Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:WEATHER)


2024–25 WikiProject Weather Good Article Reassessment

[edit]

I would like to announce that a new task force has been created to re-examine the status of every GA in the project. Many good articles have not been reviewed in quite a while (15+ years for some) and notability requirements have changed quite a bit over the years. The goal of this task force is to save as many articles as possible. Anyone not reviewing an article may jump in to help get it up to par if it does not meet the GA requirements. The process will start officially on February 1 and will continue until every article has been checked and either kept or delisted. The task force may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/2024–25 Good Article Reassessment. Noah, AATalk 15:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles under review

RfC: Criteria for individual tornado articles

[edit]
Didn't know RfCs should be closed. Relatively-low-participation shows rough consensus to have an information page dedicated to the notability of individual tornadoes. EF5 23:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Should we have notability standards for individual tornado articles? We already have informal inclusion criteria for "Tornadoes of YYYY" articles. Below is a preliminary proposal for such criteria, with the hope that it can evolve into a formal guideline that can possibly be referenced in future AfD discussions.

recycle Previous discussions: New tornado articles and the news, Proposal - Criteria for inclusion on Tornadoes of XXXX articles

This has been nagging at me for a while now, and since another editor has talked to me about this issue, I think we bring this up. Since we have a sort of "inclusion criteria" for "Tornadoes of YYYY" articles, I suggest we come up with notability criteria for individual tornadoes as well. See User:EF5/My tornado criteria for what this may look like.


This is my very primitive way of determining the notability of several tornado articles I've written, and am hoping that it could be integrated into a refined set-in-stone WPW policy that could be used in actual AfDs. I'd assume that the table will be gotten rid of and turned into a list. This has been discussed in the past, but never really came to anything. Maybe it could be... WP:NTORNADO (with it's own project page)? Starting an RfC, since obviously community input is needed. Also pinging @Departure–:, who suggested this. :) EF5 18:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support these guidelines, but please see my suggestions on the talk page - the wording around fail-if-pass criteria make this much more difficult to read than it needs to be. Perhaps putting them in their own section separated from the other criteria would resolve this. Departure– (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved discussion regarding the RfC's opening statement.
@EF5: Please add a brief and neutral opening statement that does not include a table; this has broken the RfC listing pages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about now? waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These two edits merely lengthened the existing overlong statement. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fix it yourself. waddie96 ★ (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pulling this RfC on the grounds that it is invalid. Please read WP:RFCST before trying again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Please explain specifically what is invalid about the RfC, preferably quoting from WP:RFCST, as mentioned by you. waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the relevant portions of RFCST:
  2. Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section, immediately below the {{rfc}} tag
  3. Sign the statement with either ~~~~ (name, time and date) or ~~~~~ (just the time and date). Failing to provide a time and date will cause Legobot to remove your discussion from the pages that notify interested editors of RfCs.
  4. Publish the talk page. Now you're done. Legobot will take care of the rest, including posting the RfC in the proper RfC lists. Whilst Legobot normally runs once an hour, it may take it up to a day to list the RfC, so be patient.
The first link yields three relevant paragraphs:
Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded and short.[1] Statements are often phrased as questions, for example: "Should this article say in the lead that John Smith was a contender for the Pulitzer Prize?"
Legobot will copy the markup of your statement (from the end of the {{rfc}} tag through the first timestamp) to the list of active RfCs, if it is sufficiently brief; a long statement will fail to be copied. For technical reasons, statements may not contain tables or complex formatting, although these may be added after the initial statement (i.e., after the first timestamp). ... If the markup of the RfC statement is too long, Legobot may fail to copy it to the RfC list pages, and will not publicise the RfC via the feedback request service.
If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp.
The statement was in no way brief. It also included complex formatting (that table). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, although I disagree about it being invalid. EF5 13:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5 Thank you for your effort. waddie96 ★ (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support waddie96 ★ (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ For clarity: The "statement" is the part that is located between the {{rfc}} tag (exclusive) and the first valid timestamp (inclusive), and which is copied by bot to various pages. The statement itself needs to be neutrally worded and brief. After that first date stamp, you should follow normal talk page rules, which allow you to be verbose (within reason) and as non-neutral as you want. ...
I see WP:CONCENSUS (3-0-0; lack of continued participation after over a month), @Waddie96: and @Departure–:; shall something be drafted up? Would be nice to have multiple people work on this. EF5 17:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...are we still working on this? It'd be nice to have this up and running before we see that influx of new weather editors around March thru May. — EF5 19:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly interested in the topic. waddie96 ★ (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Need unified format

[edit]

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)[reply]

Also note that I support the 2008 and 2009 format. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've begun a rewrite in userspace. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Most "Weather of" articles need a lot of work, so I appreciate you doing that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nice work Wildfireupdateman! The article looks really good! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WeatherWriter! Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado articles in draftspace

[edit]

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)[reply]
Abandoned, not enough sources. EF5 13:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have abandoned this one, not enough sourcing. EF5 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One of mine. One of the most interesting tornadoes I've written about. Departure– (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have abandoned this one too, not enough sourcing. EF5 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have abandoned this one, not enough sourcing (although it could very well be notable). EF5 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still a work-in-progress. EF5 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have abandoned this one too, not enough sourcing. EF5 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See 2015 Holly Springs–Ashland tornado, we both started it at around the same time, funny enough. EF5 17:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
This is the article I have the highest confidence in getting to mainspace. Departure– (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Request for comment on how to deal with weather events' damage estimates

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The unanimous result of this discussion was to adopt WeatherWriter proposal for infobox damage estimates. RFC template was automatically removed by a bot on 7 March 2025, with no opposition to the proposal. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]

How should articles deal with damage estimates for weather events? Departure– (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments: This was brought to the forefront of my attention by this damage estimate at 2023 Selma tornado. An inline comment there says Per an RfC, NOAA-damage totals MUST be supported by a non-NOAA reliable secondary source. The NOAA damage totals are not supported by a secondary source, therefore, per the RfC, the secondary source MUST be used. I have never seen this RFC before and this is the first I'm hearing of it because these NOAA estimates are being used all over Wikipedia unbounded and I didn't see a problem with that. Let me lay out a few points that might help discussion:
  • NOAA:
    • NOAA often fails to provide an estimate for certain damage events. These are listed as $0.00k in the crop and property damage sections of the Storm Events Database.
    • The methodology for getting NOAA estimates isn't often discussed, but from the event summary of the Tallahassee tornadoes of 10 May 2024, we can get this much:
      • Damage costs to the city of Tallahassee were extensive. The city accrued at least $50 million in damages, not even including residential damages. Residential damage was significant. There were a total of 174 structures deemed destroyed, 742 with major damage, 780 with minor damage, and 417 that were deemed affected. The median home price in Tallahassee as of July 2024 is roughly $286,000. Thus, a rough estimate for residential damage is an additional $50 million for the destroyed structures (assuming $286K damage per structure), $74.2 million for the structures with major damage (assuming $100K damage per structure), $7.8 million for the structures with minor damage (assuming $10K damage per structure), and $2.1 million for the structures that were deemed affected (assuming $5,000 damage per structure). This brings the estimated grand total to $184.1 million, which will be divided equally between the two tornadoes since they merged together over the city.
    • NOAA damage costs are often an acceptable WP:CALC estimate of multiple Storm Events Database entries. For instance, the cost of $90 million for 2023 Little Rock tornado came from two database entries.
    • NOAA also operates the Billion Dollar Disaster report, a database of events that cost $1 billion or more in damage. This appears reliable and is used in many articles, especially for hurricanes.
  • AccuWeather:
    • AccuWeather was a previous point of friction (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 452#AccuWeather for damage estimates) - this discussion entailed a preliminary figure of about $95 to 110 billion for Hurricane Helene. I believe the current AccuWeather estimate for that storm is $225 billion. The NCEI, a division of NOAA, states the median estimate for Helene is around $78.7 billion.
    • In addition, they also appear to have different figures for total economic loss in addition to or in lieu of property or insurance toll figures.
  • CoreLogic:
    • CoreLogic appears to be an insurance appraiser used at a professional level to determine whether or not a property was affected by a storm. Their work appears to be in determination of the total value or exposure of properties potentially impacted by severe weather events. Take their March 31 summary - the title is CoreLogic Identifies Approximately 358,000 Homes Worth an Estimated $83.2B Potentially Within Tornado Paths and Hail Boundaries. This disagrees with the Billion Dollar Disaster listing for March 31, with their estimate being at $5.9 billion.
  • Local sources:
    • If I'm not mistaken, local sources echo what insurance appraisers and NOAA relay. However, as is the case at 2023 Little Rock tornado, they can have citations for damage tolls known to be paid instead of just what could be paid.
In my opinion, sources should be cited inline attributed with what they're valuing the cost off of if relevant, and for AccuWeather in particular, attributed in-text. For instance:
  • $59.1 million (property damage)[1]
  • $68.2 million (total insurance payout)[1]
  • $50 billion (AccuWeather initial estimate)[1]
  • $88.7 billion (AccuWeather total economic lost estimate)[1]
  • $7.2 billion (CoreLogic potential property exposure)[1]
Let me know of what you think of this proposal. If you have another suggestion, feel free to discuss it. Departure– (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–: The RFC you mentioned at the beginning is why "Verifiability, not truth in action" was created and why Tornadoes of 2022#Costliest United States tornadoes has confirmed, factually incorrect information, but verifiable information. I'll do a larger comment in a little bit later, I just wanted to let you know on that RFC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy link: Special:Diff/1152938833#RfC on clarification of WP:CALC for costliest tornadoes Departure– (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so let me give my input on this RFC from a bygone age. This appears to be solely based on the use of NCEI sources in Costliest tornadoes of XYZ year articles and really shouldn't have any bearing beyond that context. Really, I don't know how much we even need those "costliest tornado" indexes on this encyclopedia, and I am sure as hell against these damage estimates being discounted outside of that context. Departure– (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment that List of costliest tornadoes in the Americas also exists as a stand-alone list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, here is my whole thought on the process. I have attempted to implement it in the past, with it almost always getting reverted.
    1. If NOAA is available, use NOAA as the damage estimate, as these, for U.S.-based weather events at least, are always regarded as the "official" damage totals.
    2. If NOAA is not available, (i.e. no-NOAA damage total in final report), then use an RS-based range with a note of "unofficial". For example, if NBC News said $1 million and AccuWeather said $100 million, then the infobox should reflect the RS range.
    3. If pre-NOAA finalized reports (i.e. within like 2-4 months of the weather event), then use an RS-based range, with a note of "unofficial".
For example, prior to NOAA releasing their official damage total for Hurricane Helene, I attempted to do an infobox with a similar format to how the 2013 El Reno tornado's infobox is. I will admit, my format was a little bad on the Hurricane Helen infobox, so I am not saying to go right back into it. However, the idea behind it still stands in principle. Hurricane Helene had an impact section chart listing various damage totals. I'm not saying every article should have a chart with damage totals, but maybe a bullet-point list reference or enf note listing the various sources for the "range" would be good. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, on the note above, I am strongly against the use of any AccuWeather-related damage "estimate". They have been known for a long time to be way off on their estimates and forecasts. AccuWeather claimed Hurricane Helene was going to be costlier than Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Ian combined! Obviously, NOAA highly disagreed with their estimate and officially said Helene caused less damage than either Katrina or Ian by themselves. Honestly, another renewed RSP on AccuWeather might be in order. Anyway, that was just a small P.S. I wanted to say since AccuWeather got brought up. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All predictions are iffy, and AccuWeather failing at a prediction tells us nothing about accuracy of their post-storm damage assessments.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: They are really off on every prediction. I just gave a single example. At the next RSP (which I will probably open sometime in the next few weeks), I will give dozens of examples of them, in short, always being the highest-possible damage estimate, to the point where they easily cross into the “generally unreliable” territory on that category, but also their forecasts are often challenged/laughed at by other meteorologists as basically just trying to cause public panic. AccuWeather is a big sensationalist weather source, which a very detailed RSP in the future will show. Anyway, that was just a single example and for this discussion, you can just picture that type of damage estimate as their norm…i.e. always the upper-end of damage estimates for any weather event. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine, that's a case to make at WP:RSP then. It doesn't change my position at all with regard to applying WP:DUE policy properly, including no longer treating US government source as "super-reliable", which is something we should not have been doing in the first place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with "sources should be cited inline attributed with what they're valuing the cost off of if relevant, and for AccuWeather in particular, attributed in-text", but would go further and require in-text attribution for NOAA and another source. I do not agree with WeatherWriter's take that NOAA is more reliable because it is "official". WP is not in the habit of giving more weight to governmental sources, and given what is happening to the US government right now, no such source can any longer be taken as prima facie reliable, and Trump and company's outright hostility to emergency management agencies of all kinds in particular calls into question whether NOAA will remain reliable enough to use at all. In the interim, any time WP has ostensibly reliable sources that provide conflicting numbers, with regard to anything, our job is to provide a range (when summarizing), with sources, and to provide more specific numeric details claims (again with sources) in the main body of the article. This general principle is not magically voided just because the subject happens to be weather.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your opinion on whether Trump being President will influence how the National Weather Service conducts a tornado damage survey is noted and entirely irrelevant for this discussion…sorry to break it to you. Anyway, what do you think of the proposal below? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly not sorry, and I'm not interested in any apologetics from your or anyone else's direction. It really has nothing to do with "Trump being president" intrinsically; this is not a popularity contest. It has everything to do with the Trump administration's specific policies of a) hostility towards emergency management agencies both within and without the US government and clear intent to interfere with them for propagandistic and worse purposes, and b) an agenda to hobble or even dismantle federal agencies of all kinds to the maximum extent possible, even beyond the limits imposed by the US constitution. Whatever effects this will have off-site, the obvious effect it has with regard to Wikipedia is that US federal agencies are, or soon will be, less reliable sources, both because their mandates are being interfered with to serve political purposes and because their financial and human resources, and other factors of their ability to operate effectively at all, are being slashed. You can praise this approach, as a political move, all you like, but it will do nothing to change the facts of what it means for WP relying on them as sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Here's [1] just a hint of where this is all headed, in a directly pertinent area of government data, and we're only part way through the third week of this administration.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on any other sources. But AccuWeather should NOT be used for damage estimates under any circumstances. They majorly inflate the totals to unrealistic numbers. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 20:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WeatherWriter’s proposal

[edit]

For my proposal, I am thinking of a damage total range & collapsable list inside the infobox listing the damage totals from various sources. Below is a copy/pasted version of the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado’s infobox, with the new damage total list. These sources can and should also be listed an explained in the article’s aftermath section. Note, source 1 and 2 are NOAA sources and source 3 is a secondary RS source.

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
  • Top: (2013 Moore tornado…NFF replaced for sandbox)
  • Bottom: A damaged SUV amid debris in Rolling Fork following the storm
Meteorological history
FormedMarch 24, 2023, 7:57 p.m. CDT (UTC−05:00)
DissipatedMarch 24, 2023, 9:08 pm. CDT (UTC−05:00)
Duration1 hour, 11 minutes
EF4 tornado
on the Enhanced Fujita scale
Highest winds195 mph (314 km/h)[1][2]
Overall effects
Fatalities17[1][2]
Injuries165[2]
Damage$96.6–100 million
Damage estimates:
Part of the Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023 and Tornadoes of 2023

Thoughts on this type of proposal? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Clyde: & SMcCandlish: As the only other commenting editors, do either of you have an issue with the proposed format? If not, I think this RFC could be closed early, as there are currently no objections and 4 supports for the proposal. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It probably could, though I would personally recommend the version/format from the infobox above, since that grey background in that article’s infobox looks weird in dark and light mode to me. No policy reason for that, just a personal preference on color. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this works. While collapsed content is unavailable to some users, this particular approach leads with an uncollapssed overall range, and provides collapsed details as an afterthought, so it provides sufficient summary information for an infobox even to those users. PS: I agree with WeatherWriter with regard to unnecessary coloration effects. Those often also present accessibility problems for low-vision users by reducing the luminosity difference between the text and its background. If a background color is used, it needs to pass various accessibility tests.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-RFC discussion

[edit]
Chiming in here after the edit made at Hurricane Helene. The damage differences should be considered null once the TCR is released from the NHC, as was recently released. This, should take priority over the other estimates given it is a finalized report on the storm months after the storm from an official governmental body. Apparently this was mentioned briefly but looking further nothing else was mentioned about it. Pinging @WeatherWriter: since he was the one that made the edit and proposal, it would be nice to clear this bit up. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was my original arguments as well–NOAA always takes priority. That was shot down quickly, hence why this format was proposed and consensus highly accepted it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clear it up, I absolutely agree with you MarioProtIV. In the RFC, I directly stated NOAA damage estimates should always be used over non-NOAA damage estimates. Consensus was against that, so I proposed the format and consensus liked it. I went on a fishing expedition through the talk page history and found my original edit in the RFC right here. I stated, (1) Use NOAA first and always, (2) if no NOAA, then use a range, (3) and if NOAA is still preliminary (before finalized reports), then use non-NOAA range with an "unofficial" note. My idea was shot down by SMcCandlish, who did not agree with me on that NOAA should always/only be used. That then spiraled into the new range-based proposal. Hopefully that clears it up some. I agree on your take that NOAA should be used over anything. But, consensus does not seem to agree with that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that considering ranges or multiple sources is a bad idea per se but I see some issues with how it's been implemented so far. On the Hurricane Helene page, one of the estimates listed in the infobox is an estimate of losses by private insurers that was done before the storm even made landfall and was very clearly too low. It appears that most here agree that AccuWeather's estimates are too high and it is also listed, giving an absurd range of $3-250 billion in damage. Also, I must point out that the second source given on the Rolling Fork tornado damage estimate does not quite give a number but says that insured losses are "nearing" $100 million, which seems to support the NCEI estimate of $96.6 million. If we're going to do this range idea, I think we need some guidelines on what should be included as part of the range. I do not think it's unreasonable for this to be sorted out before implementing such a far-reaching change in policy. MCRPY22 (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at his comment it seems like his opposition for not relying on NOAA is because of the Trump administration’s hostility to NOAA. It honestly seems to reek of political bias to disregard the NOAA total as potentially unreliable, and claiming so actually would violate WP:NEUTRAL. The NHC/NOAA is an official governmental body regardless of who’s president and not, and should take precedent over everything else. Not doing so would have a ripple effect on TC season articles since many estimates are either grossly underestimated or way too high (re: AccuWeather), having been made immediately after the storm with no time to properly assess. In fact, I actually think a new RfC needs to be started, or at least an amendment with regards to NOAA estimates that are from finalized reports. because of this since that appears to have indirectly tainted the entire RfC based off one commenter’s view (though rightfully so opinion given what’s happening), and leave the politics out of this RfC. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to a new RFC at all. But, before we fully decide to start one, I would like to hear a few comments from those who participated in this RFC, to see if they oppose a new (and hopefully more editors-commenting) RFC to help solve the damage estimate dilemma, which we have had discussions regarding for years. Courtesy pings: Departure–, SMcCandlish, Hurricane Clyde, EF5, & Wildfireupdateman. If others are ok with a new RFC, I will start drafting the wording/background for one, so we can solve this problem once and for all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear God, how many RfCs are we going to have?[sarcasm] Sure, although its likely to end the exact same way. — EF5 01:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical comment – Also, just a quick note, we should make a new discussion section. Everything since SMcCandlish's last comment is Post-RFC. This was an RFC that was never "formally" closed with the template. I'll template-close it right after this edit. But, you can see here that the bot auto-removed the RFC template a couple of weeks ago. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New discussion section made for post-RFC discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference NOAA NCEI was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference NOAA ArcGIS was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Insurance losses from Mississippi tornado nearing $100 million".

Featured article review for Hurricane Claudette (2003)

[edit]

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)[reply]

Sorting out tornado article ledes

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Pardon? Why would Joplin get a pageview spike beyond that of our discussion of it here? Departure– (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Record high and low in climate

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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[reply]

Good article reassessment for Cedar Fire

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

Featured article review

[edit]

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)[reply]

Template:Tornadoes

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
That was the perfect solution. Good job. ChessEric 16:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Tornadoes of YYYY" See Also sections

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Infoboxes and sourcing for track mileage

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
It sure would, but I don't see why we couldn't at least try. Departure– (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Individual tornadoes

[edit]

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)[reply]

Warning: Be Careful With Tornado Photo Verification

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

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Courtesy links: 1967 Belvidere tornado, File:Belvidere tornado, April 21, 1967.jpg Departure– (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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[reply]

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

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Article quality list as of March 12, 2025:

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

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)[reply]
Might as well toss in RAINEX which probably needs more citations. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TWISTEX, too (although not a government project, it still needs improved). — EF5 21:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

MOS:AVOIDBOLD versus MOS:COMMONNAME in tornado articles

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"List of tornadoes" split criteria

[edit]

What should the criteria be to split a tornado outbreaks' "Confirmed tornadoes" section into another article? At Talk:List of tornadoes in the outbreak of March 13–16, 2025#Merge proposal, the primary talking points are "notable tornadoes", page visibility, etc. but it's inconsistent projectwide. I think a clear line to split off is 80,000 prose characters, regardless of how notable the tornadoes are or how visible the page is. Departure– (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is >100,000 bytes and it making the main article >130,000 bytes or otherwise lag on a standard Chromebook. I really don't see the point of a split since it just makes it harder for the people who skim articles to find the info they need, but I'm aware that's a minority viewpoint. — EF5 14:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't mean to derail this just yet, but as you said at the ReqMerge discussion, I do feel we need to have a wider discussion about precedent. I've noted in my time here that many (most, if we're being honest) people who work in WPW-based things make decisions off previously-set "precedent", so I'll probably start a few discussions/RfCs soon to clarify a few of those. Good to see we're making change, though. — EF5 14:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
80-100 tornadoes is usually the split off point if there is at least 3-4 notable sections. If we leave it in when we have a lot of other info (non-tornadics and aftermath), it just becomes annoying to scroll through and one additional click to a list does not hurt anybody. WP:ACCESSIBILITY after all. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 14:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I were in charge of setting the criteria, it would be if (numSections * 10 + numTornadoes) > 120 (this value may be anywhere from 100-150 depending on what y'all think) & numTornadoes > 50, we should split the list of tornadoes. Also, if the article is >125 (or 150)k bytes, a split may be warranted for less tornadoes. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning recent events

[edit]

Okay, this has gotten to a point where the very simplest procedure has erupted several times into arguments. I frankly am getting constantly tired of having to explain standard procedure only to be rebutted. Specifically, at Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 and above discussions. The standard procedures involving modifying date ranges to keep up with consistency has devolved into arguments of "unwritten consistency", whereas it’s standard practice to do this and is literally WP:COMMONNAME to associate with this and not change to a broad title that will easily confuse readers with no date stated. I’ve been a part of the project for the past 5-7 years and I have not seen this kind of argumentative behavior on such simple procedures spring up so it’s time to take this to the project page. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 14:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get a discussion link where it clearly states that COMMONNAME is always a date range? If not, it isn't precedent and I'll continue challenging it. The issue isn't "argumentitive behavior", it's people boldly doing something and claiming "we've done this forever, why should we change it"? I've only been here for one year and I can name several WPW discussions (ahem) which ended in a shitshow. The reason these discussions have seldom happened is because people haven't been challenging clearly-wrong practices. We're seeing that influx of new weather editors, and I really don't want to start off the tornado season with a massive argument that turns into a hounding fight like last year; I almost left the project when I saw how disorganized and toxic WPW was (I'd assume editors this year may do the same, which we don't want.) — EF5 14:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you have multiple NWS offices, the SPC and media referring to outbreaks by a date range, that is literally WP:COMMONNAME. Your suggestions of trying to change would involve hundreds individual outbreak pages across Wikipedia, and open a weeks-long discussion that I’m almost certain would end up with a majority opposing on precedent and COMMONNAME, and unnecessary and exhaustive explanation. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you're just putting words in people's mouths. "We'd need to do a few hundred moves" isn't a reason to not have a discussion about something (there's a reason WPW has a talk page). There is no clear COMMONNAME here. — EF5 15:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the underlying point you're trying to make, but I think you should just open or !vote Support the move and go on with your day. Opening a topic here in an accusative manner is entering WP:BLUDGEON territory. Departure– (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started this topic here because I and am pretty sure numerous other project editors are getting tired of seeing arguments over simple page moves to fix the date arise, which is normally a harmless procedure, devolve into squabbles. I’ve also noticed a lot of WP:FOURM behavior happening on the talk pages lately as well. This isn’t accusations, this is trying to resolve tensions here and reduce the amount of back and forth on talk pages that quite frankly is becoming more negative than good. The BLUDGEON bit also isn’t right here, since I am merely trying to explain the procedure the project has done for the last 20 years with no issues whatsoever generally. My point was that trying to say that moving to a more ambiguous and vague title across multiple articles where the only association is by date range and not a nickname or region in COMMONNAME, would end up doing more harm then good. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is still BLUDGEONING, though. You've already stated your point a healthy amount of times, so just let concensus form naturally. "I and am pretty sure numerous other project editors are getting tired of seeing arguments over simple page moves to fix the date arise" is a guess not grounded with examples; I'm more annoyed of the bold moves than having a discussion about it. — EF5 15:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to come off as accusative, a section named "Concerning argumentative behavior on simple procedures" isn't going to fly. You are best starting a project-wide discussion - i.e. a section with "How should we handle date ranges in outbreak titles?" and instead of characterizing it as "argumentative behaviour" describe it as a simple dispute, which is what it is. Blaming disputes on others' behaviours instead of their disagreements with a stance is by nature going to further any disputes already in play, whether or not that was your intention. Departure– (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t just related to date ranges, this is about numerous other instances of back and forth I’ve seen lately, such as the above sections on other aspects too. Quite frankly, things were generally fine up until this outbreak began which is where (so far) I’ve seen a lot of the back and forth spring up. All I am trying to do is resolve this here instead of needlessly bloating talk pages on articles. And I’ll change the section title if that makes you feel any better to be less accusative if so. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s bound to happen, it’s called constructive discussion. I don’t see any heated things above. EF5 15:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit strange to get a COMMONNAME claim when at the same time the page has been moved from 14-15 March to 13-16 March, and now to 13-17 March. You can't have a COMMONNAME when it changes this rapidly, and there are literally NO Google hits for the new proposed name[2], and ONE valid Google hit for the current one[3] There may be good arguments for these names and the moves, and other articles may use a commonly used name, but it clearly doesn't apply here. As has been suggested, a more "stable" name would in most cases be the best solution. Fram (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wxtrackercody did say we should have a stricter definition, and pointed to last year’s May “sequence” as an indication we should follow NCEI’s definitions. Probably should do that for most pages and start a new RM, and probably an RM to move this to 14-16 as most sources appear to refer to this recent outbreak as that. I’m just tired of the back and forth lately so I tried to lower tensions with this. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer a secondary source over a primary source (every source thus far refers to the March 13-16 outbreak as a single event), but that may just be me. — EF5 16:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem to be a reply to my comment at all, which is about your incorrect insistence that the name follows COMMONNAME literally, when it doesn't. The article is a complete mess anyway, reflecting these issues as well. It is called the 13-16 March outbreak in the title and the 13-17 March outbreak in the first sentence, but the first tornado it lists is from the 14th. In your first post, you stated "not change to a broad title that will easily confuse readers", but the current situation is a lot more confusing than a "Mid-March" title would have been. Fram (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it back to "13-16" (seems to have been a "bold" edit that went under the radar) per previously-set consensus on the RM. — EF5 16:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which just leaves an article about a 13-16 (or -17 or whatever) outbreak, where the only weather events I could find for the 13th was "Very heavy snow fell in the Sierra Nevada of California on March 12 and 13". Which still gives the very strong impression that all this bickering about the exact dates in the title has little to do with informing / not confusing the reader, and everything to do with some misguided sticking to a convention which is ill-suited for this, backed up by some policies or guidelines which don't really support the choice when one looks a tiny bit closer. Fram (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 March 2025

[edit]

Edit: Removing the sequence splits from the RM template as they’re setting the bots off with the different names each time. Gonna put a split notice there and link to discussion instead. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:17, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am going to try and settle this once and for all seeing how much back and forth there is going on lately, specifically on Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025. A major issue that has come up is the issue of date ranges in tornado outbreaks, and whether we should be labeling them on our accord or following what the NCEI has defined the outbreak as. This came to me after @Wxtrackercody: on the aforementioned talk page mentioned that:

"Debate about the meteorology aside, we need to also keep in mind the time element. There's no official definition of a tornado outbreak, which makes titling these articles very subjective. Most modern definitions of a tornado outbreak require at least 6 tornadoes with a gap no longer than 6-9 hours between them. If we apply that definition, the CA tornado should not be included. Generally speaking, I'd be inclined to lean toward a stricter definition of what we define as a tornado outbreak on Wikipedia. It would help cut down on the continuous tornado outbreak sequence titles we have to deal with in May/June (for instance, last year we have an outbreak sequence of May 19-27, whereas NCEI defines two different outbreaks on May 18-22 and May 25-26)."

Specifically, some of the outbreak pages include dates that are included almost on WP:SYNTH grounds, based on the flimsy aspect of one tornado occurring on that date well separated from the rest of the outbreak (seen with the most recent outbreak). Meanwhile, on the NCEI database, some of the dates are different, and in some cases, split up with regards to sequences (2019 and 2024 most prominently). As such, I propose that the listed articles be moved to correct their dates to the official NCEI database to adhere to a more strict definition, as well as reducing the amount of sequence pages we have when NOAA themselves consider them seperate outbreaks with only flimsy weak tornadoes in between. For the last case of the most recent outbreak, since it is not on NCEI yet, March 14-16 is the most common name (and what I'm suspecting will eventually be on the list later this year but we'll cross that bridge when we get there), seeing as how both social media and many different sources have referred to the event as starting on Friday the 14th and March 14-16, with no mention of the California tornado on the 13th (which falls under the previous rationale above and has hardly been mentioned, despite being part of the same system. So let's discuss this once and for all and settle out all our differences, seeing as how this recent outbreak has seemed to bring up quite a bit of them. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: one proposal, Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 → Tornado outbreak of March 14–16, 2025, had to be removed because it conflicts with a move request on that article's talk page. Only one requested move can be open for an article's title at a time. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:34, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You couldn't have waited a week till the discussion was over? Procedural close as clear but indirect bludgeoning of the March 13-16 discussion, which has been noted by several editors. Even if this isn't PRO-C'd, strong oppose per Departure. — EF5 18:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was obviously clear this was more than just that discussion on March 14-16, and encompassed a broader view which Cody brought up. This is not WP:BLUDGEON at all but an attempt to fix the underlying issue at large. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
March 14-16 is the most common name isn't BLUDGEONING of another discussion, defined as "where someone attempts to force their point of view through a very high number of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own ... this means making the same argument over and over and to different people in the same discussion or across related discussions"? It's clear to me that you are attempting to push the March 13 issue, even if under the guise of a project-space RM. Two of the three paragraphs in this RM talk mostly about the March 13-16 issue, although eight requests are listed. I'm not participating any further, although I do suggest we stop having constant RMs and everything that tore the project apart in 2024. — EF5 19:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose all, for now - this is jumping the gun a bit and I think a lot of these need to be evaluated on a more case-by-case basis. As it stands, we should really be coming to a project-wide consensus about tornado outbreaks, coverage in RS, etc. @EF5, I strongly disagree that this RM is bludgeoning, but either way I hope we can come to a more diplomatic solution than just tossing accusations that may or may not be true. I perceive this as a strong step in the right direction, even if off-point in its execution - as I said, consensus and deliberation about the definition of the outbreaks themselves should come first, and RMs should be made last. Also, procedural close as the 13-16 article already has a requested move on it. Departure– (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the admin that procedurally closed the last RM @User: Paine Ellsworth - another has been opened here. Departure– (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least Tornado outbreak of May 6–10, 2024, as the tornadoes involved with it in Florida were on the 10th. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a tweak - I do think it makes complete sense to adopt the NCEI dates for tornado outbreaks (at least, the ones on the list because they caused >1B in damage), and I'd probably go even farther to say it's malpractice we have not been. The process of delineating dates has been very subjective for over a decade. Beyond that, it's also important that we establish a project-wide definition of what a tornado outbreak is for a) events that cause less than $1B and thus aren't on the list and/or b) events that just occurred and have not yet been added to the list. That is worthy of a separate, major discussion. For the sake of these proposed moves, I support them with a minor tweak. NCEI lists the May 2019 outbreak as May 26-29 (not 30). By the way, here's the list for those unfamiliar. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 20:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support for March 14-16 The California EF0 literally has nothing to do with the outbreaks that occur the next day and the day after. The same low that spawned the tornadoes from the 14th-16th didn't produce the Cali EF0, so it makes no sense to include it. From what I see, the only reason it's even include is because it just so happen to occur the day before the big outbreaks Hoguert (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it did, as the system did not fully form until it reached around texas and oklahoma, but there was still small areas of storms that coalesced into the 13-17 outbreak. Shaneapickle (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seeing as how I botched the process here yet again, I hereby withdrawthis RM and request a procedural closure. I thought I was doing this the right way but I may have messed up in the process. Instead, once this is closed, we’ll start an RfC instead to settle this once and for all, without running afoul of RM processes. Pinging @Paine Ellsworth: to close as they closed the last one via admin closure and am requesting so here as well. Double ping request I know, but as the author I guess this holds a bit more weight to do so. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To editor MarioProtIV: this proposal has received some support, so withdrawal is no longer an option. I've removed the March proposal from this RM, so it can be continued to see if it garners consensus in this form. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 01:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, saves me some effort, and whatever comes off this RM we can eventually use to complete the March one. Thank you! MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 05:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • You folks need to hold ONE RM discussion at a time in ONE place and not spread out a discussion among several talk pages in article talk and project talk space. Why is there this rush? Wait until things settle down to make decisions like moving articles or you're likely to have the same discussion day after day after day. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any date range per myself and others on the other page. Per WP:OVERPRECISION and WP:CONCISE, I support something like "May". I express weak support for one more word if necessary like "mid-May", "early May" or "late May". Having numbered dates is way too subjective and leads to endless disagreement, as seen by the 5 RMs we had this week. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is far too general. There's more than one outbreak in a month (especially April-June), and there's more than one outbreak in particular segments of a month (early/mid/late). Take the outbreaks in the list above, for instance, with the NCEI defining separate outbreaks in late May 2019. The dates will be easy to establish if we decide on a project-wide definition of a tornado outbreak. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on procedural grounds, support generic names / names per month, and for those cases where some sources split the sequences, name it Tornado outbreak sequence"S" of May 2019 or whatever period is given. And in general, if you propose to name pages after source X or Y, at least provide a link to that source confirming your position. E.g. the May 2019 sequence is treated as one here, while the NCEI doesn't describe it as two sequences, but as three "multi-day events" with gaps inbetween[4]. So I have no way to judge what you base these proposed moves/splits on, and easily find countering sources. Fram (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    NCEI is NOAA themselves, which definitely carries more weight than a research paper, IMO. Also, as Cody said, generic names are far too general seeing we have multiple outbreaks per month. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are making proposals supposedly because you want to follow NCEI, but you don't link to where NCEI supports your proposals, and when I look it turns out that NCEI has a different breakdown of these outbreaks. At the March 2025 outbreak RM, it is clear that the proponents of the "exact dates" names can't agree on a name even after the previous moves, so the system doesn't work. More generic names avoid all these issues, and there is no reason why we can have only one such name per month when more are needed. Fram (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Generic month-based outbreak titles without date ranges were phased out long ago following extensive discussion. Not an option based on consensus and over a decade of precedent.
    TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Ok since nobody has broken this issue down in a logical manner that factors in synoptic meteorology, I will do that now. We have two options: 13th to the 17th, or 14th to the 17th. Why? Because while the same storm system produced tornadoes on all five days, the California tornado was geographically and convectively separate from the rest of the tornadoes, not to mention the time gap. It also occurred outside of the open warm sector in which the main outbreak occurred. The final North Carolina tornado on the 17th was not geographically removed from the others, and was spawned by the same convective complex that produced the tornadoes on the 16th, and occurred in the same warm sector. So that leaves us with two logical choices: Include all five days, or get rid of the barely-linked Cali tornado. I don’t care which option we go with, as long as we stick to formatting standards and establish consistency between both articles. What isn’t an option is getting rid of a date range altogether, because that practice was done away with more than a decade ago, and for good reason and following much discussion and consensus. We can’t go back to that, so we have to pick either the four-day or five-day date range including the 17th. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

@TornadoInformation12: I advise to leave the recent outbreak to its own page as that’s where the current RM for that is. Trying to discuss it here would just result in a PC because two RMs on the same topic cannot be ongoing at the same time. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know what you mean. Where is the main discussion taking place? I was told to bring it here.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]
I believe Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025#Requested move 20 March 2025 (/gen); it had to be left out of this RM on procedural close grounds. — EF5 04:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that We can’t go back to that? WP:Consensus can change. It being more than a decade ago makes this all the more likely.
Based on the current status of other RM, everyone except two editors wants to remove data ranges to ensure stable titles. Furthermore, when challenged, links to the much discussion and consensus failed to appear. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no discussion of this problem up until this outbreak. I’ve been with the project long enough to see that date ranges were always the most stable option. Also, WP:NORUSH on the other RM as given enough time more input will be put in so assuming the consensus is coming to do away with days ranges is clearly WP:CRYSTAL. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment – Seeing as how an RfC was opened further down the page dealing with this exact subject, I’m requesting a withdrawl of this RM to focus discussion there, if that’s possible. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just fyi... since there has been support for these proposals, withdrawal is not an option per the guide for closing instructions. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 19:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So then, as the one who started the discussion, if I want to consolidate discussion to the RfC, then what’s the next option? I realize talking there would be better then this RM. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In accord with the closing instructions, under these circumstances where there has been both opposition and support, this formal move request should be open a minimum of seven days from the date and time you opened it. That would be 27 March. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can (1) Ask for the RM to be suspended, but I don't know that obscure procedure, or (2) Simply let this RM run for 7 days and the RfC for ~30 days. Then start another RM, where the RfC can be cited. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swap of "EF0" and "EF1" colors

[edit]

The NWS uses green to represent "EF0" and blue for "EF1", yet Wikipedia currently uses the exact opposite. Should something be done about this... or? — EF5 15:54, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That NWS site uses that color scheme, but the DAT uses blue for EF0 and green for EF1. Departure– (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. What if we just made it all yellow?[sarcasm]— EF5 16:01, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also just realized that the Tornado Project lists "F6" on their Fujita chart. — EF5 16:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows, the legacy F scale hasn't officially been retired in South Africa and the rest of the world... We could feasibly see an F6 tornado in, say, Uruguay - but whether it'll happen is another issue. Maybe I'll make an article on F6 tornadoes and how they exist. Departure– (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One step ahead of you :) RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 17:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
No. There was already a long discussion about the color changes a year or two ago that was very exhaustive and I REALLY prefer we don’t start up another one, especially since you’d have to discuss TC colors too. I see absolutely zero issue with the current scale we use now. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MarioProtIV, I was just pointing out a small discrepancy, this is no RfC or "long discussion". Not sure how TC colors apply; NOAA doesn't even use colors. — EF5 16:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on date ranges in meteorological event titles

[edit]

Part 4 of WP:DISASTER reads
If there is no accepted name, the name should be formatted as follows: tornado, tornado outbreak, or tornado outbreak sequence, followed by Geographic location (only if necessary: City, State, Country, Continent, or any combination of these), followed by Year (or Month/year, or day/month/year if need be). Example: Tornado outbreak of April 14–16, 2011

Please rank these title options from most to least preferred for a non-year article:

  1. Narrow date range
    Tornado outbreak of January 2–3, 1234 when January 2–3 covers ~60% of sources
  2. Broad date range
    Tornado outbreak of January 1–4, 1234 when January 1–4 covers ~90% of sources
  3. Part of month
    Tornado outbreak of Early January, 1234, Tornado outbreak of mid-January, 1234, Tornado outbreak of Late January, 1234
    Each part is 10 days, moved forward or back 3 days for flexibility and discretion
  4. Month
    Tornado outbreak of January 1234

The next preferred option is used to disambiguate two events in the same (part of the) month. Year ranges can be used for December–January events. This RfC does not change the WP:COMMONNAME name/location parts 1–3 of WP:DISASTER. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option D > C > B > A as nom. Simpler titles avoid the conflicting definitions and endless disagreement about date ranges that are causing title instability. I prefer something that is WP:CONCISE and avoids WP:OVERPRECISION. The 3-day flexibility would continue allowing existing articles like Late-March on March 19 to simply and naturally contrast with a mid-March event 5 days earlier.
When questioned, Option A/B supporters repeatedly failed to link the previous discussions they claimed as consensus. The real status quo of both the guideline and WikiProject advice but not articlespace supports my position. For inclusion criteria, I'd say to look at not the title but at whether reliable sources consistently mention the events together. Again, none of the options override WP:COMMONNAME for non-date titles like 1974 Super Outbreak. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Case-by-case basis - I think the issue here is that we're trying to apply the disagreements on one page to the entire scope, which wouldn't be helpful as some outbreaks do have common names (April 3, 1974, April 27, 2011, etc.) — EF5 14:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But in the case where this wouldn't apply, C > B > A > D. I also really hope this can clear up relatively soon in the best interest of the project. I'd hate to have a repeat of last year where new editors enter to project-wide chaos, wouldn't everyone else? I'm also having trouble believing that there has ever been "consensus" on the issue, not a single editor has been able to pull up a discussion link when asked.. — EF5 14:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: What chaos were you referring to? Noah, BSBATalk 23:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This chaos. Coming from a then-new editor, seeing the state of this WikiProject last year was incredibly discouraging. The bickering and constant RfCs were insane; I try to make new editors feel welcome here and fighting, as has recently been done on this issue (good to see we're sorting it out, though), is the exact opposite of welcoming. — EF5 00:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option A, oppose everything else. C and D are out of the question as it can create confusion, and OP citing CONCISE and OVERPRECISION cancels out each other, as the date ranges themselves fall under CONCISE. Option C is WP:SYNTH given the fact close events to the outbreak may get lumped in despite not even being part of the same outbreak. Many media sources and NCEI (an official NOAA branch, which holds the most weight over everything else IMO) refer to them by date range as well, and we should follow that instead of being broad and unnecessarily confusing. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
C can be considered if AND ONLY IF there are no other notable outbreaks in the month. Never use D IMO. A > B when those options are open. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • D > C, no preference for an order of A vs. B because it might just as well be that A is more common in the sources than B. Perhaps nom meant "of tornadoes" instead of "of sources"? Fram (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    D doesn’t work when you have multiple separate outbreaks during the month. As such you run into problems immediately. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And A sometimes doesn´t work in reality either, as seen by the multiple discussions we have here. Still, I didn´t feel the need to tell you that yoyr !vote was somehow wrong. Obviously,in those cases where D gives problems, C should be used, duh... Fram (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DISASTER and this RfC clearly say earliest applicable style to allow disambiguation.
    "Of sources" is supposed to capture the general idea in the other RM. I'm not confident about the percentages, by which I meant "simple majority" (51%) by 60% and "overwhelming majority" by 90%. It is related to the idea of "only if most sources mention them together" (Option A) vs "if even a few sources mention them together" (Option B). 216.58.25.209 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think common name applies here, so if majority of a sources give a certain date, then that's what we should go with. As for the other tornadoes associated with the same system, they can be mentioned in yearly tornadoes, in the "List of [location] tornadoes" if in the US the "List of tornadoes in the United States (month(s))", whatnot. It would be one thing if it was an outbreak associated with a certain weather event, but those wouldn't have the date range, it would be "List of tornadoes spawned by Y cyclone". Ultimately that means option A. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - Weather Infobox Damages

[edit]

How should weather disaster articles (such as tornadoes, tropical cyclones, floods, winter storms, ect...) deal with damage estimates for the infobox? (Five-Related Questions; See Background Below) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

Article text can easily be written to specify various sources and the various damage estimates from natural disasters. However, the infobox can only contain a single parameter. This single parameter topic has been the subject of numerous discussions, old and recent, all of which have led to confusion and mixed consensuses over the years. Below is a list of those previous discussions so editors can be familiar with them.

This generic question for the discussion is ultimately several smaller questions that need answered in order to create a policy/pattern that can be used across a wide variety of articles, from Stubs to Featured Articles, to tornadoes and hurricanes. Below are the various questions that have been discussed/questioned multiple times on multiple articles:

  1. If a countries government (such as NOAA for the United States or CMA for China or ECCC for Canada) provides an "official" damage estimate for a natural disaster, should that damage estimate be used in the infobox, even if other reliable sources may or may not have different damage estimates.
  2. Should the infobox contain a damage estimation range, reflected based on the article's text and subsequent sources, regardless of governmental "official" damage estimations?
  3. What if the affected countries government has not given a damage estimation? How should that be reflected in the infobox?
  4. What if the source is classified on WP:RSP as "no consensus" or "unreliable"?
  5. What if new research is conducted, which makes previous sources "outdated", with either overestimations or underestimations?

All five of those questions are the root of this infobox damage dilemma, which has occurred on Wikipedia for years. Below is some additional background/examples for each of those five questions:

  1. Example is Hurricane Helene. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a branch of the United States government, published a 107-page report on Helene, in which they state "Helene caused an estimated $78.7 billion in damage in the United States". Other sources published a lot of damage estimates, either before or after this report by NOAA, which is why Hurricane Helene#United_States_2 has an opening paragraph explaining the different damage estimates, such as those from Moody's Analytics (half of what NOAA estimated) and AccuWeather (triple what NOAA estimated).
  2. Example of the range is seen on the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado. NOAA ("Official") stated the damage was $96,644,200 (fairly specific), while the Mississippi Insurance Department via the news outlet PBS (not their own website/reports) stated "near" $100 million. Two different numbers from two different reliable sources; official vs unofficial.
  3. An example of this is the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, where NOAA never released an official damage estimate for the tornado. As of this moment, the infobox has no damage estimate, despite various news outlets publishing town/building-specific damage estimates (such as this one for downtown Mayfield, Kentucky). Should the infobox be blank or contain information released unofficially?
  4. Only two weather sources have questionable reliability following discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard: AccuWeather (here; no formal RFC, so still classified as being generally reliable...several editors have expressed the opposite of this in various discussions not on RSN) & Tornado Talk (here; RFC classified as "generally unreliable" - see WP:TornadoTalk) As seen in this discussion, how should damage estimates from these sources be handled? Should they be ignored for the infobox?
  5. Example is Hurricane Milton. Initial & detailed analysis from Fitch Ratings put damage estimates at $50 billion for the hurricane. A few months later, NOAA published a damage estimate of $34.3 billion. Currently, the infobox in the article only reflects NOAA's estimate, as it was the later-published damage estimate. Both damage estimates are stated & sourced in the article text, but only NOAA, the later-published/"official" one, is used in the infobox. Should the infobox reflect the latest-published damage estimate, even if it is unofficial (picturing a reversal of that, where an organization like Fitch Rating published after NOAA).

In the discussion below, please provide some insight towards these five unique-but-interconnected questions, so Wikipedia can solve this highly-debated and discussed issue. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Let me provide my insights/!VOTE.
If a respective country's government, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for the United States, releases a damage estimate for a U.S.-based natural disaster, then that damage estimate should be used in the infobox, as it is the official/primary source for information on U.S.-based natural disasters. This damage estimate will most likely be the result of post-disaster analysis (given organizations like NOAA openly state it takes approximately 75-days for damage estimates to be posted).
If no government damage is available, then the infobox should either reflect the sole secondary reliable source (RS) or a range of the RS listed in the article's text.
If the event is recent, specifically before respective government organizations have published detailed post-disaster analysis reports, then the infobx should reflect any RS damage estimates. However, once government estimates are released, then the infobox should be changed accordingly.
The article's text should reflect only those sources which are considered "generally reliable". As explained above, Tornado Talk, a source cited on various tornado articles, has been formally classified as "generally unreliable", so the infobox nor the article should never reflect any damage estimates by that source. Policy-wise, (excluding a future RSN discussion), there is no way to combat sources, like AccuWeather who are known (through my own knowledge/OR) to overestimate damage estimates. Editors can choose to IAR and ignore anything from AccuWeather, but personally, I would like to see a new RSN discussion on AccuWeather, which would hopefully lead to a "generally unreliable" categorization.
That is my take on the four questions and how the infobox's damage parameter should be used for weather disaster articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, not sure why we had another RfC on this.
1. Absolutely not. WP:PRIMARY.
2. Yes, it's logical and helps readers understand the damage an event May have caused.
3. I'm confused by the wording of this. Is this not just a rewording of the first question?
4. Obviously don't use an unreliable source, that's common sense.
5. Use the number generally accepted by secondary sources.
This whole RfC was unnecessary in my opinion (all of these questions can be answered by just taking five seconds to actually think about them), but there are my thoughts regardless. EF5 17:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, number 3 is related to items like 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, where there is no government damage estimate, but only RS. Or, items like the recent Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025, where finalized damage estimates from the government have not been released yet. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So... Q1 but if the government wasn't an option. I'd use a secondary RS, aside from the fact that I dislike the whole idea of primary government sources for monetary damage anyways.. — EF5 17:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also, just a small comment on why this RFC for clarification is needed. If I understand your comments correctly on what you said, Hurricane Helene would have an infobox damage range of about 20–78.8 billion, with RS (Moody's Analytics) being the lower amount and NOAA's report being the upper amount. When a range was implemented previously on the article, it was always reverted within 12-24 hours. What you say is common sense and would take 5 seconds to answer, is actually highly debated questions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thats exactly what I'm saying. Q4 should always be "use a reliable source", there (should be) no debate on that. I can't name you a single tornado article besides Mayfield that has remotely questionable damage totals, although this RfC applies to all Wx articles. — EF5 18:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Q1 - if an official government source provides damage totals, it should be the "main" estimate, although other estimates can be provided in a drop-down menu. If multiple affected countries have given different totals, it should be converted to a range with a collapsible list with ALL damage estimates (no "main" estimate) as in the following example (not real data), as shown in the example below. If other unaffected countries provide an estimate different from the affected country, the affected country's estimate should be the "main" estimate (although I'm on the fence about this part).

damages = $96.6–250 million

damage estimates:
  • $96,600,000 (2023 USD) [1]
    $250,000,000 (2023 USD)[2]
    $100,000,000 (2023 USD)[3]
    Per MID via PBS
Q2: Yes, see first example
Q3: No "main" damage estimate; list range with collapsible list afterwards, as follows

damages = $96.6–250 million

damage estimates:
  • $96,600,000 (2023 USD) [4]
    $250,000,000 (2023 USD)[5]
    $100,000,000 (2023 USD)[6]
    Per MID via PBS
Q4: Don't use unreliable sources' damage estimates.
Q5: Same opinion as EF5.

Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ NOAA
  2. ^ Servicio Meteorológico Nacional
  3. ^ "Insurance losses from Mississippi tornado nearing $100 million".
  4. ^ Aon
  5. ^ Fitch Ratings
  6. ^ "Insurance losses from Mississippi tornado nearing $100 million".
  • While I like the ideas brought from the last RFC, I did not like how it was used for Helene. The other estimates cited were either from Accuweather, an established non-RS, or from recently after Helene. This caused the infobox to have a rediculously large range that was not useful. The example used in WEW's solution was $96-100. That is a nice range that shows that there is disagreement. I could also see some with larger ranges working like $5-10 or $3-18. However, Helene's infobox had $3-225. That is a difference of almost two magnitudes. Part of it would be fixed by removing Accuweather, bringing it down to $3-78.7. However, I still think that is rather large.
I would implement certain rules to fix some of these issues. Firstly, Accuweather is still banned because even they admit their numbers are extreme compared to other estimates. Secondly, time should be checked. Id est, a report published weeks after an event is trumped by something published months or further out of the event, like the TCR, and should not be in the infobox. If source becomes discredited by an RS, like the initial TCR by an updated TCR, then it should be replaced by the new source. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A range of estimates (using the dropdown menu) should be used for hurricanes until the respective TCR is published by the NHC/NOAA, as they are an official governmental source, and should take precedence over previous estimates and is months after the storm, as stated above. Tornadoes will be a different story so a range is probably best if one exists. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention this in mine, but yes, different fields should be counted differently. I have no clue what you tornado folk are doing and, unless it is in response to a clear violation of some standard, rules that tornado folk are following should not affect TC folk. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like what Mario said, I do believe a infobox dropbox could be used in Hurricanes that have impacted the United States until NOAA releases an official damage estimate through National Centers for Environmental Information or through Tropical Cyclone Reports. And if you still insist on using dropboxes after NOAA releases an official estimate, I would strongly against the usage of Accuweather since they're notorious for overestimating how much damage a tropical cyclone caused. And as for tornadoes, I wouldn't mind usages of dropboxes if there's no official damage estimate from NOAA. For example, in the 2024 Minden–Harlan tornado article, the estimated $112 million in damages came from estimates coming from local government of Minden, Shelby and Pottawattamie county emergency management agencies. Hoguert (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also recommend against using estimates that comes out a week after a hurricane and tornado Hoguert (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A few points. Yes, we need to defer to official government sources/estimates. We also need to be aware of significant figures. If a government says damage was around $1 billion, and another country estimated $10 million, that does not mean it's $1.01 billion, since the billion is a rough estimate. When you're talking about damage totals in the billions, it's easy to extrapolate and get it really wrong in both directions, such as initial damage totals being way too high (examples include Hurricane Ophelia (2005) or Helene), or ones that were too low and were upped later on. The NCEI updates the damage totals for US hurricanes, but for other areas it's a different story. I had a problem with Hurricane Wilma and Otis in Mexico, and having the right damage in unadjusted dollars. It's sometimes tricky when you're dealing with a few countries, or you're converting it to USD. It seems the point of this RFC is to solidify what we're already doing, including trying to avoid mistakes like we did during Helene in having damage totals that are too high. I think we should go with a range for preliminary estimates, until/unless we have a more official total. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head as to why this RFC was started. This is one of those RFCs without like “Option 1”, “Option 2”, ect… This is more to just solidify what the community consensus is. Typically, these type of discussions wouldn’t be RFCs, but rather WikiProject (insert topic) discussions. But, damage estimates have been at the forefront of numerous discussions and edit wars for years, so this RFC is more to get as much participation as possible so we can truly see what “format”/process has the consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To address these points in numbered order:

  1. If a countr[y's] government (such as NOAA for the United States or CMA for China or ECCC for Canada) provides an "official" damage estimate for a natural disaster, should that damage estimate be used in the infobox, even if other reliable sources may or may not have different damage estimates. Yes, but with due weight, which may vary widely by jurisdiction and over time (including with regard to NOAA post-Trump). Various national bodies have a vested interest in lying about these things.
  2. Should the infobox contain a damage estimation range, reflected based on the article's text and subsequent sources, regardless of governmental "official" damage estimations? Yes, this is just how we do things. It is not WP job to pick a side when real-world sources that are ostensibly reliable are in conflict; we spell out what the conflict is.
  3. What if the affected countries government has not given a damage estimation? How should that be reflected in the infobox? It shouldn't be, since there's nothing to reflect. If I do not have a goose, and I put a mirror in front of the space that my non-existent goose might occupy, guess what? No goose will be reflected in that mirror.
  4. What if the source is classified on WP:RSP as "no consensus" or "unreliable"? These are separate questions. If it's a "no consensus" source, then it can possibly be used, with due weight given to better sources, but probably should not be at all if other and better sources are available. If it's "unreliable", then it cannot be used at all, even if no other sources are available. Our job is to provide reliably-sourced information, or to indicate that reliably-source information is not available; it is not to pass on misinformation from unreliable sources. That is emphatically not "better than nothing".
  5. What if new research is conducted, which makes previous sources "outdated", with either overestimations or underestimations? Same as in all such cases in every subject: update our claims and the sources used for them to reflect the current real-world consensus among researchers, or at least reflect the adjusted range if no such real-world consensus has been reached yet, but the newer sourcing is reliable.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you made the original point and you are bringing it up here, can you give more information into Trumpian NOAA's reliability and its current state? ✶Quxyz✶ 03:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I goofed up the wording really badly looking back on it. You can disregard the previous reply. What is your perspective into the reliability of Trump's NOAA in its current state? Also, since it was discussed later, when would you consider the NOAA to be unreliable? ✶Quxyz✶ 03:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative infobox

[edit]

There may be a cleaner solution:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather
Caption
EF5 tornado
on the Enhanced Fujita scale
Highest winds123 mph (198 km/h)
Overall effects
Fatalities123
Injuries123
Damage$200[1]–300[2] million
  • Round to 1 significant figure, maybe 2. The previous RfC had $96.6M NOAA vs $100M MID. Why are we splitting hairs and creating a dropdown? The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose. Are we sure MID didn't itself round? That infobox dispute example and most others become moot after rounding.
  • Move to footnote There is no need to clutter the infobox with dropdowns and <hr>s. Sources like NOAA should already appear in the {{cite xxx}}, over which the user can hover to see. Currencies and years are implied by context, no parenthetical is necessary except maybe {{Inflation}}.

References

  1. ^ Citation for NOAA
  2. ^ Citation for some insurance reliable source

To answer your questions:

  1. Not necessarily (treat it no different from other RS), SMcCandlish doubts Trump's NOAA's reliability. However, discussion belongs at WP:RSN, not here.
  2. Yes, a summary is better with a range.
  3. Always use RS not just gov
  4. Keep GUNREL out of infoboxes. MREL can be used absent other RS, or based on "additional considerations" listed at RSP.
  5. Prefer new research over breaking news, but wait for corroboration otherwise. "Forecasts" before the event ends are speculation and not preferred.

216.58.25.209 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the NOAA's reliability, right now I would run on the fact that little has changed unless a secondary source starts noting something is off. It's not like the media hasn't been analyzing everything the administration has done and they likely have a better judgement than us. ✶Quxyz✶ 20:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the current state of NOAA and past events, I'm inclined to say the current administration has dampened the reliability of NOAA. — EF5 20:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I would say NOAA’s reliability hasn’t changed at all. NOAA’s accuracy in terms of their daily duties has dropped, but not their reliability as a source. For the most part, besides employees being fired, not that much has happened to NOAA under this current administration. Articles/sections on the meteorological background for weather events will be affected, but not that much else (so far…fingers crossed it stops with what has already been announced). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I think that a secondary source stating that it is unreliable is a far better and clearer method of proving that it is no longer trustworthy. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What secondary source did you see that said NOAA is unreliable??? Articles like this one discuss how NOAA's weather forecasts will be less reliable, aka less accurate. Not that NOAA itself is unreliable. Could you link what secondary source you are referencing?
Sorry if I caused confusion, I meant that as a general principal. If a source stated that the NOAA was unreliable in its reporting, I would be more inclined to listen to it than your and IP's reasoning as it seems mostly OR or based on feelings about the administration. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah gotcha! Yeah obviously if sources started saying NOAA was unreliable, then obviously that would play a role in how we would use NOAA-based information going forward. Anyway, my reply still stands, since sources aren't saying NOAA is unreliable, just that their weather forecasts will become less accurate; aka the meteorological synopsis sections in weather articles will get progressively worse/less accurate. Post-disaster analysis though, shouldn't be affected at all, and I cannot find any such sources. So in terms of what you and EF5 said about NOAA's reliability being less than it was, I disagree with that specific part. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This seems fine to me, and gets around the accessibility issues that pertain to collapse boxes. To the extent there might in some cases be a need for a more explanatory exploration of differing figures, this can be done in a narrative footnote, e.g. with {{efn}} and {{notelist}}, or by linking to an article section covering the details.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weather - CTOP?

[edit]

An Andrew5 sockpuppet brought this up at an ANI thread yesterday, and I actually think it'd be an idea worth visiting. It's pretty well known at this point that a large part of the Wx community is, well... younger (and that isn't neccesarily a bad thing!). With that, though, comes heaps of vandalism and disruptive editing on levels which I have only seen at ARBPIA articles. We've seen loads of vandalism, protections, an arbitration case, numerous ANI threads, several edit warring noticeboard reports, at least two LTAs, I could literally go on and on about the controversial nature of WPW. I'll also note that weather is inherently controversial. I believe this has been brought up before but was shot down, although I can't remember when. This obviously isn't formal (how do you even file a CTOP request?) but it's an issue that should probably be brought up sooner rather than later. — EF5 14:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you do plan to do it, I would suggest a merger with WP:ARB/CC as both are strongly interrelated. (also looking at what the orange man is doing :/) The only way I know of to designate something as a CTOP is to go to WP:RFARB and see if they take up the case. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for climate change, I've seen vandalism specifically regarding that aspect at Hurricane Helene and Palisades fire when they were ongoing; the latter of which had politically charged anti-California defacement at one point. There's a lot of IP edits changing figures with no source or edit summary but these often don't get reverted until way down the line, and also the EF5 / Category 5 vandalism has been going on for a while. Given the prevalence of the sockpuppets Dcasey98 and Andrew5, as well as potentially Lokicat assuming they don't have any intention of being unblocked in good faith, I honestly wouldn't be opposed to a project-wide semi-protection - both new articles and forgotten backlogs are targets for vandalism, with newer articles being frequent sockpuppetry targets. As much as I dislike the suggestion, given the fervor that a lot of newer editors have towards contributing to the project, having a proper incentive to foster collaboration, competency with citing sources etc, and reminders that WPWX goes off of reported facts instead of the pseudofacts like "this was the worst tornado because a storm chaser said so" that I see often would be great. Semi-protection wouldn't be the end of collaboration, edit requests will always be used and serial contributors will have doors to joining the project in earnest, assuming they contribute in good faith and with a constructive spirit. Departure– (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Subtle vandalism (changing figures with no source or edit summary) is easily detected by 1248 (hist · log). For those two pages, Hurricane Helene filter log and Palisades Fire filter log list the vandalism. More people just need to watch the edit filter log. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I would not be opposed to having meteorology & climate change being grouped together under a “Contentious topics” (CTOP) category. Most CTOP areas do not have “special” editing requirements. For example, Falun Gong is a CTOP, but there is no special editing restrictions, as Teachings of Falun Gong is able to be edited by anyone. For anyone worries about CTOP, all it means is Wikipedia’s policies are more strictly enforced. For example, on a non-CTOPIC article, editors may partially edit war without blocks being put in place. On a CTOP article, an edit war would result in a temporary block. That’s all it means. The generic guidelines are just actually enforced more strictly. Given the edit wars, vandalism, and insanity that weather articles have dealt with, that would not be a bad idea. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter:, @Wildfireupdateman:, @Departure–: Shall it be taken to ArbCom? I'd prefer to not file it alone; ArbCom scares me. /hj — EF5 18:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could help out with it if you want, although I'm not quite sure how to (I'm friends with Elli on Discord though, maybe I'll ask them). Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just a note that my home computer is currently at a repair shop and the institution-issued Chromebook I use blocks Discord (my mobile device can't open it due to an old restriction) so I won't be able to discuss it off-wiki for at least the next three weeks. — EF5 19:14, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a former arbitrator, I would say the case is likely to be declined unless the community is demonstrated to have tried (and failed) to manage user conduct related issues within the topic area. I would instead go the community route if you think this is necessary. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:09, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that'd be a good way to go. This has been discussed before, so we have indeed tried to resolve it, although I can't find the exact discussion trying to make it a CTOP. — EF5 19:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Community sanctions might work as well (since I'm also kinda scared of ArbCom). Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, something still needs to be drafted up, but yeah, community sanctions are probably best here. EF5 19:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather&oldid=1282347141"