From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article2011 Super Outbreak was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 13, 2012 Good article nomineeListed
July 30, 2013 Featured article candidateNot promoted
October 20, 2015 Peer reviewReviewed
September 3, 2016 Peer reviewReviewed
April 6, 2023 Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on April 28, 2011.
Current status: Delisted good article

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 Super Outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC) reply

May 2003 tornado outbreak sequence

I'm not exactly sure where, but I think the May 2003 tornado outbreak sequence should be mentioned in some limited sense. Master of Time  (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) reply

Lake Martin tornado?

I'm wondering why the Lake Martin tornado, that was a long tracked violent EF4 that caused 9 fatalities, is only mentioned briefly. Is it significant enough to have its own section? This is the NWS page on it here -- Wikiwillz ( talk) 19:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Wikiwillz: The outbreak list has a full paragraph on it but I'm not sure if it warrants further expansion. United States Man is more well-versed in this event than I am so they could give you a better answer. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 20:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Ah, I knew I was missing something. Would still be interested to hear what United States Man has a to say about a section on the event. Wikiwillz ( talk) 20:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I think the article has reached the point (size-wise) that new sections are unnecessary. We decided a long time ago to stop creating sections, and since that particular EF4 was not comparatively impactful (nor did it garner large-scale media coverage) it never received a section. The paragraph on the list page should be enough to summarize the damage report for that one. The New Harmony, Tennessee EF4 was another one with similar strength, path length, and impact that didn’t get a section either. United States Man ( talk) 20:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I know it may seem odd that a couple EF2/EF3 tornadoes received sections, but I believe that news coverage, path length, total duration, and depth of damage summary impacted the decisions on sections. United States Man ( talk) 21:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Then, we might need to come with an agreement. The Fackler-Haletown EF4, which only caused a single fatality, has its own section. However, Im in 100% agreeance that that the Lake Martin EF4 holds relevance enough to have its own section. I propose that we delete the Fackler-Haletown EF4 section, confining the information about that tornado in its place in the tornado table, and create a section for the Lake Martin EF4 with the information currently present, and more that most surely is available. Mjeims ( talk) 20:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I would not support changing the current structure of the article. United States Man ( talk) 22:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I was wondering about this too personally. However, the sheer number of sections already in this article precludes making anymore sections. The same thing goes with the 2020 Easter tornado outbreak. It already had enough sections of the notable tornadoes. I tried to add two more in there back around the time it had occurred and was told that the section was unnecessary, which I was fine with, because that is what I figured was going to happen. ChessEric ( talk · contribs) 18:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC) reply

Bringing back the Rainsville article

Back in late 2017, US Man deleted the Rainsville, Alabama tornado article. Some people who edited it disagreed with this, and his claims for changing it to a redirect were that it was "redundant", it caused an "unnecessary fork", that "deaths and track length are not reasons for an article, and that "information is lacking". Personally, I agree with that last point, as it definitely did not add anything new. However, the rest of the reasons I disagree with, and because of that, I propose we bring that article back. There was also a bit of footage on this tornado, although not nearly as much as tornadoes like Hackleburg or Smithville.

I'll ping what I think are the most important editors here, although I won't ping everyone since I don't want to get accused and/or blocked for canvassing. @ United States Man, TornadoLGS, and TornadoInformation12:

And a message for US Man: I want this to remind you that you made, and still make some decisions that people don't agree with. Poodle23 ( talk) 17:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply

An EF5 is not inherently notable. There is nothing you are going to add to that article that wouldn’t be a simple rehash of the section that’s already there. Also, singling me out in that last line was distasteful and won’t get you too far here. United States Man ( talk) 17:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Eh, I'm kinda with USM on this. The section contains pretty much the entire content of what was in the article before redirecting, and is comparable in length to other sections. Splitting would either mean greatly reducing the length of the current section (which I do not support) or greatly expanding on the article (which I would support if it can be done with good secondary sources). Coverage could be an issue since, if I remember correctly from just after this outbreak, Phil Campbell and Smithville got more coverage than Rainsville. TornadoLGS ( talk) 02:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Poodle23: That's still canvassing. As stated in the AN/I, people from Weather projects are going to be like minded and thus not neutral. Simply put, don't ping anyone in a discussion if they haven't already participated within it. Noah Talk 02:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if the same deal applies within talk pages on weather articles since other editors within the project are as likely to disagree with the pinger or have a third opinion. Poodle pinged USM here, even though he was likely to disagree, as the person who performed the merge that Poodle is disputing. I was pinged here and ended up agreeing more with USM than with Poodle. TornadoLGS ( talk) 02:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
It doesn't matter where it takes place. Whether it is on a project page such as AfD or on a talk page, canvassing is canvassing. Any discussion where consensus is needed shouldn't have people being pinged into it since that removes the neutrality of the discussion. It was stated that people in a project are often like-minded and have similar opinions, thus making pings of these people non-neutral by default. If this continues, it's likely to result in blocks or topic bans for those who are doing it. I would err on the side of caution. If someone pings you into a discussion when you haven't commented, don't respond. Noah Talk 02:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Canvassing is notifying editors with the expectation that they will agree with you. Poodle pinged USM, the very person whose merge they were disputing. The last discussion I had between myself USM, and Poodle, I also agreed with USM rather than Poodle. So I don't think Poodle pinged me here expecting my support either. The very fact that the original merge dispute on this article was between two WP:WEATHER members would indicate that we might not expect such like mindedness. TornadoLGS ( talk) 02:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Considering the fact the entirety of AfD is being scrutinized for any kind of pinging within discussions says a lot. What is and isn't canvassing appears to have changed over time. Noah Talk 03:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Is pinging 3 editors really canvassing? Wow. Poodle23 ( talk) 03:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC) reply
No, the number of editors pinged, or the nature of such editors, is not canvassing. What is canvassing is writing a proposal that is inmediately asking the editors pinged to arbitrarily side with you to "counter" a proposal that the nominator is against (like it happened before). If a proposal is written neutrally and simply asking for consensus, without asking you to take up a certain side to snowball a desicion, then that just a normal, democratic discussion were people can object or approve. I understand that pinging the same editors always may seem suspicious as they may all be aligned with what is being proposed (which would be grounds for canvassing), but not many people will find the discussion otherwise, and it would probably end with a WP:NOCONSENSUS. What else can we do? I know most of the common editors on this Project, and I can attest that they would not always side with you, and we are capable of having a normal, rule-abiding discussion even if we ping each other. Mjeims ( talk) 15:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I do think Hurricane Noah is going overboard with the canvassing. Back in March 2022, he was even indefinitely blocked after essentially throwing a fit about MarioProtIV canvassing; however he was unblocked in to participate in the ArbCom case and not reblocked when it concluded in May. That being said, he is still suffering paranoia about canvassing by demanding nobody be pinged. WP:CANVASS doesn’t outright forbid pings - they just can’t be used to sway a discussion. No such evidence has been provided in this discussion. 96.57.52.66 ( talk) 18:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Poodle23, Mjeims, United States Man, TornadoLGS, and TornadoInformation12: Instead of pinging editors, I suggest going through the project members contribution pages every once in awhile. Doing that will allow you to see if members have contributed to recent discussions without having to be pinged. I've started to do that and that has allowed me to find discussions like this one. I'm sure Hurricane Noah would agree with me on that. Also, 96.57.52.66, Noah, who is a good friend of mine, went through the same thing I did and helped me through it. He's changed from that incident and knows his stuff. Don't assume stuff bro. ChessEric ( talk · contribs) 17:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
ChessEric I actually do that a lot, but many times I've been witness to discussions were someone cements a pretty reasonable discussion topic, and because they do not tag anyone (maybe because they knew about canvassing beforehand), the discussion is left un-answered. And there are some topics that definetely need the involvement of the community, and finding the discussion to properly contribute does not always happen. Mjeims ( talk) 18:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Mjeims: I hate to say it like this and be blunt, but tough s***. The rules aren't going to be fair a lot. My suggestion is just not to ping others to discussions to avoid even the notion of canvassing. ChessEric ( talk · contribs) 18:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Post neutrally worded notices at project pages and do a RfC if needed or some other process as appropriate. The emphasis is on people to watch project pages, news alerts, and their watchlist for notifications regarding articles and discussions they care about. If they don't find them through these means, then they don't participate in the discussions. Plain and simple. Pinging people into discussions will only cast a cloud over the person doing it. How are others supposed to know they aren't pinging them because they know how that person will respond? That's what the admins were getting at in the AN/I when it was stated that people should avoid pinging project members into discussions since they tend to have herd mentality. Noah Talk 18:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I still disagree on the "like-minded" attitude since the merging of the Rainsville page was already the subject of a brief edit war between to project members. We are not marching in as much of a lockstep as you think. TornadoLGS ( talk) 02:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Yeah. If Noah was ever right (which I doubt), pinging, a basic WP feature would go under the radar, because apparently you can't ping people in a talk page related to a certain WikiProject, and since a lot of articles are of interest to a specific WikiProject, that would mean we couldn't ping anyone there. And if there's someone you think will play a very important role in a discussion, you wouldn't be able to ping them. Poodle23 ( talk) 02:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
There seems to be a bigger crackdown on canvassing than what there used to be and the opinion on what canvassing entails also appears to have changed over time. Becoming an admin used to be no big deal and was quite easy, but now it is a very big deal that puts a person under a lot of scrutiny. Pinging is meant to be used to reply to people rather than to notify them of a discussion. Considering how people feel about our project, they would deem pings of project members as a vote-bank to influence the outcome regardless of the actual neutrality. That's just how we are viewed right now. Our project has a long history of canvassing and we are seen through that lens. Noah Talk 03:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
The issue is many do not think our project is non-partisan. Given all the drama between the numerous AN/Is and ARBCOM, people feel this project is quite partisan and therefore any pings arouse suspicion of canvassing. They don't care if the pings were neutral in nature or not. If it looks like canvassing, that's what they will call it. The lesson here is don't ping anyone in barring extraordinary circumstances. Noah Talk 02:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
I can see your point. So it's not so much canvassing as the potential appearance of canvassing. Though I still think you're overreacting a bit. Girth Summit did seem to think it was appropriate if, for instance an editor might have skills that would be useful for implementing stuff in an article. At the very least, I think pinging USM here was appropriate since it was his merge being disputed (I kind of think that much is comparable to notifying a page creator of deletion nomination) and since he would be expected to be opposed to the split Poodle was proposing, that's practically anti-canvassing. TornadoLGS ( talk) 18:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment – Drama aside, there's nothing wrong with (re)creating a sub-article on this tornado as long as it expands upon the content already in the main article rather than just be a copy/paste. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 19:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Welp, Noah did his thing and devolved a discussion about bringing a sub-article back into a debate over canvassing. Is there a term for when someone turns a discussion about something else into a different thing that is only slightly related? Poodle23 ( talk) 20:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Poodle23: This was even worse. ChessEric ( talk · contribs) 18:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Now its not the time to dunk on anyone, ChessEric. Being worried about canvassing after what happened is understandable. We are ALL on thin ice. Lets just do what you said and try to find discussions on our own, or add them to our watchlists, without the necessity to ping, but lets not begin morphing this into a tirade accussing or even shaming someone for trying to be adherent to the rules. Of course, I do want this discussion resolved, but lets all be respectful of each other. On the other hand, I lean towards bringing the article back, but with the necessary lengthening and additional info that can support its stay. Mjeims ( talk) 22:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC) reply

GA Reassessment

2011 Super Outbreak

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.

Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delisting per consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC) reply

This article has suffered over the last decade plus from WP:HALFLIFE and a lack of updates. Never fully fleshed out to begin with, the article's aftermath section was never properly expanded even after a notice was put up about it. Over the years there have been many journal articles published about the event, of which only one has been incorporated. There is an immense amount of work required to get this article up to par. At present there is no need for a thorough review of the article until published journals (primarily from the AMS) are incorporated and the aftermath section is written. If that is done I am open to continuing with a further review to ensure the article is up to GA standards. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 20:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) reply

I think that is a really good idea. There are some other weather articles that could use that as well. Chess Eric 00:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
ChessEric, if you know of any off the top of your head, please feel free to nominate them at GAR. There's a script at the top of the GAR page which makes the whole process much easier. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 00:59, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you for letting me know. Chess Eric 01:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm a little confused on how to do it though. Could you show me? Chess Eric 01:22, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
For example, I think the February 2009 North American storm complex article needs a GAR. How do I request one? Chess Eric 01:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
If you install the User:SD0001/GAR-helper script, there should be an option for "GAR" in the menu where you normally find the "Move" button, ChessEric. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 07:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Why didn’t you just do it instead of wasting time here lol. United States Man ( talk) 01:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
@ United States Man: I'm focused on other articles and don't want to spend the time researching and writing this one. I'm happy to guide and help others who are able to put forth the effort on this one though. I've brought it up multiple times over the years and it's just time for this process to begin. If an article isn't up to standards it shouldn't be displayed as such. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 02:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC) reply
Cyclonebiskit, do you mind providing links to the journal articles you refer to? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 01:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC) reply
@ AirshipJungleman29: Of course, links are below. These are the main journals that are easy to find through the American Meteorological Society. There are many other journal articles that are not primarily focused on the outbreak but have information pertaining to it. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 01:39, 2 April 2023 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2011_Super_Outbreak&oldid=1213064839"