Jump to content

Talk:Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 170.24.150.113 (talk) at 19:16, 30 November 2022 (→‎Slow edit war between IPs and United States Man). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ef5 (my thoughts)

i was wondering did the mayfield tornado been a ef5 at one point? i am just wondering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolkikmoddi (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lolkikmoddi: No, according to the National Weather Service, which governs rating tornadoes and is our source for this rating. (See the first citation after the first paragraph in the Mayfield tornado's section.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 03:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lolkikmoddi: The NCEI released updated information for December 2021's tornadoes ([1]) and did not upgrade the Mayfield tornado to EF5. I am not aware of any reliable source indicating EF5 intensity, and we should avoid speculation per WP:NOTFORUM. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok thanks Lolkikmoddi (talk) 13:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

I'd like to propose that Tornado_outbreak_of_December_10–11,_2021#Bowling_Green,_Kentucky gets split into a seperate article. The readable prose size is 96 kilobytes, and per WP:SIZERULE, it should be split. I would be open to splitting out the tornado outbreak into a seperate article, List of tornadoes in the Tornado outbreak of December 10-11, 2021 but I'd prefer if the Bowling Green tornado is split out because it appears to have outgrown it's section.

Between the two tornadoes, the readable prose of those sections alone is 15 kilobytes. Due to rewriting, and an MH and whatnot, an article titled 2021 Bowling Green tornadoes (we currently have a redirect for 2021 Bowling Green tornado, I'd be open to that as well) will have enough content to fill the article. The death toll of 16, as well as the 63 injuries, also certainly makes it notable enough for an article. However, it appears contentious. Rather then start a draft I'd like to ask - should we have an article on the Bowling Green tornadoes? 47.16.96.33 (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Proposer was a now blocked sock. Editors are free to continue discussion or let it get archived. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, I think this conversation is over then. If not, I slightly oppose. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am with ChessEric in a weak oppose. Generally, I think only exceptional tornado should be split from outbreak articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely think a split would be counterintuitive. --Wikiwillz (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table splitout?

This would follow SIZERULE if the table is split out, per Wikipedia talk:Article size talk page discussion…thoughts? 173.68.1.128 (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion just above this one. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, another "random" anon trying to restart a closed discussion. United States Man (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have an opinion on this, but the above discussion was not closed. 69.118.235.133 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fun. This discussion was once again started by the same SOCK that started the section above. I think this is a done-deal that it won’t happen with two separate discussions started by the same blocked editor. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be some solution, somehow. This article can’t stay the way it is or it violates wikipedia guidelines. Maybe splitting isn’t the best one, but something has to work.71.183.166.47 (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quit using different IP addresses to act like you are more than one person. No one takes you seriously about anything. United States Man (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"2021 Tornado outbreak in the Southern United States" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2021 Tornado outbreak in the Southern United States and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 29#2021 Tornado outbreak in the Southern United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slow edit war between IPs and United States Man

Both of you please discuss your edits here. You appear to both be in a slow edit war. Instead of reverting without explanation (or with unhelpful edit summaries such as just "no") please discuss here so we can reach a consensus. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:11, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Andrew5 sock keeps adding inaccurate information just to spite me. Nothing really to discuss. United States Man (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you call my information inaccurate or accuse me as an Andrew5 sock with only flimsy evidence. I'm tired of your existence.--170.24.150.113 (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornado_outbreak_of_December_10–11,_2021&oldid=1124833983"