@EF5: sooner than later, can you get the sources so I can finish the DYK review? Things aren't looking so bright for the TornadoTalk source in general (see the RSN), especially since it's paywalled anyway. Departure– (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it's looking like it's going to pass as Generally Unreliable, a rating I personally think is too strict but does disqualify the source both from the article and DYK hook. Departure– (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you don't want to fetch the sources TornadoTalk cites before withdrawing? There is a hook that's cited to FOX weather (which isn't as unreliable as the rest of FOX). I also think the prose summaries cited to them could be remade from Storm Data and NCEI / an NWS storymap by just spot-checking and replacing the citations. Departure– (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm just a (little) pissed off that the backbone of the article is now unreliable, although I know I shouldn't be. I'll get to it shortly. EF516:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. regarding what you said in an earlier discussion about the hypothetical tornadoes Fandom page, a certain sockmaster's /42 got unblocked, Special:Diff/1272283434 popped up and their username seems awful familiar. I just hope they're less disruptive on that wiki then here.
I'm also working on the Tallahassee tornadoes article. It's got a killer hook that you can see on my userpage. Feel free to contribute at Draft:2024 Tallahassee tornadoes - I do think it's going to pass notability, given the damage estimate of $184 million from both together. Departure– (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lokicat? I'm well aware that they're on there, although it isn't like I can do anything about that, as it's a completely different community. :) EF513:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Women in Red February 2025
Women in Red | February 2025, Vol 11, Issue 2, Nos. 326, 327, 330, 331
Hello, EF5. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:San Telmo Bridge, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hey there, nice work on that! That's a huge undertaking writing about one of the most commonly affected areas for tornadoes. That's the sort of list that probably should've been around for 20 years, but no one thought to make it. The format seems to work, but I don't get why only certain outbreaks get mentions. Only four tornado outbreaks before 1998 get any kind of mention, but there are seven since 1999. It's a good start, but I imagine the list might get split up further in the future. Maybe like List of Florida hurricanes, how there's a few sub-lists divided by era, with links to each year. Because right now there isn't a sense for how often Oklahoma gets hit each year. You covered the worst tornadoes, both deadly and strongest, which is why the list is quite useful at the moment. But I think it's more than good enough for the moment, especially in the quest toward having lists for every state. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Obviously it'd be physically impossible to include every tornado in Oklahoma history; the list would be over 4,000 rows long, far too long for a single article. EF513:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: If you could pick any state that doesn't already have a tornado list, which would it be? I have an unholy amount of time on my hands, and wouldn't mind knocking out a few. EF513:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–: A bit of a depressing fact I just found out about... 2024 had the most tornadoes in Iowa history, just how 2024 had the most in Oklahoma history. If the trend continues, 2025 may be a horrible year for tornadoes nationwide. EF518:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Might just be. It's my opinion that the El Nino Southern Oscillation has a lot to do with it - El Nino years are more likely to bring derecho events that have a hell of a lot of tornadoes, and we just got out of one. On the other hand, La Nina years tend to bring big outbreaks like the Western Kentucky event, and both of the Super Outbreaks (both coming during a receding La Nina). I don't know what's going on with storms more recently, in 2023 there were two separate occasions where I was less than one mile away from an unwarned but unimpactful tornado and in 2024 I almost caught another on video (but there were some darn trees in the way!). Greenfield greatly surprised me as the days leading up to it I had full confidence it would be a crippling derecho event but the models kept showing a more linear storm flow. I think in the future Iowa is going to keep getting hit harder and harder by storms, so the Iowa article really should be made sooner rather than later based solely on the most important metric of all, my opinion.
And if you're interested in a significantly less depressing trend, tornado fatalities have been on a downward trend as of late. The December 10, 2021 event was the deadliest since 2011, but if it happened even as recently as the 1990s it likely would have been seen as a run-of-the-mill outbreak they'd see every few years based on fatality numbers alone. Departure– (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know you might want to do Iowa, but List of Florida tornadoes might be interesting. The state has more tornadoes per square mile than any other state, and it's also the fourth most populated state, but the vast majority of events are weak. If you do it with a similar format as Oklahoma, focusing only on deadly or large outbreaks, then it could be a manageable article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add it to the bucket list, seems manageable enough. Only 46 intense tornadoes have ever hit Florida, so it would be way less time-consuming than the 334 that have hit Iowa. I'll finish up the by-county list over at the Oklahoma article, then I'll probably knock Florida out. :)EF520:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are your thoughts about timelines for specific tornado outbreak articles? I imagine this wouldn't be the most popular proposal but I feel that many outbreak articles lack a sense of cohesiveness - their meteorological synopses are a jumbled mess of conditions and times haphazardly mixed together in a less-than-readable format. If not standalone articles (this would likely be relegated to only outbreaks with 3 or more tornado articles in a 24 hour period, i.e. the Super Outbreaks, December 10, March 31), would you be opposed to having them in the meteorological synopses themselves as a subsection? I might bring this up as a project-space proposal. Departure– (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something similar, except organized by hour and minutes instead of by days, which is less helpful on an event that usually takes place within a shorter period. Departure– (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: Here's approximately what I was thinking of. Due to length concerns, it may need to be split off the main article, but I personally think it'd be more than worth it as it could greatly increase reader's understandings of events and when they happen - this can much more easily showcase less article-worthy but still notable or killer tornadoes better than the Meteorological Synopsis section alone could. Departure– (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something new and maybe important just happened and it was apparently caught on CCTV / webcam, and that sounds like your area of expertise. Just letting you know. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd upload it, but due to some off-wiki shenanigans I'm trying to stay away from graphic CCTV footage. :) EF513:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism edit by 2405:201:AC07:20CC:E028:BB54:3839:9EAB on Cyclone Fengal
Hey! I was looking on the Cyclone Fengal page when I saw that 2405:201:AC07:20CC:E028:BB54:3839:9EAB (an IP address linked to Kolkata) had 470 mph winds (according to the vandalist edit). I immediately fixed the issue and geotracked the IP address. Please try to get this user, 2405:201:AC07:20CC:E028:BB54:3839:9EAB, what he deserves. Thank you, 🍋🍋(talk!)15:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@LemonJuiceIsSour: I think you should WP:Be bold and take a look at their previous edits. Take a look at their edit history: is it full of other problematic edits? Take a look at their talk page. You can put {{subst:uwv1}} onto it for their first offense, or {{subst:uwv2 through 4}} for anything beyond that. Otherwise, take a look at their /64 (Special:Contributions/2405:201:AC07:20CC:E028:BB54:3839:9EAB/64) and if everything looks vandalistic take it to WP:AIV, the noticeboard for Administrators to intervene against vandalism. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only edits are the vandalist edits for Fengal. I already checked. Thanks for teaching me how to handle vandalism. Thanks! 🍋🍋(talk!)15:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hai EF5! I was just curious as to the policy on changing the wording of sentences. If I see a sentence on an article that says; "in the year __ the name of __ was changed to __," would I be allowed to change that wording into; "The name of __ was changed into __ in (the year)" Sorry if that sounds a little confusing, but I was just curious about this subject. Thanks a ton!!!! :3 --Stilllookingforusernames17 (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, you're fine! That's completely allowed, as long as the grammar you are using is readable (that should be obvious, though), but the example you gave looks great. :) EF500:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Barnsdall tornado hook echo.jpeg
Hi EF5. Please add more information about the provenance of File:Barnsdall tornado hook echo.jpeg to its file page. The image had to come from somewhere and that information is needed to verify the file's copyright status. A link to a Wikipedia article about the storm doesn't really help, but a link to an official US government website which shows the image would. Without this information, the file can be tagged for speedy deletion per WP:F4. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For future reference, files licensed this way are better off being uploaded to Wikimedia Commons because it makes it much easier for other Wikimedia Foundation projects to use the file. Most of the time, files like this uploaded locally to Wikipedia will eventually be moved to Commons, but it generally better just to do so right from the start. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding a url. However, that article about the storm doesn't really seem to be the file's source; the article attributes the image it's using to File:NEXRAD radar loop of the 2024 Barnsdall–Bartlesville tornado.gif uploaded to Wikipedia Commons. Did you use that Commons gif file to create this screenshot? If you did, you should attribute the Commons file as the source; moreover, you could use the template {{Information}} to provide essentially the same information for your screenshot that was provided for the Commons file, but in the |other_versons= parameter you can add that your file is a screenshot of the Commons file by using the template {{Extracted from}}. The local file can then be tagged with the template {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} to let someone know it's OK to move. After the file has been moved to Commons, someone can add the template c:Template:Image extracted to the source file. This will connect everything in a way that makes things clearer for others wanting to use the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
