19, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Will do when needed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, as the article creator, I support a move to draftspace where I (or others) can work on it. Also see the user's sandbox for another one of these articles that has grammatical errors. I totally understand the length argument, I mean it is short. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 20:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, I would like to quickly note that a tornado article is expected to reach GA class (1997 Jarrell tornado being that article right now, Tails and I are fixing it up), it does not have to reach GA class. Again, I get where you're coming from though. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 20:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I have tried to improved Hoguert (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

BRD

I have reverted your restoration of a map to Battle of Kherson. See discussion at Talk:Battle of Kherson#Map. I am also awaiting your replies at Talk:Battle of Kherson#Recent major changes and Talk:Battle of Lebedyn#Merge proposal. Leaving you a talk page message since pinging doesn't seem to be sufficient. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Non-tropical storms task force

You forgot to update your username. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 04:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

You also forgot to update it on the space weather task force too. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

And your WP:Current events signature too. If I hadn’t known you’d changed your username last year; I would have thought it was a separate account. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Photo of the 2024 Barnsdall–Bartlesville tornado.png

The file File:Photo of the 2024 Barnsdall–Bartlesville tornado.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Potentially fails NFCC#8. Did not FfD this, becuse it only may be a NFCC violation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

NFF

Hey there WeatherWriter! I forgot to start a discusson with you about why I PRODed File:Photo of the 2024 Barnsdall–Bartlesville tornado.png. The reason is becuse it may fail NFCC#8 (Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.), and the photo is so low-quality that it doesn't really seem to do that. Also, concensus on Commons about NFFs shouldn't be used in DePROD rationales, as NFFs are only hosted on Wikipedia (regardless of who agrees, including Administrators here). Feel free to start an RfC on Wikipedia, though! :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

XD. We both started a discussion at the same time. LOL. I’ll read through this when I have time in about an hour. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Yea, I sent you the message and then saw that you had sent one to me at almost the exact same time :) Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, File:Photo of the 2024 Winchester tornado.png which you uploaded under fair use criteria might be in the public domain under PD-AUTOMATED on Commons (Just a quick FYI). Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Voting for coordinators is now open!

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:A tornado funnel is shown moving through Xenia.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:A tornado funnel is shown moving through Xenia.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a missing or corrupt image or an image description page for a Commons-hosted image. Per Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons#Categorization, files stored on Commons should get categorized there rather than on Wikipedia, so this local page should be deleted as unnecessary. (this will not delete the actual image on Commons; there is a separate ongoing deletion discussion on Commons about the image itself, though that looks like it may currently be trending towards the image being kept.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 🔹Blue (talk/contribs) 16:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Free pictures of tornadoes

A tag has been placed on Category:Free pictures of tornadoes indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Re:NWS Image Copyright

I emailed National Weather Service Chicago, Illinois about the Public Domain status of photos relating to the 1967 Belvidere tornado and their response was the following:

We have been doing research on which, if any, images are still protected under copyright law. Ultimately, we were unable to come for a formal conclusion. With that said, if you plan to use any image, please attribute them to "NWS Chicago" including a link to the webpage just to be safe.

They're currently unsure if any images at all are protected and are unsure which of the remaining ones are. Just thought I'd provide this update to you and your circles. Please forward this to Commons, I'm quite exhausted and can only post this one message! Happy editing! GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thumbnail for Poison.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thumbnail for Poison.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox storm IF

Template:Infobox storm IF has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Source help

An IP recently added a claim to List of tornadoes by width about a 6 mile wide tornado in Georgia. The source references an AMS book by D. M. Ludlum titled Early American Tornadoes 1586-1870 which I can only find online shipped to the UK for 150 pounds (despite me living in the US), and I of course don't live in a place where I can easily borrow a copy. I was wondering, do you have a copy of Thomas P. Grazulis's Significant Tornadoes 1680-1991: a Chronology and Analysis of Events? This might be more easily accessible within the weather community (even if I don't have a copy, these cost over 500 dollars each). If you have the book, can you verify the claim about that tornado? Otherwise, can you point me towards someone who has one of these books? Thank you! GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey GeorgeMemulous! Thanks for the message! I do have a personal copy of both Grazulis’ 1680-1991 & 1974-2022’s books. This just created a mystery for me. So I did check the Grazulis book and sure enough, a tornado struck Laurens County, Georgia on March 28, 1810. Now Grazulis does not list any width or stats about it, but does include a short damage blurb. I also looked up my college’s library and found they have two physical copies of the book. So, I will have to check that person’s six-mile claim this coming week when I’m at the library. Although, it may actually be true. While doing some Googling, I found what appears to be a blog post by the county? (Self-published, so idk for sure), which also says it was six miles wide. I appreciate you messaging me and reaching out! Yeah, don’t pay 150 pounds for a book. Chances are, someone that edits often either will have it or have access to it via a library. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I say with nervous laughter that I was the one responsible for this edit... I knew about the article that WeatherWriter mentioned, but due to Wikipedia's guidelines about citing blogs I unfortunately could not include it when I tried to source it.

However, I did see that Tornado Archive does include this tornado in their data explorer and cites Grazulis as the source, and since I couldn't cite the blog, I wanted to cite something (or someone in this case) basically saying "yes, this event definitely happened".

I definitely understand why the edits were made and I just wanted to clear the air about that! Mabolzich169 (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

"7 October 2023" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 7 October 2023 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 15 § 7 October 2023 until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 14:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Andrew5 imposter alert

I’d just like to warn you if you’ve been paying attention to the SPIs recently that there is a troll that has been mimicking Andrew5 and apparently other LTAs for a while.

Ponyo who is a CheckUser does not believe that this troll is in fact Andrew5. The troll has vandalized not only Ponyo’s talk page; but has also vandalized my talk page cross wiki (he would continually spoof interactions between me and GeorgeMemulous; he left a fake user warning on Ponyo’s talk page pretending to be me (using the name Hurricane Clude), was outed by SineBot); and has posted personal attacks against me and @Ponyo and death threats against the latter. It got so bad that an administrator on the Simple English Wikipedia had to semi-protect my talk page; and it got so bad on Meta that I had to contact a steward over it.

All I am asking is; if the user or IP has already been blocked as a sock; to not open an SPI. But instead follow WP:DENY and WP:RBI. Thank you. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

"March 31, 2023" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect March 31, 2023 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 17 § March 31, 2023 until a consensus is reached. Same for May 20, 2013. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Checking in

Hey there WeatherWriter, just checking in how you're doing, and making sure you're not too down about the FAC fiasco with the tornado article. I think you have a lot of value as an editor. Sometimes the rules on Wikipedia seem arbitrary, and on one hand they are, but on the other hand, this website has been around over 20 years, and there are certain processes and ways of letting things play out. I think your enthusiasm toward editing is quite apparent, and I hope you can channel that in the right direction. If you need any help or suggestions or guidance, please let me know, but otherwise, just wanted to do a general check-in after all that jazz, so to speak. Cheers, ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey Hurricanehink! Thanks for checking in! (Wow, this was a longer reply than I thought it would be...sorry 'bout that...) I'm not really down over the FAC/GA debate. Now that you could say the "emotion" has died down from it, I'll let you know more or less why I was...well, the best word I'm looking for is "pissed" I guess (I thought for a while how to describe it...lol). Honestly, it is just a lack of time. I fully get what y'all said about improving the outbreak article if it is merged (not sure if that will happen anymore as it is a split consensus right now). But, the problem is that I just really don't have the time to do that anymore. My edit count may seem to be "high" still, but it is in bursts for like an hour. For a comparison, from February to August, I averaged about 747 edits per month. We are over halfway into September and I have a total of 56 mainspace edits. So my reasoning for being so "pissed" (what probably feels like "ownership" to y'all) was because I physically can't improve the outbreak article, so that GA/GA "award"/"feeling" that I accomplished and "completed" would just be gone. ChessEric, also recently said basically the same thing on their talk page: lack of time to actually create new or improve exiting articles.

My main thing I have been working to at least keep up is the research on tornadoes in 2024 article and the recent tornadoes of 2024 topics. But that's about all I have time to do for actual improvement/creation. Lack of time to work on new stuff or even try to save content also compounded with the NWS photo copyright fiasco on the Commons (another batch of about 900 images were found and are in review right now...on top of the 300 either ongoing deletion requests or soon to be deletion requests) just makes it for a rough time. I do appreciate the check in though. Hopefully that explains why I seemed off from probably my normal editing self during that FAC/GA debate. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Sort of a P.S. – As a P.S. in case you were bored or looking for something new to try out. In the last PD-NWS update I sent out (not sure if you read it), I mentioned using non-free files on Wikipedia over the Commons. Even though the Commons may not be able to host the NWS-tornado photos, EN-Wikipedia can. On the Commons, there is a category of the deletion discussions in progress (Category:National Weather Service-related deletion requests). Pretty much any actual photo of a tornado can be uploaded as a non-free file on Wikipedia under the historical event aspect (specifically because tornadoes themselves cannot be repeated and are, by definition, a "historic" event). I'm waiting for one to be deleted before I re-upload it on Wikipedia as a non-free file, with a few "test" exceptions. So, if you wanted to help, you could help watch the category/sub-category for deleted tornado photos to see which ones need to be re-uploaded as a non-free file. As mentioned in the PD-NWS update sent out, the 2011 Joplin tornado photograph in the infobox can be used as a template when doing so (or the 2022 Andover tornado photograph can be used as well). But yeah, I'm just watching the discussions to see if/when one is deleted, if it does indeed need to be replaced as a non-free file. All of those non-free photos are being added to this category as well in case you just wanted to look at them: Category:Non-free pictures of tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hah yea I had a feeling you might've gotten a little pissed. I understand why. I've seen it a lot over the years. People want to help, but then they find out that they haven't really been helping as much, because of reasons A through Z that you might not have even been aware of. It's the tricky part about working in such a large collaborative project like Wikipedia. We have a lot of people pulling things in different directions. The images are a great example of that. I usually don't bother with images, because of the copyright issue, and because in the past I've tried uploading images, not fully understanding if they're appropriate or not. So now I only usually worry about images that I'm uploading myself (which I usually know for a fact are in the public domain, either due to age or knowing who it was made by. Many users have also experienced that dejection because they were proud of an article they wrote, only for the article to get merged. I wanna address that briefly. There are millions of Wikipedia articles, but not all are created equally. If you make a brand new article on a super niche topic, there's a decent chance no one will ever notice it, meaning they won't notice if you bent the rules a bit, but also that means no one will read it. That partly explains the recent push toward merging smaller topics into bigger ones (and I bring this up specifically because of the tornado article you wrote). It would be like if there was an article for a storm that barely affected anyone, versus that same information being in the storm article. The info is still needed, it's just a question of where it's most useful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thumbnail for Poison.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thumbnail for Poison.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)