Talk:2011 Cullman–Arab tornado

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 02:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that five out of the six fatalities from the 2011 Cullman–Arab tornado occurred in one house?

• Source: https://apps.dat.noaa.gov/stormdamage/damageviewer/ and https://www.al.com/breaking/2011/04/in_arab_killer_tornado_breaks.html

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ferrari FF
• Comment: Although the source is a bit hard to navigate, the DAT (Damage Assessment Toolkit) is produced by the United States Government, and is overwhelmingly considered reliable.

Created by EF5 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 8 past nominations.

E_F⁵ 22:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC).

• Also, forgot to add an ALT1; ... that five out of the six people killed in the 2011 Cullman–Arab tornado were members of the same family? Source on this can be found here. E_F⁵ 22:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

A tornado DYK! Calling dibs on reviewing this, looking now. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Haha, it's always great to see fellow weather enthusiasts! This is one of the more interesting tornadoes I've written about, and definitely one of the more infamous. :) E_F⁵ 23:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I picked up on a couple issues during my read-through of the article, and will have to hold off on a fuller review until these are addressed. The second paragraph in §Track_through_Cullman is unsourced, as is the final sentence in that section. Additionally, the second paragraph in §Fairview_and_Hulaco states that a home was completely destroyed at high-end EF4 intensity – this doesn't corroborate with the tornado's stated peak intensity of 175 mph, which is near the middle of the EF4 range. Everything else looks promising so far: both hooks are short, interesting, and cited (though I personally prefer ALT1); a QPQ has been done; and the article is both new enough and long enough, not to mention well-written. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620: Issues have been addressed. E_F⁵ 13:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated, EF5. My apologies for the late response – today was busier IRL than I had expected, and I've been having troubles with internet connection at home throughout the day. I am a little concerned that ref 10 (OKC Storm Watcher) is a WordPress blog. I am open to being proven wrong, but the blog appears to fall short of the standards set forth at WP:RSBLOG and WP:EXPERTSPS. The same could be said for ref 23 (AlabamaWX) – however, this seems to be an uncontroversial and harmless archival of a Public Information Statement from the National Weather Service, so I'm not quite as concerned here. Source-text integrity checks out—I am assuming good faith wrt Cullman Times refs 15, 22, and 24, which are dead links—and I cannot detect any instances of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. (High returns on Earwig are false positives resulting from the use of properly attributed public domain text.) I would like for ref 10 to be replaced, or its use justified, before approving the nomination, but that is the only roadblock at this point. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620: Done. I just removed it, since the claims were backed up by reliable sources. :) E_F⁵ 11:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Excellent – I'm happy to approve this. Preference for ALT1, as stated above. Great work, EF5! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair-use imagery

Does this article need three separate non-free images of the tornado? Most articles only have one, and those articles clearly convey the image of their subject. Departure– (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The tornado looked so much different at each point of it's life that the fair use images are warranted. I had a discussion with @Rlandmann: on this exact matter, since I was also unsure. E_F⁵ 17:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

In that case, why can't we use a fair-use image for the 2013 Moore tornado when that was at peak intensity? I remember from an old copyright discussion that if even one image of the tornado itself is free, that's the only one Wikipedia can use (barring historical significance, ie. 1997 Jarrell tornado (come to think of it, it's not there anymore, what gives?)), but that argument is complicated if we count each stage of the tornado's life as different enough to warrant a non-free image. Departure– (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's because a free image does exist. NFFs are highly complicated, all I know is that all 3 images show the tornado at EF4 intensity in different areas. E_F⁵ 17:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Odd. So, if I have this straight, if a free image exists for an old topic, we can't use any, but if there is no free images, then we can use as many non-free images as we can come up with fair-use clauses for? How come we can't have varying stages of life on the Jarrell example? That had distinct rope and dead-man-walking phases that are very well documented and NFFs would illustrate those fantastically under the same logic being used here. Departure– (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I've been contemplating that... maybe we should have some sort of RfC on the matter? It's been a wild year for NWS images, and we now have another issue, which is what you just brought up. :) E_F⁵ 17:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I came across this via my watchlist. No, this article should not have 3 non-free images. Here is the process as far as I understood with my initial discussion a while ago with Rlandmann (i.e. the 2011 Joplin tornado discussion...the first non-free tornado photo on Wikipedia post NWS discussion on the Commons) along with my understanding of the non-free image guidelines:

1. Articles should only have a maximum of 1 non-free image as long as it showcases the same aspect.
2. Articles which have any free-to-use image automatically do not count for any non-free images (exception below)
3. If the non-free image itself is famous (the photograph itself is directly discussed in the Wikipedia article...like the 1997 Jarrell Dead Man Walking photograph), the famous image may be included, even if a free-to-use image is available.
4. If there is a famous photograph and no free-to-use images, only the famous photograph may be included.

That is the best understanding I have of the guidelines. For this specific tornado, the Dead Man Walking photograph should be the only non-free photograph included. Any other non-free photographs on this article should be speedy deleted, as that specific photograph is "more famous" (per se) than all the rest of this tornado. Hopefully this help y'all's discussion. Courtesy pings: EF5 & Departure–. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the issue, the tornado looked so wildly different that three fair-use images are potentially warranted. The NFCC states: Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information., which isn't the case here. E_F⁵ 17:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I personally would disagree with that assessment. In my opinion, File:Cullman Tornado in Cullman 2011.webp & File:Cullman Tornado in Marshall County.webp do not qualify as NFF photos for this article and they should be deleted. They can always be added back later, but I really do not want to start yet another insane weather photo discussion this year. This tornado's dead man walking photograph has some RS-style coverage, while the others do not really have RS-style coverage. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

RS coverage? NFFs don't need to have coverage to be an NFF. E_F⁵ 18:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To note what Rlandmann and myself agreed on: The photos have to show something important that is directly discussed in the article. For tornado photographs (excluding specific famous photos, like Jarrell Dead Man Walking), that aspect is the size. Per the lead to the article, On the afternoon of April 27, 2011, a large, long-tracked, and powerful multi-vortex tornado moved across north-central Alabama (emphasis mine). "Large" and "Multi-vortex" are covered in the Dead Man Walking photograph. Long-track cannot be show in a single still image of the tornado. Therefore, the same aspects of the tornado can be shown in a single non-free copyrighted photograph. That is why File:Cullman Tornado in Cullman 2011.webp & File:Cullman Tornado in Marshall County.webp do not qualify for NFFs in the article. I support deletion of those two files. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Let me lay out a few more examples and arguments.

• The tornado has passed. 1 free image exists of the tornado during its dissipation, but multiple non-free images exist of the tornado at peak intensity.
  • Depending on whether or not peak intensity varies in NFC between intensities, the free image and at least one non-free images can be used.
  • Using the above conservative criteria, only the free image can be used.
• The tornado has passed. Many non-free images exist of the tornado at peak intensity. Multiple free images of the damage caused by the tornado exist.
  • This is a common case. Typically and historically we'd use one non-free image, and include the damage survey images as well, since they don't cover the same subjects, per se.
  • However, there is an argument to be made under the more conservative logic that the damage and the tornado are the same topic, so maybe no non-free images should be used.
• The tornado has passed. One free image exists of the supercell that formed the tornado exists, but there's only non-free images for the tornado itself.
  • We'd probably use a non-free of the tornado, and maybe would use the free image of the supercell.
  • Conservative logic could dictate that the parent storm and the tornado are the same, however.
• The tornado has passed. No free images exist of the tornado, but multiple non-free images exist. A free NEXRAD image of the tornado does exist.
  • This is a particularly tough case, but on Wikipedia we'd use a non-free image of the tornado, in conjunction with free NEXRAD images if they're clear enough.
  • The NEXRAD image is of the tornado itself, so under conservative logic there's an argument for no non-free images to be used.
• The tornado has passed. No free images exist, but multiple non-free images of the tornado's lifespan exist.
  • Here, on the Cullman tornado artcle, EF5 asserted that the multiple NFF illustrations of the life cycle (reinforced by Rlandmann's assessment).
  • However, this counteracts Weather Event Writer's previous conservative NFF illustration guidelines, also established with Rlandmann on 2011 Joplin tornado.

Also, the use of "famous" instead of "notable" (where the image itself would be notable enough to warrant non-free image illustration) leaves this unclear. The "dead man walking" photo is, to me and many others, clearly notable enough for an NFF illustration, but it doesn't have it's own article, like a painting or such, which is what NFF as subject was meant for, I believe. This whole situation is unclear and conflicting. I think an RFC is needed. Departure– (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Departure–, I am asking you, do not start an RFC...please. WP Weather has legit basically broken apart due to back-to-back major RFCs in the last like 2 years (color changes, photos, canvassing [at ArbCom even], Tornadoes of YYYY layouts, notability, ect...). Like actually, we do not need to rush right into another RFC. You are right, I said "famous" when I meant "notable". My mistake, so please consider the word "notable" anytime I mentioned "famous". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I get that, I mean this April the entire community fell apart (partly because of me), but anyways I think we can hold off on an RfC, maybe start one around April/May next year, when weatherspace activity picks up? E_F⁵ 19:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Alright then. I suppose we'll keep the current guidelines of NFC on weatherspace pages (I don't think it's bad enough to warrant further splintering WPW in it's current state). The current enforcement of the conservative guidelines works well enough, as counterintuitive as it may be. Cullman probably doesn't need four NFFs, though. Not until that future RFC, if WPW lives long enough to recover. Departure– (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• To support my 4 points above (WP:NFC policy: Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met.:

1. Supported by WP:NFCCP Policy 3 of Minimal usage & Policy 8 of contextual significance, since the tornado (shape, size, "darkness", ect...) itself can be portrayed by a single photograph.
2. Free image = failure of WP:NFCCP Policy 1. Clear-cut case. Non-free file not allowed.
3. The photograph if notable, copyrighted, and no-free photograph of that exact type is available. Passes all 10 points of the policy, hence why the notable/RS-based photograph is allowed.
4. Policy 8, contextual significance. This is how articles like 2011 Joplin tornado may have a single Non-free file, singe the tornado's "wall of darkness"-style appearance in the photograph is contextually significant. (RS documentaries mention the "wall of darkness" appearance).
5. As a fifth, add-on point, several photos deleted from the Commons are being deleted as a precaution, not as a confirmed copyright violation, like the 2011 Joplin tornado photograph. "May or may not be free to use" is on those photos descriptions, since the Commons no longer considered the NWS disclaimer valid, but RS media does.

That is the logic behind each of the points. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: Now that this is on the main page, hopefully we can get further discussion from a wider variety of editors. :) E_F⁵ 02:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Winds

I’m aware of the NCDC discrepancy with the winds, but why does the main outbreak page have 190 mph and this individual page have 175 mph? MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Little work was actually put into the main outbreak page section, something I noticed when writing this page. Some of the statistics there were off to a degree. E_F⁵ 19:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks like 175 is correct. Don’t know where 190 came from: https://www.weather.gov/hun/4272011_cullman_county

United States Man (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Striking the first half of my comment, that didn't come out the way I thought it would. E_F⁵ 19:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)