Wikipedia

Talk:2011 Super Outbreak/Archive 3

< Talk:2011 Super Outbreak
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Master of Time in topic May 2003 tornado outbreak sequence
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

"First EF5 tornado in Mississippi since the Candlestick Park tornado on May 3, 1966"?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm questioning the following statement from the "Philadelphia tornado" section of this article:

This marks the first EF5 tornado in Mississippi since the Candlestick Park tornado on May 3, 1966.

Nope. Unless we're talking strictly about touchdowns, in which case we should say so. --Tkynerd (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

According to this article the F5 damage took place in Louisiana. So it doesn't count as an F5 for Mississippi where damage from this tornado was no higher than F4. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Then I will reword it for clarity. Thank you for the clarification. --Tkynerd (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Article for the Hackleburg tornado, and question on the Vilonia tornado

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would say that the Hackleburg tornado deserves its own article considering that it was actually deadlier than the Tuscaloosa tornado and one of the costliest in U.S. history. It was even mentioned that an article should be created for that one when the Tuscaloosa tornado's article was proposed. There are a couple points I would like to bring up, however. First, should there be a more concise name for this article? "2011 Hackleburg–Phil Campbell-Tanner-Huntland tornado" seems like a mouthful to me. Second, the section for this tornado is longer than any other single tornado section I know of in an outbreak article, which is part of the reason I think it should get an article. If the tornado gets its own article should the section in the outbreak article be trimmed a bit?

On another note, does the Vilonia tornado really need its own section here? It was a fairly significant tornado but it just doesn't compare to the other storms in the "Most significant tornadoes" section. It was less significant than other tornadoes that didn't make the list such as the Section–Trenton tornado. Looking at the page history I have found that the section for the Vilonia tornado was added before the violent tornadoes of April 27 occurred. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Vilonia needs to stay. I know it wasa only an EF2 but it received alot of news coverage before the big ones hit in MS, AL, TN, and GA. As for the the Hackleburg tornado, it should have an article as it was the strongest and deadliest of the outbreak. 2011 Hackleburg-Phil Campbell, Alabama tornado or something similar should work. You can create it or I can if you don't want to. I will, however, go ahead and start a sandbox. I'm glad you thought of that because I never would have.
And, the section should be trimmed but I will work on formatting and such because the fatality table gets in the way of the pictures. I don't want to do much to it because it is nominated for GA status. Also, those other EF4s and most of the EF3s are covered enough in their damage descriptions on the List page. United States Man (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll start a sandbox as well, though I may be busy later this week. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Move to 2011 Super Outbreak

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

EXTREME SUPPORT This is getting as ridiculous as the wiki politics over changing the Syrian Uprising article to Syrian Civil War was when it was clearly known it had become a civil war! This outbreak has shattered the 1974 Super Outbreak in regards of total tornadoes and damage caused so it obviously qualifies as an equal or is greater than the 1974 Super Outbreak. There are many information sources out there that now refer to this outbreak as the 2011 Super Outbreak, to many to list. It is slowly but surely becoming common to call this outbreak a Super Outbreak and there will likely come a day soon that the name of this article will need to be changed. This also means that the original Super Outbreak will need to be changed just a little to the 1974 Super Outbreak, I don't understand why that is so difficult to do. I also don't see a reason why this would be confusing to people since in the near future there will by two Super Outbreaks in common knowledge, there is also the possibility that there could be more Super Outbreaks in the future. Many Scientist back in the 70s that are still alive today thought the an outbreak on the scale of 1974 wouldn't happen again in there lifetime, but it did and in some aspects was worse than 1974. In addition, eventually the generation that was alive during the 1974 Super Outbreak will be outnumbered and replaced by people who were alive only during the 2011 Super Outbreak. I say there is plenty to back moving the article and the bickering needs to end. Its time to change this article's title! Stormchaser89 (talk) 10:50pm, 17 October 2012 (US Central)

I hate to rain on your parade, but there have been at least five discussions about this and no progress has been made. What makes you so sure this time? United States Man (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - a redirect is fine. I see no evidence in this latest motion to move that says objectively how a move is better. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - I have always been against this. I don't know why people keep trying to move this page. United States Man (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - Previous discussions of this have shown that there is no consistent name for this outbreak. Nothing in that regard seems to have changed since the last time this was discussed. TornadoLGS (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
  The Magic 8-Ball says: "No." It also says that this is unnecessary and wonders why we have to keep going over this again and again. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The same thing that I have been thinking since that explosion in April 2012. United States Man (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 11 years ago43 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 20:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

This I suspect is going to be a "difficult" nomination to review.

There is certainly a lot of good material in this article and it appears to be well referenced (I've not checked citations, any hence the word "appears" to be ...). On the down side, I'm not all that convinced that the WP:Lead is compliant: it does not appear to be a summary and there is a lot of repetition in the Lead, for instance the first paragraph has 27th April as "the most intense activity" and "being among the most prolific and destructive" and in the last paragraph the 27th has "the deadliest tornado day", "fourth deadliest tornado day" and one other comment. The Meteorological synopsis section starts on the 25th and works forward, but the April 25 subsection starts on 19th and then jumps to 25th. Most of the subsections are entitled X tornado, but the MOS:HEADINGS states "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer", so having tornado in every subsection title is somewhat redundant. There also appears to be some hyperbole with the section title Most significant tornadoes: why can't "significant tornadoes" suffice for a title?

I made a few adjustments to the lede that cut out the hyperboles. United States Man (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll be reviewing that last. Pyrotec (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As I stated above, there is a lot of good material in this article and it appears to be well referenced: "Quick failing" this nomination is not appropriate, so I'll move onto the main review.

The requirements are to be found in WP:WIAGA, and in this review I'm going to start at the Meteorological synopsis section, work my way to the end and then go back and look at the Lead. This is likely to take a few days. Pyrotec (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Here, in this subsection of the review, I'm only going to discussions "problems" with the nomination. The good material and good referencing in the article will be considered later, just before "sentencing" takes place.

  • Meteorological synopsis -
  • The first (un-named) subsection appears to be located out of sequence and out of time sequence, in that it starts on 25th and continues to 27th whereas the named subsection April 25 starts on 19th with the discussion of this storm system, the prediction of the possibility of an outbreak of strong thunderstorms and the forecast of possible severe storms and then moves forward to 25th to the reporting of several tornadoes.
  • Seems to me that it is more logical to move the discussion and forecasting activities that seem to have started on 19th to the front of this section. Perhaps there is another reason, but to me the first paragraph is all about predictions for the 26th, the second paragraph is about what happened on the 27th and the final one-sentence paragraph is listing now many "watches" were issued over the four-day period, and the 19th is all about forecasting and predictions, so I don't see much difference.
  • Ref 18 is a broken link, it leads to a 404 error and seems to have been Dead since 2012-07-18.
  • The final paragraph uses the technical term or abbreviation "SPC", but the organisation and its abbreviation not defined until the following (named) subsection.
  Done United States Man (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Ref 18 still seems to be broken, but "SPC" is fixed. The material in April 25 on April 19 has I think gone completely: I was happy for it to be in the article, but I thought it was in the wrong place. Note: It makes no difference the GA-decision on whether it's "in" or "out" - provide that it's in the right place if it's "in". Pyrotec (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • April 25 -
  • I'm not sure why this subsection, the second subsection (well the first named one), back tracks to 19th April: certainly that material needs to be in the body of the article, but since this subsection is titled April 25, why is it here?
  • There is some WP:OVERLINKING: Tornado watch is wikilinked here but it appears wikilinked (in pural form) only three lines above; flooding pipelined to flood is wikilinked, but that is a "common term" that hardly needs linking. In contrast: the technical term "trough" was not linked until I added Trough (meteorology) at the start of the section; EF2 and EF3 are not explained here, a link to Enhanced Fujita Scale would help (it is linked in the lead but that is neither here or there).
  • "Tornadic cell" seems to be a technical term that is not explained, neither could I find a wikipedia article on the topic. Later in the article there is a section called Non-tornadic effects and it mentions lots of "weather" damage and embedded tornadoes, so perhaps "Tornadic" needs explanation.
  Done United States Man (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • April 26 -
  • Why is "high risk" wikilinked and pipelined to List of SPC high-risk days. Its not an explanation of high risk, its a List, but there is an explanation attacked. I have no objection to a link being given, but I would have thought that use of Template:See also under the subsection title was a better way of linking it.
  • Note: I wikilinked "funnel" to Funnel cloud
  • The last paragraph is unreferenced.
  • Otherwise, OK.
  Done United States Man (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • April 27 -

...Stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will get to work on these problems starting tommorrow. United States Man (talk) 03:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
That is great. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph is unreferenced and has a {{citation needed}} flag dating back to January 2012; the second paragraph is also unreferenced.
  • Ref 36 is just a raw link to a twitter page for the City of Cullman, its not properly referenced as there are over 3130 tweets and its doesn't really verify anything.
  • Ref 38 is a raw web address.
  • In general, there is an over-abundance of wikilinks.
  Done United States Man (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • April 28 -
  • In general, looks OK; but there is an over abundance of wikilinks.
  Done United States Man (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Confirmed tornadoes -
The section is commonplace for most tornado outbreak articles that have individual articles about their tornadoes. I don't see that it absolutely needs changing. United States Man (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather has three FAs, none of them have it; and 32 GAs, of them 2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak (reviewed in 2008 & failed FAC in 2008), June 2008 tornado outbreak sequence (also reviewed in 2008) and May 2007 tornado outbreak (also reviewed in 2008) have it just as a table in a section of its own; 1989 Northeastern United States tornado outbreak, 2007 Groundhog Day tornado outbreak, April 6–8, 2006 tornado outbreak, Evansville Tornado of November 2005, February 2009 tornado outbreak, 1998 Comfrey – St. Peter tornado outbreak, Mid-October 2007 tornado outbreak and November 2008 Carolinas tornado outbreak have it, but its not a standalone table with nothing else in the section. I'm not suggesting that the table be removed from the article I'm suggesting that the section is combined with another one, or (the same effect) the table is moved into another section. Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  Done United States Man (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Most significant tornadoes -
  • The title causes "problems": firstly it has the word "tornadoes" in it; secondly its hyperbole, why "Most significant", couldn't a simpler description such as "notable", "noteworthy", "newsworthy", or some other comparable word be used in its place?
I'm sorry, but I fail to see much of a difference in "significant" and "notable", "noteworthy", and "newsworthy." It is saying basically the same thing. It is also common place within the wikiproject. United States Man (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
What are you proposing: that the title be Significant tornadoes? Pyrotec (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I also ran a check on the three FAs and the 32 GAs listed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather. As to be expected, many of them have a section called Confirmed tornadoes or Confirmed tornadic effects; none of the have a section called Most significant tornadoes, but Mid-October 2007 tornado outbreak does have a section called Significant tornadoes, its the only one of those 36 articles. I'm not against the title significant tornadoes, but I don't particularly like Most significant tornadoes. Pyrotec (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I can combine the section with the table and the section titled "Most Significant Tornadoes." United States Man (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  Done I went ahead and did that. United States Man (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Vilonia tornado -
  • Tornado could /should be removed from the subsection title. This comment also applies to all following subsection titles.
I'm not sure that if "Tornado" is removed from the header what would be put in its place, it can't just be "Vilonia" and so on for the others. United States Man (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Its not too obvious what The first multi-killer tornado of the outbreak was .... means. I'd suggest that it could be rephrased as The first tornado of the outbreak to cause multiple deaths was .....
  • I delinked CDT. This is the first time that CDT was defined (by a wikilink to Central Time Zone) but the first use of CDT was back in the April 25 subsection
  • Ref 51 (Rob Moritz (April 26, 2011). "Officials take stock of damage during brief storm lull". Arkansas News. Retrieved April 27, 2011) has a broken web link. It goes to the Arkansas News, but there is a page not found message.
  Done United States Man (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Hackleburg–Phil Campbell-Tanner-Huntland tornado -
  • Ref 54 is a raw web link. It should be properly cited.
  • Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant is wikilinked in two consecutive paragraphs: 4th and 5th - one link is sufficient.
  • I cleaned up the prose for Phil Campbell, the subsection looks OK.
  Done United States Man (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Philadelphia tornado -
  • This three-paragraph subsection is undated (apart from March 3, 1966 and May 25, 2008 in the last paragraph), but there is a time of 2:30 p.m. CDT.
  • Subsection is uncited.
  Done United States Man (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Cullman–Arab tornado -
  • There is a claim of six fatalities in the first paragraph, but its unreferenced and it is repeated (I assume its a repeat and not 12 deaths in total) in the last paragraph, again unreferenced. The second and third paragraphs are unreferenced.
  Done United States Man (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Smithville tornado -
  • This subsection looks OK.
  Done United States Man (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado -
  • Almost very radio and/or TV station is wikilinked. Since that have been wikilinked at least once before in this Most significant tornadoes sections, they don't need to be repeated.
  Done United States Man (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Rainsville tornado -
  • I thought that this was unreferenced, but ref 77 is there on the end. So OK.
  Done United States Man (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

...Stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

    • Shoal Creek–Ohatchee tornado -
  • The first paragraph is unreferenced, but I'm not too worried about this one. The second one is also unreferenced, and that has much more detail.
  • The third paragraph has two direct quotations that are unreferenced. The paragraph has a single citation and that is NOAAA's Annual U.S. Killer Tornado Statistics, so it has no quotations.
  Done United States Man (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Ringgold–Southeast Tennessee tornado -
  • This subsection looks OK.
  Done United States Man (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Non-tornadic effects -
  • Refs 18 & 97 give a 404 error message - "Not found".
  • Otherwise, this section is OK.
  • Aftermath -
  • That statement about FOX needs a citation. Otherwise OK.
  Done I removed that part because I couldn't find a source for it and I don't think it is notable anyway. United States Man (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Electricity outage -
  • That's an impressive image. The subsection's OK.
  • The lead is a significant improvement, but it has one major defect, it appears to be non-compliant with WP:MOSINTRO, in particular Opening paragraph / First sentence which also means that it is non-compliant with WP:WIAGA, clause 1(b).
  • The requirement states: "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence.[3] However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text".
  • Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained is an essay, not a requirement, so having it in the Lede does not over-rule the requirements. WP:WIAGA is a requirement, not an essay; but it has an essay at Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not.
  • The first sentence of the Lede has: "An extremely large and violent tornado outbreak, the largest tornado outbreak ever recorded, occurred from April 25 to April 28, 2011.", followed by: "The outbreak affected the ...". The phrase tornado outbreak appears in the first sentence in quick succession twice, so adding it again (a third time) makes no sense; however the same sentence could be written as: "An extremely large and violent tornado outbreak, the largest ever recorded in the USA, occurred from April 25 to April 28, 2011.", without changing the meaning. The statement: "From April 25 to April 28, 2011, an extremely large and violent tornado outbreak, the largest ever recorded in the USA, occurred.", is almost identical.
  • Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained states: "The Wikipedia:Superfluous bolding explained page is a Wikipedia page about not awkwardly, superfluously cramming an article's title in bold into its first sentence when it makes no sense to do so"; and, I'm not too convinced that a good argument can be made that it is of relevance in this particular case.
  • Putting this to one side, for the moment, the Lede is good in that is acts both and an introduction to the topic and a summary of the main points. It covers damage to property and infrastructure and deaths, which is what most of the article is about. There is nothing about shutting down nuclear power stations, but arguably that is not a major topic in the article, so "due weight" is satisfied.


At this point, I'm putting the review On Hold. There are still a few citations to sort out and I've not not yet checked all the corrective actions above. Pyrotec (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    There is one non-free use image out of 14, but I consider its use justified.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

Well we got there in the end. I'm now awarding this article GA status. Pyrotec (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Supercell tracks

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

What does anyone think of this? United States Man (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks really good. If we put it up though, it should have some sort of a lede that briefly explains the idea of a supercell and a tornado family. Would it be possible to make something like this for other major outbreaks? Only the most extreme ones, though. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
If I could find sources for it, I would make some. But, I haven't seen anything like that except for this outbreak. United States Man (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay. My only other remark would be that we could have the Tuscaloosa and Hackleburg tornadoes link to their articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I did that. So, I was thinking that maybe it wouldn't fit in this page but it could possibly go in the list page under the tornadoes list. United States Man (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

References 4, 18, 21, 22, 28, 62, 88, 92, 106, 114, 125, and 130 are all either broken or require a subscription to access the page. This is an issue given the article's recent promotion to GA. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will look at it. Pyrotec should have mentioned that during the review. United States Man (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  Fixed most of them (the dead ones anyway). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 14:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

so this is the outbreak with the most tornado in the 24 hr...

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

and the Super Outbreak is 2 but what was the 3? I wanted to know for a long time what was the outbreak with the 3 most tornadoes in 24 hr, does any one know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godjira999 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure, but the two (what would be the third) largest in recent memory are April 15, 2011 and April 14, 2012, both with about 80 tornadoes. United States Man (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Prevalence of the word "Super" associated with this event

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

OK it's been a few years and we need to talk about this again. For anyone who is automatically going to get dismissive, I'd recommend that you actually hear me out on this and look at this subject objectively since it's been a while. Anyone who watches the Weather Channel will have noticed that over the past few years, this event is commonly referred to as the "2011 Super Outbreak", the "April 2011 Super Outbreak" or the "Super Outbreak of 2011" or some derivative of this type whenever it is discussed or an anniversary rolls around. I've heard Dr. Greg Forbes refer to the event as this multiple times now. Even more significant, AMS research articles and National Weather Service WFOs still refer to this event as the "2011 Super Outbreak", especially NWS Huntsville. Below is a brief list of different significant media and governmental sources that refer to this event as the 2011 Super Outbreak, or some similar derivative:

http://www.weather.com/news/news/tornado-super-outbreak-20120427#/1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00036.1 http://www.hsvcity.org/cyber/DardenApril2011SuperOutbreak_Overview_CityMeeting.pdf https://ams.confex.com/ams/93Annual/webprogram/Paper214058.html http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/two-years-later-lessons-learne/11067336 http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ohx/?n=stormsurvey0426-2742011 https://ams.confex.com/ams/93Annual/webprogram/Paper223690.html

Keep in mind that this is just the tip of the iceburg. I scraped these together after just a few minutes of research. So with the presence of countless reliable scientific, government, and media sources referring to this event as the 2011 Super Outbreak, including on television years after this event, are we going to keep ignoring this? It is at this point, basically undeniable that this event is to some extent, popularly known as the the 2011 Super Outbreak or something similar. I am not suggesting that we move the article, but I am going to add a sourced, bolded mention of this in the article intro. At this point, it is simply worthy of mention in some way. Feel free to discuss further. Sharkguy05 (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05

The AMS papers are more than enough to convince me that we should move the article to 2011 Super Outbreak. WP:COMMONNAME promotes that we use the most recognizable name for an event and that title more than fits the bill. It's no longer an objective issue as it's widely accepted as what to refer to the outbreak. The current WP:SEVERE naming convention appears to be in lieu of concrete naming standards for outbreaks. When they do have solid names, such as in this case, we should take advantage of such. The 1974 Super Outbreak should also be used to specify the year, as it's currently located at just Super Outbreak. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We should get a little more discussion/consensus before we go for a total article move, but I'd say it's clear enough that moving it is at least an option. Sharkguy05 (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05

@Cyclonebiskit and Sharkguy05: This needs to be moved back; there was never a move discussion and such a move has already been defeated numerous times. I don't care who refers to it by what name, a consensus hasn't been reached here. United States Man (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@United States Man: I went the WP:BOLD route since its been years since the previous discussions, all of which are rendered moot by the above links provided by Sharkguy05. Personally don't see any controversy in the move, which is why I went ahead with it. Name is widely recognized by many institutions and beyond meets criteria of WP:COMMONNAME. Moving it back would be pointless. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Those are the same links brought up in the last discussion; the fact is this was soundly defeated about four or five previous times. There is nothing new now to support moving it. If you want it moved, you need to move it back and start a proper move discussion. Just because you want to use your administrative powers to be "bold" doesn't mean you can override prior discussion and perform a controversial move. United States Man (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
And the last tangible discussion in 2011–2012 was dropped before a proper consensus was met. Going against proper reasoning in favor of process doesn't do any good here. The sources are clear and no one provided solid reasoning against it, it was just allowed to rot. General idea was in favor of moving the page, but no one went ahead with it for what it's worth... ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I know that particular discussion was a mess, but there were two or three discussions after that in which it was easily decided that the name would not be changed and that there wouldn't even be a mention of "2011 Super Outbreak" in the article. So you are going directly against a clear consensus on those. If you could get consensus now to support moving, then fine, but until then, it needs to be moved back. United States Man (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
A "clear consensus" in reference to a discussion in 2012 that didn't provide clear consensus. The result was no consensus, with one oppose being simply because "Super Outbreak" didn't include tornado and another being a "weak oppose". Furthermore, another oppose has been rendered moot as it has become the common name to refer to this event. Subsequent move requests simply just doubled back to this move request one claiming clear consensus, of which there was not. I'm not changing my viewpoint here and stand firm with WP:COMMONNAME per the sources provided numerous times. It's the name used at multiple levels, including professional meteorologists. A move discussion is a waste of time. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
As you wish, master... United States Man (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 Super Outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

References 3, 47, 56, 63, 78, 99, 107, 147, 148, 149, 150, 155, and 160 are all dead and need either mirrors or new references. Jdcomix (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Splitting off controversy

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

@United States Man: redirected the article on the Lakeview/Rising Fawn EF5. He claims that it "wasn't notable" because the rating holds no weight. In contrast, the twister killed 25 people which IMO is enough to have it split off for. Could you please elaborate how you think it's not notable? Because it was actually one of the deadliest of the outbreak (although the Tuscaloosa and Hackleburg top it though, but still, 25 deaths is a lot from an EF5.) --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I could go either way on this, but I'm currently leaning toward keeping the article. A death toll of 25, more than the 2013 Moore tornado I might add, and an EF5 rating give it a good deal of notability. Would be nice if we had a damage estimate. On the other hand I don't recall this tornado getting as much media coverage as Smithville or Phil Campbell. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
All I'm gonna say on this is if an article is split off from a parent, then something is supposed to be added to expand on said subject. That is definitely not the case here. It's more or less the same as what was included in the patent page, so it makes no sense to split this off. Now if you want to expand the article and add more than just a path and damage summary, then please by all means go ahead, but the way it is now is really unacceptable. United States Man (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Also real interesting how you just revert all my edits and say "contested" just because you don't like it, but whatever... United States Man (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
If I recall correctly the reason we started splitting off some tornadoes was to trim down on the very long main article. TornadoLGS (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)

May 2003 tornado outbreak sequence

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Super_Outbreak/Archive_3&oldid=1224489336"