Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Article Names for Natural Disasters

tl;dr: climate change is already increasing the number of weather catastrophes, and I don't believe WP:Disambiguation provides adequate guidance to name articles when e.g. significant fires share a name.

I was directed here from the teahouse as I'm relatively new. There's currently an going conversation on the talk page for the Palisades Fire about whether the 2021 Palisades fire or the 2025 Palisades fire is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Without getting into that specific conversation, it occurs to me that as climate change fuels more and more weather catastrophes, it will be helpful to have guidance and/or policy on naming articles. I provided a table below that shows California fire names since 2013 that have been used 10 or more times. I'm, of course, aware that not all named fires meet the WP:N guidelines. But as more fires occur, there will simply be more notable fires that share the same name.

My understanding is that this is largely due to how fires are named: often by dispatchers trying to simplify radio traffic for firefighters. I believe that the NWS/NOAA World Meteorological Organization retires a storm name once a named storm becomes significant.

So, some questions (of course feel free to propose your own):

  • Does the Wikipedia:Disambiguation policy adequately address article naming for natural disasters?
  • If yes, please elaborate
  • If no, which catastrophes need clarification? Fires only? Hurricanes? Snowstorms? Tornadoes? Derechos? Fire Whirls? Other?
  • Are you aware of naming schemes for weather catastrophes in countries outside the US that could cause confusion? What are they? It would be helpful to ensure this is not a US-only discussion.
  • Does the timing of article creation/title selection affect your decision? e.g. there was a 1981 Hurricane Katrina. At what point did the 2005 Hurricane become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Hurricane Katrina?

Thanks for taking the time to read this, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

California fire names since 2013 that have been used 10 or more times. From this dataset(scroll down to Incident Data) .

Border 31
Creek 24
Canyon 20
Oak 18
Lake 15
Willow 14
Valley 14
Ranch 13
River 12
Coyote 12
Grant 11
Park 11
Soda 10
Point 10
Pine 10
Hill 10
Bear 10

Lastly, as an aside, there was also a 2019 Palisades Fire in CA. Good thing we stopped burning fossil fuels! We really need to stop burning fossil fuels!!! Delectopierre (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. See Lake Fire and Lake Fire (2024). No matter the size of the second fire, the first fire with that name will always take the “main” name and the second one will have the “(YYYY)” after it. EF5 13:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Is this spelled out somewhere? The current conversation about renaming the Palisades fire is looking like it will not be following that convention. Delectopierre (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how current article title policy is inadequate. If two or more distinct events are similarly named, we disambiguate by year, then by month if necessary (e.g. Hurricane Alice (June 1954) and Hurricane Alice (December 1954)), and a set index article is set up (following the same example, List of storms named Alice). If one event is much more significant than others of the same name, we drop the disambiguator, in accordance with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Determining the primary topic is usually a subjective process, though this can be backed up by objective statistics like pageviews, death tolls, or damage totals. Katrina is probably not a good case study since it existed in a time where content policies were less strict - Hurricane Katrina (2005) was moved to Hurricane Katrina on 27 August 2005, two days before landfall in New Orleans. These days, people prefer to wait for things to settle before making an assessment, like at Talk:Typhoon Doksuri#Requested move 15 August 2023. Faster moves do happen though, like with Talk:Hurricane Beryl/Archive 1#Requested move 1 July 2024 where the gap in usage and long-term significance became quickly apparent, making it easy to reach an early decision (and this is also what's happening with the ongoing Palisades Fire). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the example you gave is exactly why it could be helpful to provide guidance. My instinct is to leave the year on both and give it a few months before changing the name.
That wasn’t a popular viewpoint, and of course we make decisions by consensus so I don’t pretend that it has to be my way. But it seems to be pretty subjective, at least to me.
Unfortunately, I’d say it’s fairly likely there’s another significant fire (although hopefully not as significant as the current event) in the palisades in the next ten years. What will we do then? Delectopierre (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The guidance across Wikipedia, per WP:COMMONNAME, is that the most significant event of a name should get the primary topic. Significance should have an objective truth to it, like number of fatalities, or acreage. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I strongly support development of a guideline that spells out how to determine that objective truth. like you said fatalities and acreage are important. I think including other metrics would be important as well. For example:
- people evacuated days (eg # of people * number of days evacuated)
- structures destroyed
- housing units destroyed
- economic damage
- firefighters deployed
- firefighting equipment deployed
- economic damage
- changes in how future calamities are handled because of learnings
All that said, I haven’t a clue how to make all of that objective. Delectopierre (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I would support a metric based on some these guidelines (structures destroyed, damage $$), but not others -
  • People evacuated days is a good metric but hard to calculate, because evacuation orders are not issued or withdrawn uniformly and good reporting on # of people affected is often hard to find.
  • Number of personnel or amount of equipment is also tricky because some major fires will have relatively few resources assigned to them if there are a large number of fires burning concurrently (as with this SoCal event).
Penitentes (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, agreed on both points.
I tried to calculate the people-evacuated-days for a few fires in 2020 during the lockdowns...because I had the time. After 3 or 4 days of maddeningly refreshing facebook posts from rural sheriffs and tracking down nixle alerts...I gave up.
Michael Wara expressed some interest in studying this in 2020, which is what inspired my effort, although I'm unsure if he ever did so. Delectopierre (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Commendable effort, I'm a fan of Wara's work. Figuring out evacuation timelines and stats is always my very least favorite part of writing wildfire articles. Penitentes (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks!
Yeah, he's a very smart guy, and it helps that he's so friendly and available, even to the public.
Evacuation timelines are such a mess -- frankly as are evacuation notifications in the real world. Its too bad that the companies that have 'tried' to solve that...haven't. Emergency alerts have gotten better, and some communities have improved their evacuation policies and procedures. But as a whole, its still a giant mess. Delectopierre (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

RFC on tornado lists

Should weak and unimpactful tornadoes be included in list articles? Departure– (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Opening comments: This all began because of an above discussion, where an editor placed a tag on List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023 article for "excessive examples", and upon discussion stated that weak tornadoes with little effects were getting too much prose in the lists given their impact and shouldn't be listed in the same manner as other tornadoes. This goes against the status quo of the "List of tornadoes in the XY outbreak" and "List of United States tornadoes from X to Y, YYYY" list articles which have remained largely untouched in policy and unquestioned on notability since their origins. I personally believe that, since other tornadoes in the list are practical, all tornadoes that can be reliably sourced to be included should be listed with a brief summary. Another potential solution which I personally oppose but could be implemented is prose in the articles for EFU/0/1 tornadoes, stating that "X weak tornadoes producing little impact were also observed". I'll also state that this statement will make tallying tornadoes harder, given the lack of specificity that can lead to under or overcounting. Whatever the outcome of this RFC, I merely hope the solution will prevent this issue from producing policy-based stalemate with maintenance tags having no clear and easy solutions as we have at the first article I mentioned. Departure– (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • WP:CSC: "Lists are commonly written to satisfy one of the following sets of objective criteria:" When we apply this to e.g. List of United States tornadoes from July to August 2023, we see that it certainly doesn't meet #1 (not all these tornadoes are independently notable), it doesn't meet #2 (some of them are notable (e.g. Tornado outbreak sequence of August 4–8, 2023), and it doesn't meet #3 ("reasonably short (less than 32 KB)": the example article is more than 200K, and is already a random subdivision of US tornadoes of 2023). Fram (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Cherry picking certain tornadoes to include here would be overly subjective and impossible, so it’s really an all or nothing scenario. I support including all tornadoes as is done currently, with no changes needed to the current core status of the lists. The only way these lists can be totally objective as Fram mentioned above is to include all of them. United States Man (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • That´s the same kind of argument used for years for sports, everyone who played one game is the only objective measure. Didn´t fly there, doesn´t fly here. Including e.g only tornadoes of, say, EF2 and above is equally objective. Or all rornadoes which have at least one non-local reliable source apart from the curre t database. Or probably other rules, these are just some first thoughts. Fram (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
    Actually no, there are numerous cases where EF1 and even EF0 tornadoes include more damage description and even media coverage than some EF2s, so then again, it is subjective. You can frame this anyway you want, but your argument here is actually not an improvement and is detrimental to the Wikiproject and the flow of information of Wikipedia as a whole. There are actual issues afoot here in this wikiproject, such as mass creation of tornado articles with bad grammar, multiple factual errors, and content-fork creation. The list pages are not a hill to die on for you imo. United States Man (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I've been following this discussion without really chiming in, so I will offer a possible solution. Noting, if I was actually choosing, I choose to not alter anything. However, this is a possible compromise to the dispute:
  1. Monthly U.S. tornadoes articles remain stand-alone list articles (merges to combine additional months open to case-by-case basis).
  2. Any tornado that has one non-NOAA source is automatically notable for summary details (i.e. summary details as the lists have now).
  3. The leader is altered slightly from the current lead versions to denote this includes notable tornadoes (i.e. at least one non-NOAA source)
  4. In the lead, any weaker tornadoes are noted without full summaries. For a hypothetical example: "In the month of July, 20 tornadoes occurred across the U.S., with 3 rated EF2, 10 rated EF1, and 22 rated EF0."
  5. The hypothetical example above would be cited by the NOAA database set just to the monthly tornadoes, which is a reliable source.
As mentioned, I don't necessarily support this at this moment, but I wanted to throw a possible solution into the water. If consensus/compromise would be falling towards allowing this type of solution, I would be for it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
That´s more or less what I intended with my second suggestion, and seems like a good basis for discussion. Fram (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Almost every single tornado will have a non-NOAA source if you look for them (i.e. local news). So we’d end up excluding maybe 2-5%, so why not just include all of them and be done? United States Man (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
If almost every single tornado has local news coverage... what's even the point of being selective? Wouldn't they all be considered notable? Departure– (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
That’s my point. United States Man (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Playing devils advocate for a moment: Then the local news coverage source should also be listed with the NOAA primary source. While those of us (y’all and myself included) generally understand that fact, I’ll be honest, in the example article listed by Fram above, List of United States tornadoes from July to August 2023, there is 0 non-NOAA sources outside of the lead. Out of the entire list article, which has 262 sources, 260 comes from NOAA and 2 come from non-NOAA sources. Part of the overall issue is that WikiProject Weather got in the habit of citing NOAA and then not anyone else since the info was already cited. The topic of “Is NOAA a primary source” has come up multiple times and the answer is yes it is (WP:VNTIA). So technically, if we look at Wikipedia policy to the letter, that article is basically cited entirely by WP:PRIMARY sources, which is actually cautioned against, not secondary reliable sources, which is preferred over primary sources. Basically, a possible solution to not even change the list is to just add a secondary reliable sources to the tornadoes. Then, see where it goes from there. Anyone else think that may be a good idea? Actually see how many tornadoes do/do not have secondary sources?
If one or two do not, then the list, bluntly, is fine (once non-NOAA is actually added). If 20+ do not in a monthly list, then we may have a true problem. As I see it, the problem is that primary is being used and secondary is basically being ignored, leading to Fram’s conclusion that most of the tornado may not be notable enough for the list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it should be mentioned in the list as its omission would be misleading (showing less tornadoes than there actually was), less accurate, and less comprehensive. I'm fine with a brief summary, mention, or omission of some of the events outside of the list only if certain details of the tornado would be inappropriate or rule-breaking. ZZZ'S 05:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) - Yes, if I understand the question. All tornadoes are sufficiently eventful and concerning that, if there is a list, they should be included in a list. Tornado warnings are disruptive. People who have been disturbed by tornado warnings and have headed for cover when there was no damage would still like to see that event in a list. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
    • Tornado warnings are general, not for a specific tornado. "All tornadoes are sufficiently eventful"? Many tornadoes are likely to remain undetected as they are very minor and shortlived and if no camera or storm chaser is nearby and they happen on unpopulated land they will likely not be noted. Even among the ones listed. Look at e.g. List of United States tornadoes from July to August 2023#July 7 event; none of these 4 tornadoes were, as far as we know, eventful; we have no idea if tornado warnings were given, and if so where and when. As an aside, I have no idea why this is called the "July 7 event", these were not one event but can perhaps be considered two events (the ND ones and the Texas one have nothing to do with each other). Just labeling it with the date (so here "July 7") would be at least better. Fram (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There are times when it's useful to list (or attempt to list) every tornado (like List of Australia tornadoes). I guess the bigger questions comes down to the effort to document every tornado in the United States each year, and how best to do that. The way we do it now, we have the yearly Tornadoes of 2024, plus monthly lists in the US such as List of United States tornadoes in May 2024, as well as individual outbreak articles, such as Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024, and sometimes those outbreak articles have individual lists, such as the List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024. While that might seem like a lot of overlap, any single tornado has the potential to be notable. Take the EF2 tornadoes for example: none of the EF2 in the List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024 get a mention in the main outbreak article. But given the current length of the outbreak article (7,500 articles), it would be too much to include every single EF2. Now most of them weren't that significant, but an EF2 can still destroy a building, so they still deserve mention. Even EF0 and EF1's have the potential to cause significant impacts - the most recent tornadic death in New Jersey was caused by an F0. In the interest in being inclusive, I don't think it makes sense to be unnecessarily restrictive. At the same time, requiring non-NOAA sources could be tricky, since a lot of news sources just regurgitate NWS reports. I realized that while working on List of California tornadoes. I think the way that the severe weather project has been handling tornadoes is honestly pretty impressive. I should also note the importance of digging into each tornado directly, rather than just relying on random NCDC links, as there can be multiple reports for the same tornado if it crossed state/county lines, or if the tornado touched down multiple times. In short, I don't think much needs to change, other than maybe summarizing more here and there, and trying to include non-NOAA sources (when the info doesn't just repeat what's in the NOAA sources). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Here’s my opinion: if it’s a list of tornadoes in a specific outbreak: I believe that ALL tornadoes that occurred in that outbreak, even if their impacts were trivial; need to be included. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
If we’re referring to the Tornadoes of YYYY articles and the like, then I think WP:TornadoCriteria should be followed. And only list the more notable ones. But it really depends on the case. But if it’s concerning individual outbreaks; then every tornado needs to be listed. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
If we're only listing tornadoes notable enough to be mentioned in the yearly article anyway, what's the point of even having the list? In any case, if we make such a move, there will still need to be a list of all tornadoes in project space so we can keep an accurate tally. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Tornadoes of YYYY isn't the same as the "List of tornadoes from M to M YYYY" lists that get created every year. Departure– (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
What may be more prudent here would be to split those M to M lists into monthly lists rather than omit tornadoes. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
So, in all honesty yes even weak and unimpactful tornadoes should be included in these lists. If the lists grow too long; we should instead split the lists. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 18:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 is a list focusing on one month and already reaches 118kb in size. This is why I in particular beg for a {{cite pns}} or {{cite storm events database}} template. I'd wager there's a non-zero chance that the Storm Events Database is the single most used citation across all of Wikipedia, and these lists are a big part of that. Cutting down the size in bytes can also be done by cutting summaries of tornadoes from outbreaks and simply including a main article tag with the small table, rather than the excerpt format used today. Departure– (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no more hope of changing anything at this project, which is probably as bad as the former roads project when it comes to closing ranks and not seeing how completely inappropriate their efforts are to duplicate a database in all its excessive detail. List of United States tornadoes in May 2024 has more than 500 tornadoes, most of them very ephemeral, and the suggestion to deal with this is ... creating a new cite template to reduce the size of the sources. Try to imagine some other weather phenomenon, say a hurricane or a winter storm or whetever, and having a place by place list describing in place X "damaged some vegetation and fencing", in place Y "damaged a small shed and utility trailer", in place Z "caused no known damage", elsewhere "no damage could be found.", and in many places strong winds were observed but nothing more. And buried among this endless list were the serious, noteworthy instances with deaths or truly massive damage. But hey, congratulations all around, we have repeated every instance from the weather database, good job people! Fram (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Cool vs Cold

In connection with this discussion, I'd like to know whether there is any guideline to distinguish what can be called cold from what is just cool. I assumed that a Spanish town where 4 months per year have mean daily minima below freezing point could be described as having cold winters (rather than very cold or freezingly cold), but there is no consensus. For comparison, I have checked a couple of random articles; for example the one about Paris states: In winter, ... days are cool, and nights are cold but generally above freezing... Furthermore, it seems that it is correct to define winters in the town as cold for Spain, which I would understand if it was a low-latitude country such as Malaysia or Panama, but not for Spain; this makes me think that there is some kind of Euro-centric or Northern-centric bias in how climates in the world are described. Jotamar (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Gulf Coast winter storm

With a historic winter storm about to impact the Gulf Coast, I would highly recommend anyone who is able to contribute and expand the newly created article I started for this at January 2025 Gulf Coast winter storm. There is going to be February 2021/Uri/Viola-level disruptions here in these regions, and seeing how much stuff we got to add there, I would hope to see this page get there as well. I will contribute as well, but I wanted to send this message here to hopefully spread the word and get as much people on board. Cheers! MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 06:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Tornado Talk reliability?

I see this get brought up on quite a few DYK reviews/GANs. Would be good if we establish a community consensus on this topic. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I say generally reliable up to GA, with no prejudice for/against FA/A/FL. They cite their summaries (I can give proof of that if needed) and I'd even go as far as calling them experts in the field of tornado history, although that can be debated. I see it as no different to citing Grazulis's "big books". I can directly contact the runner of the project (Jen Narramore) if y'all have questions for the person who heads the project. EF5 20:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
    If you're going to contact the team, can you tell them to either add a button to cite their page or get rid of the annoying "Copying text is disabled on this page" plugin? Not a dealbreaker for use on Wikipedia but it seems they really don't want anyone using anything from their site, even for simply citing information from there. Departure– (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    Sure, although I do understand why copying is disabled, obviously to prevent against unattributed plagiarism. EF5 19:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
IMO Generally reliable for anything up to GA. I'm not sure about FAC/FL. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I may have confused it with other sites, but Tornado Talk's forums in particular brought me to the conclusion that it was unreliable. However, I see now that it's run by a select group of people instead of the quorum of faceless internet usernames. However, before giving my support to reliability, have any of their claims failed a verifiability challenge, what kind of claims do they typically back up, how often do they back up their sources, and what credentials do the editorial team have? Departure– (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I believe you're confusing it with https://stormtrack.org/. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Here is a list of researchers, the vast majority of whom seem to be professionals with credentials. Funny enough, Lon Curtis, photographer of the 1997 Jarrell tornado, is on their team. EF5 20:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Alright then.
My current view is that, as a tertiary source apparently run by freelancers (and with an annoying extension blocking me from copying content out of the page), it should be treated as such. Most claims should be attributed. Where possible, cite other sources, however, they seem reliable enough for many claims.
I just checked the "about" section and saw that Grazulis is getting on in age. Before the inevitable event of his passing, I hope to get his article to GA or FA, because he's contributed so much to the contemporary weather and tornado scene. Above all, I hope either him or another member of the Tornado Project is able to publish the next edition of "Significant tornadoes" within my lifetime, assuming one of the monsters in the book doesn't take me first.
Additional considerations apply, but generally reliable. Departure– (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment: This question has come up several times in the last few years (including in GANs and possibly FACs). I wonder if we should take this to WP:RSN with an RFC to help establish reliability. An RFC over at the Reliable Source Noticeboard would allow us to formally add TornadoTalk to the big list at WP:RSP and help limit any future discussions for weather GANs and FACs. I can actually personally attest that TornadoTalk was questioned and removed during the GAN for Tornado outbreak of February 12, 1945 after its reliability (secondary-source confirmation of reliability) couldn't be verified. Grazulis' book(s) and TornadoProject were considered reliable due to Grazulis'-well documented RS and usage by the National Weather Service. However, TornadoTalk, at least during that GAN, didn't have clear RS-establishing their reliability, so it was removed as a technical self-published source from a group that had (at least at the time of that GAN) no sources confirming they met the qualifications as a subject-matter expert.
So with that, would y'all be ok if I start a formal RSN, since even GANs have questioned TornadoTalk's reliability? Courtesy Pings: Departure–, EF5, Wildfireupdateman. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I think a project-specific discussion like this is fine as-is, from here to RSN is an unnecessarily large step. EF5 19:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
This is partisan group so a RSN would be appropriate Noah, BSBATalk 20:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Tri-State tornado outbreak#Requested move 18 December 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Tri-State tornado outbreak#Requested move 18 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Aerography (meteorology)

This page hasn't been updated or properly sourced in 15 years. Please, rescue it or go to WP:AfD. 2025 is a year of decisive action. Bearian (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal for Template:Cite storm events database

Per the above comment by User:Departure– above, we should probably have template for referencing storm events, since, as the user said, "there's a non-zero chance that the Storm Events Database is the single most used citation across all of Wikipedia." Every single URL has the same beginning, so such a template might also need something like Template:NHC TCR url, which shortens the URL for TCR's released by the NHC.

There is a little bit of inconsistency over the publisher and author, but since we don't know the people who actually write the event reports (other than the local NWS office), I think the default publisher should be "National Climatic Data Center". Does anybody with template knowledge think they could work on this? I can try tackling it after the new year if no one does it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

On the database I've been experimenting with a citation that displays as "Storm Events Database (LWX survey BALTIMORE MARTIN ST, 2024-06-05 20:27 EST-5). I think the WFO and ID are all that are needed, but I'm definitely in support of the begin location or timestamp being alongside the WFO. Departure– (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
I have previously wondered about setting up a template similar to the NHC TCR URL one before now, however, I'm loathed to as I have previously been informed that the URL ID changes from time to time.Jason Rees (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
As long as the time between when the URL is put into the article, and there is an archives of that URL, then it shouldn't matter too much for when it changes. Linkrot is a problem that's avoidable. Data compression is also helpful for articles loading faster, so a template would be useful. As for what User:Departure– made, I think it should have the "National Climatic Data Center" as the publisher, but "Storm Events Database" should be the series, if that's possible. The details about the exact time and location is good, but that is ultimately extra coding being added to one of the most common citations. Perhaps a title of just "[Weather type] event report"? The weather type would be whatever is the first entry. That way the NCDC URL could be used all across the weather project. For example - "High wind event report" or "Hurricane event report" or "Tornado event report". If we wanted to be more specific, maybe add location, so you could have "California high wind event report", or even "Monroe County, Florida tornado event report". There are options, but seeing how often the NCDC reports are used, there should be some discussion on it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
While you're at it, might as well knock down "Cite storm data publication" as well. Access links are temporary and only for 24 hours on the NCDC site. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Readability of outbreak list articles

I recently worked on at least starting the process of getting List of tornadoes in the outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023 to featured list status. As part of this, I changed the layout of the page (organizing tornadoes by state), however that change was reverted for not being consistent with the standard layout of tornado list articles.

You can see my take on the style here and the original here. I want to get more opinions on whether the new style really is more readable, and whether or not keeping consistency with other project-space articles is more important than readability. Pinging @TornadoInformation12 as they were the one to revert my edit; bringing this to WPWX because this could easily affect other articles. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I'm going to restart working on the article under the new style per WP:SILENTCONSENSUS. Departure– (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Damage Assessment Toolkit Citation Template Discussion

There is an ongoing discussion/request in progress for a citation template to be created specifically for the Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT). You can see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Creation of new citation template for the U.S. Gov Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Tornado articles in draftspace

To further collaboration, I've assembled a list of tornado articles in draftspace as of 17:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC).

One of mine. Definitely interested in bringing this up to quality once I get some time. Departure– (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Abandoned, not enough sources. EF5 13:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I have abandoned this one, not enough sourcing. EF5 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
One of mine. One of the most interesting tornadoes I've written about. Departure– (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
One of mine. As with Jordan, there's a lot to love about Cheyenne from what few sources exist. Departure– (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I have abandoned this one too, not enough sourcing. EF5 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd work on this more today, but I can't get my hands on the Storm Data publication for September 2002 because the server's offline! Argh! Departure– (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I have abandoned this one, not enough sourcing (although it could very well be notable). EF5 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Still a work-in-progress. EF5 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I have abandoned this one too, not enough sourcing. EF5 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
See 2015 Holly Springs–Ashland tornado, we both started it at around the same time, funny enough. EF5 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Sources supporting sustained and significant coverage, along with lasting impacts that can be detailed in the Aftermath section, do exist, I have just been busy IRL lately and haven't had much time for substantial article work. Will continue when I have a bit more time on my hands. Chris ☁️(talk - contribs) 04:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Just a fork now, but I was interested in getting this to mainspace in the not-too-distant future. Departure– (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
This is the article I have the highest confidence in getting to mainspace. Departure– (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

See also:

Not abandoned yet. Departure– (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Partially abandoned. I'll resume work once Jordan's in mainspace. Departure– (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm slowly chipping away at this one. Departure– (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
It's... probably notable? Departure– (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is all from a search, but there are a lot more draftspace articles than I expected there to be. Departure– (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, a suprising about of those are me starting things and not finishing them. Maybe I need to commit to an article, and finish it before moving on to something else. :) EF5 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Featured article review for Hurricane Claudette (2003)

I have nominated Hurricane Claudette (2003) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 20:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorting out tornado article ledes

There isn't an MOS for the lede sections of tornado articles. Also, several newer or IP editors frequently change things in the lead sentence, specifically adding random adjectives to exaggerate the tornado's qualities. I think they should be limited to only two unless there's a good reason to have more. "Deadly" should be reserved for tornadoes with particularly high death tolls, "killer" shouldn't be used at all, "destructive / damaging" really shouldn't be used at all, "large / wide / massive" shouldn't be used unless the width of the tornado is specifically important, "erratic"? "devastating"? "powerful"?

I think that the only adjective that most tornado ledes need is the classification "weak", "significant", "intense", "violent", or "extremely violent", and then any other adjectives should only be used if they're particularly important (such as the 2013 El Reno tornado's size, the 2007 Elie tornado's erratic path, the 2011 Joplin tornado's high death toll, etc). In addition, MOS:AVOIDBOLD is still an issue and I really think only El Reno, Joplin, and the Tri-State (along with a very select few others like Jarrell or Bridge Creek) can get away with not following it - and please, for the people adding "The tornado, also known as the xyz location tornado," to the second lede sentence, please cut it out - we're inventing names from newspaper reporting with the names following a very generic and dare I say routine naming scheme.

Let me know what your thoughts are. If I get good reception here, I'll go through existing articles and clean them up. Departure– (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

My good/bad adjective list:
GOOD to use:
  • Strong
  • Large
  • Violent (for F/EF4+)
  • Catastrophic (F/EF5)
  • Wide (if covered in RSs)
  • Wedge/rope/stovepipe/you get my point.
  • Deadly (if covered in RSs)
  • Damaging (if covered in RSs)


BAD to use:
  • Incredible
  • Extreme/extremely (damage)
  • Massive
  • Huge
  • Insane/insanely
The "BAD" words are ones that shouldn't be used when describing tornadoes, in my opinion. — EF5 16:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
The "bad" ones strike me as words to watch anyway and probably should be avoided in general barring specific mention and use in RS and quotes. My point is that while some might be verified and "good", they disrupt the flow on an article. Too many adjectives gets away from the main point of the article in many cases - there's no reason a relatively standard EF4 tornado in rural Mississippi needs as many descriptors as the Joplin tornado in the lead sentence. No prejudice at all to adding them in the article body or even later in the lede, but I get rather annoyed at having to read "...a large, violent, deadly and extremely damaging wedge tornado" because it's just too much. Unless it's literally El Reno, you can get away with just calling it "violent". "Wedge" is definitely borderline as well and is better suited for the article body because surprise surprise tornadoes change shapes throughout their life cycle. Departure– (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
I also do get annoyed by the people that add things like "A large, deadly, costly, violent and extremely incredible catastrophic damaging tornado" (I'm exaggerating) to articles; I'd love to see an MOS be made to clarify that. Speaking of Joplin, I'll bet a million bucks on a pageview spike for the 2011 Joplin tornado article today, once the daily pageviews are updated. :) — EF5 17:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Pardon? Why would Joplin get a pageview spike beyond that of our discussion of it here? Departure– (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
This, but let's stay on-topic, it's my fault for bringing it up. I think the AVOIDBOLD thing can have a few exceptions, like 2007 Greensburg tornado (GT), which has a few different names. — EF5 17:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, for instances like that or maybe Mayfield. What I will say is that most tornadoes do not have common names - that's why AVOIDBOLD exists in the first place. The second sentence that some articles get now that gives tornadoes a name anyway is what really grinds my gears. Departure– (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Record high and low in climate

Hi. I want to suggest the climate table to be changed a little.

For example, look at the climate table of fhe city of Gwangju: Climate table

Here, the record highs and lows for each month are stated. But we don't know when have these record extremes been reported in history. We only know the timeline from the table (here 1991-2020).

So, I want to suggest the times the record highs and lows have been reported be present too in all climate tables. Whether by referencing them or adding notes below the table. Aminabzz (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Entire European Tornado Database Being Converted To IF Scale, All Wiki Entries Need Converted

Ok guys we have a major issue that we really need to talk about here. The ESSL/ESWD is and pretty much already has converted the entire tornado database to the new IF scale. This means that except for the most recent events (late 2024 into 2025), every rated European tornado listed on Wikipedia is now inaccurate and outdated. As a result, we have a project of gargantuan proportions that we have to deal with. Every European tornado we have on here is going to have to have its rating changed to reflect the updated database, and I'm not really sure how we are going to go about such a massive, time consuming effort. I am currently updating all tornadoes of 2023 with full DAT and NCDC info, and was planning on updating all European tornadoes from 2020 to 2025 to the IF scale before I move on to 2024. I thought the IF update only went back to 2020, and that seemed like enough I could handle on my own. However, that is no longer the case. So I want to discuss this as decades of ratings that are now rendered invalid isn't something we can't ignore. Once I finish fine detailing 2023 and 2024, and updating the European tornadoes between 2020 and 2025, I guess I can dive into this venture and start converting all the European tornadoes prior to 2020 as well, but it is going to be a long, tedious, painstaking undertaking to do alone. Let's discuss how we can tackle this. Any ideas or game plans, or is it just going to come down to a brute force, time consuming effort? We can't just brush this aside. TornadoInformation12 (talk)TornadoInformation12 TornadoInformation12 (talk) 08:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@TornadoInformation12: Where is the database which has the new ratings? It may be possible to simply run a bot to replace all those ratings automatically, if that data can be extracted in an easy way. Chlod (say hi!) 08:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
The ratings can be found on the European Severe Weather Database website. Unfortunately, a bot can’t be used, because the scales are quite different. The F scale is a 6 level scale (F0 to F5), while the IF scale is a 9 level scale that includes “in between” decimal ratings such a IF2.5, which would be a tornado that isn’t quite an IF3, but is more significant than an IF2 (the decimal ratings do top out at IF2.5). In addition, some of the tornadoes have been upgraded or downgraded and won’t convert properly. For example, the Birmingham, England tornado of 2005 has been upgraded from an F2 to an IF3.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Guys, seriously nobody wants to discuss this? It's a huge problem and it feels like I'm the only one who is aware and concerned about it. Come on now.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

A lot of people who edit tornado-related pages aren't active right now, mainly because it isn't tornado season yet. As I suggested to Hurricanehink, it's almost March, I'd suggest re-asking when the tornado activity ramps up (I'm not making this up, tornado activity on-wiki noticeably dropped off after May 2024). — EF5 14:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Heh. June. Anyway, @TornadoInformation12; do we know if the survey methodology has changed? In other words, was it a simple find-and-replace of all F ratings with IF ratings, or have all surveys / ratings at least been checked against the new IF scale? Departure– (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
It’s unfortunately not gonna be that simple, because as I mentioned, it’s converting a 6 level scale to a 9 level scale, and some tornadoes, like the 2005 Birmingham tornado, have been upgraded or downgraded multiple levels on the scale following additional analysis.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Good article reassessment for Cedar Fire

Cedar Fire has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Need unified format

We need a unified format for the "Weather of XXXX" articles. For example, Weather of 2008 and Weather of 2009 lists a blurb for each significant weather event (although very incomplete, missing tons of stuff), while Weather of 2024 simply lists Wikilinks, with some info on each type of disaster at the beginning. Thoughts? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Also note that I support the 2008 and 2009 format. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Weather of 2021 & Weather of 2022 is the best format in my opinion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Those seem like the intermediate between the 2008 format and the 2024 format. I could work with that! Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I've begun a rewrite in userspace. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Yea, when the Weather of 2008 was originally written, it was called "Global storm activity of 2008", which was simplified to "Weather of 2008". The overarching articles should include a summary of all of the different weather types, and mention the deadliest events, I think that's a good way of making the article useful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Elijah and I like the 2021 format like you mentioned, so I'm rewriting it. It looks like it's gonna be a lot of work, as 2008 isn't the only year that has a different format/issues(e.g. somehow Elie 2007 is not mentioned). Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Most "Weather of" articles need a lot of work, so I appreciate you doing that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
@Hurricanehink@WeatherWriter I've finished it (for now) at User:Wildfireupdateman/sandbox/Weather of 2008. Can I go ahead and replace the entire main page's contents? Or ask on talk page first? Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 01:03, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
No worries, I moved it for you - thanks so much for working on that! It looks so much more like how the article should look. I noticed maybe a few minor events that weren't included, but honestly, should random dust storms be mentioned on a global weather article if it didn't result in any deaths? Probably not. So we're one step closer toward having decent articles for the weather for every year this century. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Nice work Wildfireupdateman! The article looks really good! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, WeatherWriter! Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Draft:The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the second presidency of Donald Trump

This is a new draft for anyone who wishes to help. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Featured article review

I have nominated Hurricane Isabel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

"Tornadoes of YYYY" See Also sections

Since my bold WP:NUKE of a see also section was challenged and this exists on other pages, why not have a WPW discussion. Why are the see also sections of several "Tornadoes of YYYY" articles, including Tornadoes of 2025, so incredibly long? At least 2/3rds of the links could be removed as being in violation of MOS:SEEALSO, which states Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number (the current Tornadoes of 2025 see also section is over 1,0000 bytes long!). Should we make a specific format or something else? Pinging @ChessEric:, who suggested that a discussion be started. Here's the entire section:


This is my subjective opinion on the current Tornadoes of 2025 see also section. — EF5 15:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

See above. Both topics were released at the same minute. How coincidental. Glad to see we're interested in resolving disputes this way instead of edit warring. Departure– (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Tornadoes

Per Special:Diff/1278534541. @EF5 and ChessEric: This would be great for a {{tornadoes}} template at the bottom of the page, similar to the yearly tornado templates that exist. This would include most of the "unnecessary" links, and could have collapsed sections for tornadoes by year, by rating, and articles on individual storms. This is probably the least intrusive solution to the see-also dispute here. Departure– (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Should I draft one up? I'm quite stumped on what needs written/other tornado things and need something to do. — EF5 16:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
That was the perfect solution. Good job. ChessEric 16:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Infoboxes and sourcing for track mileage

In my opinion, track mileage is a far superior measure of a tornado outbreak's intensity than the number of tornadoes - see Severe weather sequence of July 13-16, 2024, an outbreak with only a small number of circulations and short-lived tornadoes that technically surpassed numerous other outbreaks for number of tornadoes - i.e. one touches down numerous times, each time being counted as a separate tornado. I want to know where I can find sourcing on track mileage, which de-emphasizes outbreaks that had numerous tornado families instead of less but longer-tracked tornadoes. This also would allow parity with older outbreaks where some tornadoes such as Belvidere in 1967 and Monticello in 1974 are likely to have been tornado families and would today be considered multiple tornadoes with a similar track mileage. If so, I was going to add them to articles and to Tornado records. Newer outbreaks could use a WP:CALC measure, while older outbreaks would be near impossible to find figures on but would be more comparable counting the entire "intermittent touchdown" mileage we'd consider to be multiple storms. Departure– (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Eh, that seems overly-complicated. Say we mesaure the tracks of all 367 tornadoes during the 2011 Super Outbreak... wouldn't that take a while to put together and calculate? — EF5 18:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
It sure would, but I don't see why we couldn't at least try. Departure– (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Category:Individual tornadoes

Would anyone object to having this category exist? I asked at the requested category noticeboard but never followed up. The person there said that I should get consensus here before continuing. This category would be useful to differentiate outbreaks from individual tornado articles, the latter of which we're making more and more of. Departure– (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Warning: Be Careful With Tornado Photo Verification

CLOSED
Duplicate post that doesn't need to go any further. Departure– (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Double posting for visibility

Guys, we need to be more careful with tornado photos. I just found an article on the 1967 Belvidere, IL tornado that used a still from a very well-known video of the 1966 Topeka, KS F5. The caption claimed that the image showed a photo of the Belvidere F4, when this is just simply not true. There are no known videos or photos of the Belvidere tornado, and that video is 100% confirmed to be from Topeka (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsdSNfqcrUg&t=5s), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub-UHfqaaYM&t=1s), (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abEMnffoCQA), and has been featured in multiple documentaries and news segments about that event. The bottom line is that somebody failed to fact check, and recklessly published inaccurate information to Wikipedia without doing research or basic due-diligence. I take publication of bad info here very seriously, and this kind of thing really hurts our credibility. You guys need to be more careful, and that's the bottom line. I have removed the photo, and someone should probably mark it for deletion because it purports to show a tornado that was never photographed. Now I'm wondering how many other falsely-labeled tornado pics are floating around on this website? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I do get your point (and have taken note), but can we express that in a civil and respectful manner? It seems to have been an accident, not on purpose. The image has been changed; the lower-quality ones tend to get mixed up often with other tornadoes for some reason (see Talk:1925 tri-state tornado#This image shown here is photoshopped and not the real tri state tornado). Speaking of which, it'll be the 100th anniversary of the Great Tri-State Tornado in six days! — EF5 16:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say that I didn't fail to fact check, and it was not reckless. I couldn't have reasonably known it was the Topeka storm without knowing about that footage beforehand. A reverse image search only brought up images for the Belvidere one, and the image was incorrectly attributed but I wouldn't call that a cop-out "knowingly-incorrect upload" considering barring this 97ZOK falls under a reliable-enough source for this kind of thing. And there is in fact a photograph, itself a frame of a video, of the tornado's funnel. Departure– (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Courtesy links: 1967 Belvidere tornado, File:Belvidere tornado, April 21, 1967.jpg Departure– (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
You just followed it up with a photo of the Scottsbluff, NE F4 of 1955. I am a huge vintage tornado video geek and I know what I’m talking about here. Unfortunately, you are indeed being reckless because you are assuming where these images originated from. The documentary never explicitly states anything shown tornado imagery wise is from Belvidere. That is an assumption you are making, and a reverse image search isn’t enough. The image has to be explicitly labeled or stated to be from a certain place, not assumed given the context it’s in. Lots of tornado documentaries use old stock tornado footage when no video/pics exist of the tornado being covered. The Belvidere tornado was never photographed or videod, and given my hobby, I would be aware if it was. The bottom line is that you need direct statements linking imagery to the event in question, and you failing to do that is leading to inaccurate information being published. Also I was not being uncivil, I’m being firm. Be more careful and stop relying on reverse image searches; that’s all there is to it.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

To be fair, all the images are attributed properly. The part of the documentary states that that was the part of the event where the tornado enters Belvidere, describing multiple funnels, when the image appears, and there is no reason for me to doubt that it is actual video, minus the background knowledge that it's the Scottsbluff tornado. I think it's a completely natural and fair assumption to make. I know it isn't the Belvidere tornado, but my mention of incivility can most be seen from this from my talk page - please assume good faith (and no clue) - I (and presumably most other WPWX editors) don't have the background you do so please don't hold others to the same standards you hold yourself to, beyond just giving a link of where the image originated and moving on. I don't want this to be escalated any further. Departure– (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help & Improvement Needed: List of United States government meteorology research projects

I recently started the List of United States government meteorology research projects and while writing the article, I came across a ton of stubs/uncreated stuff.

From famous ones like Project Stormfury, passed GAN in 2008…so it needs a relook in 2025, to the VORTEX projects (C-class), to even newer ones like TORUS Project (article created March 2025) or PERiLS Project (article uncreated in 2025). Several stubs or smaller articles exist for all these famous weather projects. I’m bringing it up incase anyone wants to dive into the science part of these projects to improve them. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

WeatherWriter, I'll get right to the PERiLs article. :) — EF5 17:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
 Done, obviously will improve. Can't let a weather article be anything under start-class. — EF5 17:36, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Article quality list as of March 12, 2025:

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:29, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Wow, these really are all of subpar quality! I think I’ll try to get VORTEX to GA status then work on GEWEX. :) EF5 21:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Might as well toss in RAINEX which probably needs more citations. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
TWISTEX, too (although not a government project, it still needs improved). — EF5 21:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't think BEST needs an article. It should be part of an article on the FARM (the group that operates the DOW network) and would be great as a few sentences there instead of a stub. Also, not a government project, to my knowledge. Departure– (talk) 14:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

MOS:AVOIDBOLD versus MOS:COMMONNAME in tornado articles

I don't know what changed in the mood across the project, but there have been multiple editors introducing the idea of adding in the second sentence of tornado articles a name of a tornado that has been reported elsewhere. In my opinion, these names, while common, really disrupt the flow of the article with the bold textface and the fact that, well, the article is already called that and names are almost always unnecessary to repeat. I find it uncomfortable that we can't fit in tornadoes' names into the lede sentence but there are two policies, MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:COMMONNAME that come to this uncomfortable stalemate with each other in this specific context. Some examples below:

No AVOIDBOLD, COMMONNAME in lede:
The 2021 Western Kentucky tornado was a violent and long-tracked tornado that affected much of Kentucky on ...

No AVOIDBOLD, no COMMONNAME:
On the evening of December 10, 2021, a violent and exceptionally long-tracked tornado affected much of Kentucky. ...

The stalemate that we find ourselves with:
On the evening of December 10, 2021, a violent and exceptionally long-tracked tornado affected much of Kentucky. The tornado, known as the Western Kentucky tornado, was one of ...

I don't think I'm the only one annoyed that we somehow defaulted to both of these conflicting style guidelines that really shouldn't co-exist. I have a strong feeling many of the names we get for tornadoes are invented, especially ones that struck multiple locations (2024 Barnsdall-Bartlesville tornado, 2024 Minden-Harlan tornado, 2024 Elkhorn-Blair tornado, etc). Yes, in lots of news stories etc., tornadoes are referred to by their location, but in my eyes this is typically due to the fact there really isn't much else to refer to them as, and they're inconsistent in doing so. As such, I'd argue most tornadoes, while having names they're referred to as, are given invented names that are unnatural to include. So, I brought this here after a dispute at 2024 Greenfield tornado as I was hoping to build a lasting consensus here instead of a shoddy one elsewhere. As very few tornadoes have proper names (Joplin, Moore, El Reno, Tri-State, Greensburg, and very few others) have names that can even be considered to be used commonly, I propose we get a standardized or primarily standardized method for doing so. As these two policies are in contrast with each other, how should we handle the first lede sections?

  • Option A. Input the title of the tornado, or common name, in the lede, ignoring AVOIDBOLD but including COMMONNAME in the article
  • Option B. Avoid having any bold text to include in an article, using AVOIDBOLD but ignoring the COMMONNAME in the prose
  • Option C. Maintain the status quo, where bold text isn't in the lede sentence, but appears later on, following both conflicting style guidelines

This is a mess that I don't know everyone will be excited of the outcome of. I strongly prefer option B, but let me know what you all think. Pinging @MarioProtIV as they were on the other side of the Greenfield dispute. Departure– (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

  • Option B – it makes no sense to write: The Greenfield tornado was a tornado that affected Greenfield, or A tornado affected Greenfield on January 1, 0001. The tornado, known as the Greenfield tornado.... There is no need for bolding when what comes before or after it is so redundant to the bolded text. 🐔 Chicdat  Bawk to me! 15:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Case-by-case basis - I personally think neither of the three represent my view. We should evaluate on a case-by-case basis, as some tornadoes do have common names. EF5 15:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I honestly lean towards an Option D, mixing B and C, for a case-by-case basis. Option B (no bold text) should be used for most tornadoes, however, Option C (bold text, just not first sentence), should be used if there is two+ alt names that are not towns already said in the article title OR another case-by-case reasoning. I'll give a few examples of what I mean:
2011 Smithville tornado should not have any bold text, as the tornado itself is only really known as "2011 Smithville tornado", i.e. already the article title and for tornadoes, this can be very easily prose written. Other single-town named tornadoes that follow this reasoning of being known only by the article name itself include 2024 Sulphur tornado, 2024 Greenfield tornado, 2022 Winterset tornado.
2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado should not have any bold text, as the tornado itself is really only known as the "2023 Rolling Fork tornado", which is part of the article title, which also includes "Silver City", as part of the RS mention both Rolling Fork and Silver City. Other 2+ town tornadoes really only known by one or both of the towns in the article title include 2015 Rochelle–Fairdale tornado, 2020 Ashby–Dalton tornado, 2014 Mayflower–Vilonia tornado.
Tornadoes like the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado should have bold text, as there common names for the tornado that are not already in the article title. In this tornado's case, it is known as "Western Kentucky tornado" (article name based on RS), "Mayfield tornado" (Other RS name), and "The Beast" (NWS-given name). Other tornadoes that have or may have names not based on the article title include 2021 Tri-State tornado, 1973 Central Alabama tornado, 1964 Central Nebraska tornado, ect...
1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado / 2013 Moore tornado should have bold text, since the "1999" and "2013" are always used to distinguish the tornadoes and titles. The other set of these would be 2013 El Reno tornado and 2011 El Reno–Piedmont tornado. These are the only two "other case-by-case" reasonings I mentioned.
Basically, all except the Moore/El Reno case exceptions (due to the year being the key factor to tell tornadoes apart), any tornado with an article title of towns hit (i.e. Greenfield, Rolling Fork, Winterset, ect...), bold text should not be used in the articles. If the article title is regional based (Central Alabama, Central Nebraska, Western Kentucky, ect...), then bold text can be used. Case-by-case basis for any other random exceptions can be discussed. But, that is my Option D. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
This is practically what I just suggested as well. Case by case seems like the best option. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
That articulates and expands on my point really well. It's just like how the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado isn't called the 2021 Cayce-Mayfield-Benton-Briensburg-Buena Vista-Princeton-Midway-Dawson Springs-Barnsley-Bremen-Jingo-Shreve tornado. — EF5 18:13, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
IMO this discussion is somewhat unnecessary. Tornado pages are named after the place they impacted the most, and sometimes that includes two towns (e.g. 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado, 2011 Hackleburg–Phil Campbell tornado, 2014 Mayflower–Vilonia tornado) so as to avoid WP:UNDUE weight on one town. Option C was brought about from the Greensburg tornado article (which is a good article), written by @EF5: (pinging as they were the one that was the inspiration for this), which adapted MOS:AVOIDBOLD pretty good by doing this, also backed up by scientific research on it and also adhering to MOS:COMMONNAME too. As it stands, I prefer Option A for the very high end/benchmark/historic and exceptionally known tornadoes like Bridge Creek/Moore 1999, 1974 Xenia, 1925 Tri-State, Jarrell, Greensburg, 2011 Joplin, and 2013 Moore and El Reno. Option C is for the tornadoes that are backed up by significant research or common names/nicknames but aren’t at the benchmark status, such as Greenfield, most tornadoes from the 2011 Super Outbreak, 2014 Mayflower-Viliona, 2011 El Reno, and 2021 Western Kentucky. Option B for the significant tornadoes that are still deadly and notable but aren’t as well-known or have common names (such as Bassfield-Soso, Elkhorn, Barnsdall, Minden, etc.). I thought it was obvious this was where most of the community was fine with, but I guess not. As I see, the way I suggested and have been trying to standardize seems like the better option. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather/Archive_6&oldid=1288619165"