Jump to content

Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 14–16, 2011

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

Tornado Image

[edit]

Here's an image from WRAL's skycam: http://imgur.com/of412 Mike6271 (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to post it. I'm having a hard time just keeping up with reports, I can't even get into confirmations of yesterday's and Thursday's tornadoes until this passes or slows down. Not all SPC reports are shown if indications are that it was a long-track tornado with multiple reports. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited the article to correct this. This picture very clearly shows the hail core of the storm and not a wedge tornado.24.121.35.101 (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This picture very clearly shows the hail core" would probably be considered original research. I did look and was unable to find anything suggesting that the photo was a hail core. Everything I found said how hard it distinguish hail core / rain wrap / low cloud / tornadoes with the naked eye. WRAL themselves claim this is the Raleigh tornado here: http://www.wral.com/weather/video/9454747/#/vid9454747 Billyoffland (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My distinct recollection is that Mike Maze said, "this is a classic rain-wrapped tornado" as the broadcast image was showing the tornado approaching south Raleigh. So the statement in the article, <Live WRAL camera footage was misreported as showing a wedge tornado approaching Raleigh from the tower cam, but it was in fact the massive precipitation downdraft[citation needed] entering downtown at 3:55 pm EDT.> is a mistake -- if my memory is accurate (and of course, I think it is.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philologon (talk • contribs) 14:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is indeed clearly the main downdraft/hail core. The image is from the RBC Plaza looking south, and anyone familiar with supercell structure will be able to confirm that the tornado is indeed on the other side of that downdraft, and it's impossible to tell from the image whether or not the tornado is rain-wrapped. I'm a Skywarn spotter. 174.97.160.25 (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a trained storm spotter (February 23 in Salina), my personal opinion is that it is indeed the rain/hail core of the storm; however, we can speculate all we want and we still need a reliable source for the information, because without that it doesn't matter what we think. It may very well be the wrap-around precipitation in the hook echo, but we don't know that other than based off the coverage. If a reliable source expresses doubt about it being a rain-wrapped tornado, by all means put that in. And please, can someone put in a note somewhere in the citation as to what time period in that video we should look at? Do we really expect people to watch the entire nine hour video trying to find this moment we're citing? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I should have, and luckily did, look closer at that footage. Upon closer inspection, at 1:30:45-1:30:55, there are power flashes slightly left of center screen near the bottom of the precipitation. There are also power flashes between 1:32:10 and 1:32:15 just left of the tall building in the shot, and again near the bottom of the precipitation mass. This to me is a full-out indicator that they had it right when they called that it was a rain-wrapped tornado. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the rules we got from my own spotter training was that if we couldn't see rotation, or the debris cloud at the bottom, then we shouldn't report it as a tornado. However, the wall cloud on the left side of the image is one reportable event. That said, as Ks0stm said, my opinion doesn't really matter since we're supposed to be basing ourselves from the material coming from reliable sources. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

[edit]

Is there a naming convention on disasters? If not, there needs to be one. Usually, with disasters it is date, location, type of disaster. I am going to point out like i have done in the past, tornadoes do not just occur in the US (in fact on a minor point, the UK has more tornadoes per square km than any other country). Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 16:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For tornado outbreaks the article title is always the simplest one. In this case, the region does not need to be specified as it was the only outbreak worldwide at the time. Myself and others who have been working on this article are well aware that tornadoes don't just occur in the US, they happen wherever conditions allow. However, they are most prevalent in the United States (averaging over 1,200 per year). Also, the UK tidbit really doesn't apply to this.... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was better before the move at Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak and in the future for controversial page moves gather consensus (WP:TITLECHANGES). Although you are correct that tornadoes occur outside the US, most of the tornado outbreaks occur within the US and in general don't include a specific location within the name unless it occurs within a smaller area. Outbreaks that do occur outside the US usually have the name of the country because they are smaller localized regions. This current name is also a bit misleading because the outbreak was wider than the southeast US with tornadoes occurring from Texas and Oklahoma through the Mid-Atlantic, While technically those areas could be considered the Southern US Texas and OK, IL, MO are more Midwestern and the Virginias are often Mid-Atlantic. The current name is too long and really unnecessary. Bhockey10 (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether the country should be included in the title, but I certainly think that "Southern" should be removed. It's superfluous at best and misleading at worst. —David Levy 18:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bhockey10 and David Levy, the name as it stands is too long and unnecessary. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have there been any other tornado outbreaks worldwide during April? If not, then the extra disambiguation is unneeded, and introduces accuracy concerns. I'd move it back to the original title. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even "Mid-" could be dropped (and re-added only if another tornado outbreak occurs later in the month), yes? That would give us April 2011 tornado outbreak. —David Levy 18:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forecasts are showing two more possible outbreaks in the next week but since this will definitely be the largest of the month, I guess Mid could be dropped since it's the most significant. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, April 2011 tornado outbreak should disambiguate between the articles I have specified at the page I created there. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I think there is consensus to remove the location from the article title. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having just the month is not enough here, since this is the 3rd outbreak this month with an article, and a 4th one is possible starting Tuesday. But the region is probably too much there. Unless a common name becomes publicised, the original name is what it should be at. It creates am issue if the Tuesday outbreak also warrants an article (let's hope it busts for everyone's sake though!). CrazyC83 (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming I'm not missing something and the original name was 'Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak', I'm in complete agreement. The name as it stands is a bit lenghty. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Things to add

[edit]
  • 1) Once things calm down and all reports are in (probably a week or so), the chart should be moved to a separate page, List of tornadoes in the Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak. Until then, it would be best to leave it as is for simplicity in reporting and recording.
  • 2) The non-tornadic events section could be expanded - mentions on straight-line wind damage and (if any) flooding damage and fatalities.
  • 3) Separate sections could be warranted for other tornadoes, perhaps the Leakesville et. al. tornado (especially if confirmed as a single long-tracker, right now it is two EF3's), the Atoka/Tushka tornado, the Askewville tornado and maybe others
  • 4) It may take a while, but once good meteorological data (i.e. the dynamics, thermal atmosphere, etc.) is available, then that should be added. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. I think this article could get very large, and several of the the storms - Tushka, OK, Jackson/Clinton MS definitely - deserve a more detailed look. As to #2 - there was some flash flood damage, some life-threatening in western North Carolina, so at least a little expansion there would be warranted as well.Davidals (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page moved to April 14-16, 2011 tornado outbreak. Consensus was to move however I don't believe that the discussion reached a consensus on the target. The target here matches what is used for other similar articles as was mentioned late in the discussion. Given that and the large number of options, if a better option, that might obtain consensus, is out there, this can be listed again for discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-April 2011 Southern United States tornado outbreak → Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak –

Absolutely. Name is too long. If the outbreak gets a commonly-accepted name, then move it again to that, otherwise the original name should be the location. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - SudoGhost (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that this event also caused tornadoes in Illinois as well, which is not part of the South. I support with the move. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Marcusmax states, the event also occurred in Illinois, making 'Southern United States' incorrect. The location does not need to be disambiguated, because the dates are not the same. The April 2011 Iowa-Wisconsin tornado outbreak did not occur mid-April. - SudoGhost (talk) 06:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment i think we're getting into the meta-physical here. If we divide the month into thirds, 1-10 being "early" and 20-30 being "late," then the April 9-11 Iowa-Wisconsin outbreak could be considered to also be mid-April. Sure, it's not dead-center-mid-April, but it isn't as though that outbreak was clearly in the early part of the month. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current name is a bit unwieldy and disambiguates more than necessary. Simply being "Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak" would be sufficient enough, with any disambiguation necessary being done through {{about}} and April 2011 tornado outbreak. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 13:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (I thought we already had this discussion in the above section). My opinion still hasn't changed- It was better before the move at Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak. In general we don't include a specific location within the article name unless it occurs within a smaller area. Outbreaks that do occur outside the US usually have the name of the country because they are smaller localized regions. This current name is also a bit misleading because the outbreak was wider than the southeast US with tornadoes occurring from Texas and Oklahoma through the Mid-Atlantic, While technically those areas could be considered the Southern US Texas and OK, IL, MO are more Midwestern and the Virginias are often Mid-Atlantic. The current name is too long and really unnecessary. Bhockey10 (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The fact that there were tornadoes in Kansas, Illinois, Missouri and Pennsylvania is enough to rename this article, since those are not in the Southern United States. WxGopher (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically shouldn't this topic be "moved" to something like Mid-April Southern U.S. Tornado outbreak sequence? I believe the definition of an outbreak would require tornadoes to be continuous through the period. Because there were breaks and this occurred over several days, it would probably be better described as an "outbreak sequence" and that is how similar situations have been titled.W Scott Lincoln 21:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • An outbreak sequence involves more than one system, generally taking place with less than two days between them. This instance involved only one storm system over a three day period and is considered a single tornado outbreak. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving back to Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak - No need to disambiguate to "Southern United States"; 1) Southern is misleading as it doesn't cover the entire scope of the outbreak. 2) The majority of tornado outbreaks take place within the US and are assumed to be unless otherwise stated in the title. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Mid-April 2011 Southern United States tornado outbreak to 14-16 April 2011 USA tornado outbreak? Or omit the 'USA'? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not a bad idea (the one without the USA), but kinda out of standard. Most other outbreaks that have been written about have "(Month) (Year) tornado outbreak", and if necessary we add more description as more outbreaks occur in the month, starting with "Early-" "Mid-" and "Late-", and then proceeding on to other descriptors. One month that needed and extra descriptor I can think of was May 2010, where we had to name one that started at the very end of April and continued into May as "April-May 2010 tornado outbreak". Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Anthony Appleyard might have a point, now there are three tornado outbreaks within a short time of each-other. We have the April 9 – 11 (Iowa/Wisconsin event) the event being discussed right now and now we have the new April 19 – 20 tornado outbreak which will probably receive an article due to the damaging derechos and the fact that it too meets project guidelines for having a separate article (40 + tornadoes in a single outbreak). This means that naming the articles based on the dates they happened makes more sense, we have done it before with articles like April 6–8, 2006 tornado outbreak, May 1–2, 2008 tornado outbreak, April 10–11, 2001 tornado outbreak so maybe we should do it in this case as well. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move comments

[edit]

I would just like to point out that i am currently in favour still of the current name. This came about because of the article stating that it only affected the southern US and I was also going by other disasters. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 20:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Contradiction

[edit]

Introduction and aftermath section do not agree on the extent of the states of emergencies. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C-class

[edit]

I have given this article a rating for WP:SEVERE of C-class. It is no longer valid for current class, and I give it a C-class over B-class mostly because there are extended parts that are not sufficiently referenced, most notably the "April 16" and "Fayetteville / Interstate 95 tornado and supercell" sections and extended parts of the "Raleigh area tornado" section. Anyone else feel free to leave comments about the rating here. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. I am responsible for a lot of that work.
    • Historically, tornado outbreaks, even major ones have been under-covered, or ignored, and most of the NC-related outbreak articles on WP (some of which are rather mediocre) are my doing, as the data was not collected anywhere until then.
    • Unfortunately, I am a better copy-editor than anything else, which is why I'm not uber-active on WP.
    • I wanted to get info into the article, even if it needs to be cut later, simply because pertinent info around here (I live in central NC) was coming in at warp speed for 36-straight hours, and given the history of NC outbreaks disappearing from historical record keeping about a week after the dust clears, I felt the info should get in there. The idea was to reference what can be referenced, and cut what needs to be cut after getting a solid draft written and organized.
    • I am also undergoing a surgery, a biopsy or two, a CAT scan, X-rays, and great lot of other medical unpleasantness later in the week. So working on a gradual cleanup of this article - which is 'promising' but does need a lot of work - will give me something to do later on. However, I will also be feeling like death warmed over for probably several days, so any assistance with this is very, very welcome. Obviously, other things are going on in my life at the moment.Davidals (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i'm sorry but...

[edit]

does there need to be another new full length article on a tornado in which under 100 people have died? i don't mean to sound cruel but this isn't very important, there is entire news wiki for this sort of thing. JBDRanger (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously very important, seeing as it caused the most deaths from a tornado outbreak in the United States since February 2008, and many years before 2008 if you exclude that outbreak. In addition, the United States rarely ever has entire years that go over 100 tornado fatalities. 100 death outbreaks are a think of the past. By that standard, we wouldn't have had a notable outbreak since the Super Outbreak in 1974. (Source) Plus, when the final totals are in, it is very likely that this outbreak could break the record for the largest tornado outbreak in history, which was set in 1974 by the Super Outbreak. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

25 tornadoes in 1 day (state average is 15 per year). 5 of which were EF3. 23 deaths (average 2 per year). Largest collection of tornadoes in 27 years. 8 Tornado Emergencies declared (54 total in US history) 1 of the tornadoes had 7 path updates (second highest in history). They traveled at twice the average speed (60:30mph) 130 homes destroyed. 700 homes damaged. Disaster declarations in 18 counties and a state of emergency (at least 2 of which required curfews). Federal disaster declaration expected tomorrow. I noticed you're one the editors of the Rebecca Black page. I believe her claim to fame is uploading a video to YouTube. She has an entire page to herself. Billyoffland (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to Super Outbreak

[edit]

How does this storm compare to the Super Outbreak? That one was shorter-lived, but also seems to have had fewer tornadoes and a wider variety of intensities. But I'm not a meteorologist. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers-wise, this outbreak is getting ever-closer to the single-storm record (I'm not 100% on this one though) set by the 1974 Super Outbreak. However, the 1974 one was much more violent, the most violent on record actually. It included 6 F5 and 24 F4 tornadoes in an 18-hour span. For comparison, there have only been two (E)F5s since 2000. Thankfully the Apr. 14-16 outbreak was nowhere near as violent. I have a quick comparison of the two in one of the tornado charts below. The numbers for the 2011 outbreak are in parentheses.
Confirmed tornadoes by Fujita rating
FU F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 Total
0 19 (29) 33 (62) 32 (26) 34 (14) 24 (0) 6 (0) 148 (131)

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The number of tornadoes and some of the other characteristics and factors can be compared and contrasted but the breakdown of tornadoes is hard. The F-scale was new, building codes, warning times, etc... were far below than what we have now. And even not considering some of the engineering and meteorological advances between now and then. On the old F-scale F5 was 261mph, on the new EF scale it is anything over 200mph. On the old F-scale 200-207mph was still F3 range. If this outbreak occurred back then it's likely there would be more F5s from this outbreak than the Super Outbreak. It appears that many of the 14 EF3s from this outbreak were mid-high EF3s, back in the early 70s it would likely mean it could have 8, 10 maybe even 12 F5s. Bhockey10 (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another bad comparison is that in 1974, there were likely a lot more F0s and F1s that were not confirmed because they had not enough eyes to confirm them and radar signatures couldn't do them alone so they were passed off as wind damage or inconclusive, if they were even surveyed. It is probable there were a LOT more than 148 tornadoes in the Super Outbreak. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12th death in Bertie County

[edit]

Here's the link. (with additional figures of injuries, homes destroyed, etc.) 166.137.9.117 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh tornado family

[edit]

To make this article a bit more comprehensive, I was thinking that we should make a section for the Raleigh tornado family rather than just the main tornado. It would allow for a better flow with other tornadoes produced by the cell that warrant sections. Thoughts on this? (post by Cyclonebiskit via mobile). 166.137.8.185 (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restarting move

[edit]

The main reason for the second move was to avoid conflict with another outbreak that took place a few days later. However, that outbreak has been considered a sequence and is located at Late-April 2011 tornado outbreak sequence. There is now room to move this back to its original title of Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the April 19-20 outbreak and the April 25-28 tornadoes are (apparently) getting separate articles (for right now the 19-20 redirects to the 25-28 one), I feel we've already moved towards using dates for all the April 2011 tornadoes, and thus this article should remain at the 14-16 title. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this was before the major outbreak took place...I have no issue with using dates now. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article has seriously been overshadowed now. Come July or so when the NCDC reports come out, it will sure take a while to sort out! With too many April outbreaks, exact dates or common names are the only way to disambiguate. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When will some of the tornadoes be rated EF4 or higher?

[edit]

By the sounds of the damage from this outbreak it seems some of tornadoes could be EF4 or higher. Anyone got an idea on if or when the preliminary EF3 ratings might be raised? Stormchaser89 (talk) 8:30, 27 April 2011 US central time

At this point, nothing will be upgraded until the NCDC reports are out in roughly four months time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That ridiculous some of these storms were obviously EF4, it shouldn't take 4 months! Stormchaser89 (talk) 5:45, 27 April 2011 US central time
We only report what we WP:VERIFY, not what is WP:TRUTH. Gotta wait for an official source to rate the tornado. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved per request. The discussion leans in favor of the proposed move, with one comment in opposition to the move actually primarily contending that the issue is not worth debating. bd2412 T 18:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


– Per discussion at this RFC: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather#Naming conventions. --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2013 (UTC) United States Man (talk) 03:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cautionary comment: My reading of that RfC is that it did not really establish whether there should be a comma after the year or not. That's a question that cuts widely across topics on Wikipedia. Please see the remarks in that discussion by Dicklyon and TornadoLGS. Those remarks were not further commented upon after TornadoLGS said that should be the topic of a separate RfC after Dicklyon showed evidence that "almost all [grammar guides] call for the matching comma" (which is proposed to be removed by this request). My reading of the remarks by Ks0stm is that the first bullet is about the idea that new events should be named after dates, and the second one is about the idea that once an article is named using a date, a consensus must be established prior to switching to a "common name". The remarks do not mention whether the illustrated use of commas was intended as prescriptive or not. In contrast, this move proposal seems to be exclusively for the purpose of changing the use of commas in a manner that seems to go against almost all grammar guides (according to Dicklyon). That assertion was not disputed in the further discussion. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose as a follow-up remark: Please see MOS:BADDATEFORMAT. It says "... when using the mdy format, a comma is required between day and year. When a date in mdy format appears in the middle of text, include a comma after the year (The weather on September 11, 2001, was clear and warm)." The Wikipedia:Manual of Style provides a direct prescription here that speaks against the suggested change (and even uses weather as its example). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see number one at the top of the RfC. It specifically has the format without the comma. That RfC was mostly supported, enough for a concensus. The MoS part you have there is a sentence, not a title. Titles should be simple. No need to have all that punctuation in the titles. United States Man (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that the provided example doesn't contain the comma, but the proposer did not say that this was an important part of the proposal (hence, I would dispute your use of 'specifically', because the proposal was not about that specific aspect). That was not what was being discussed, except for the comments by Dicklyon and TornadoLGS. Dicklyon strongly suggested that proper grammar would include the comma between the day and year, and no one refuted that remark. Titles are supposed to follow the conventions of ordinary English. Some of this is just repeating prior remarks – please also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather#Post-RfC remark on commas following MDY dates. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that my comment applies only to titles of articles (which are typically fragments, not complete sentences). If grammar conventions specifically addressing titles are cited in opposition to this RfC, I would reconsider my stance. With respect to titles (and similar usages), I don't recall seeing such a grammar policy nor seeing it used too often on Wikipedia or anywhere else, but examples showing a significant proportion of use of commas following a year would also sway me (and slay me that I hadn't noticed it!). Evolauxia (talk) 06:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Oh, boy! Here we have something that's not worth debating. And both current and proposed titles are controversial, but I favor current title for grammar purposes in the USA. If date format doesn't matter, maybe we favor either the USA format or other international ones, like year month day or day month year. George Ho (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    George - this has nothing to do with MOS:RETAIN or U.S. versus non-U.S. usage. It's about whether or not to include the second comma, after the year. Dohn joe (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also what I mean; debating about commas become the matter to those who care about usage of more trivial punctuations. We already have redirects that are proposed to be titles of the pages. George Ho (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. If you don't care about this grammar/style issue, why !vote at all? Do you have an opinion on this question of style? Dohn joe (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind one sentence. I mean, what's the big deal about commas? Sure, readers could be irritated by putting commas after year, and it could be controversial. But so is removing the comma. A comma is added after year for grammar; removing it is easier for those annoyed by comma. But titles here are controversial, right? If so, is debating them worth our time? George Ho (talk) 05:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    These happen to be the only pages out of at least 35 to 40 others that are like this. The others have no comma. It is more controversial for them to stay like this. United States Man (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that this could go either way. Grammatical "guides" go both ways as well. Would anyone oppose an RfC that would make it (as far as MoS goes) optional as to whether the comma after the year has to be included in the title. BarrelProof even stated (not directly) that he/she opposes this because of the strict guidelines of MoS. United States Man (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that would get anywhere. There was an RfC that ran a little while back on the same issue for place names (i.e. Rochester, New York(,) metropolitan area) that went stale. It still hasn't been closed, though it looked like editors were leaning towards mandating the second comma. --BDD (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was more of a project discussion. What I mean is to change the MoS guideline that mandates a comma. Making the comma optional would free up discussions for project "locals" to decide themselves and provide a compromise for everyone. United States Man (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. --BDD (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Why should tornado outbreaks be an exception to normal practice? If consistency is the issue, move the other articles that don't have the comma. —  AjaxSmack  01:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But not using a final comma is normal practice, both on WP and in the real world. See Garner's Modern American Usage, pp.225-226: "Stylists who use [Month Day, Year] phrasing [as an adjective] typically omit the comma after the year". In any event, you may be interested in the discussion(s) on this topic alluded to below. Dohn joe (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as per standard English practice. Red Slash 04:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - in a sentence, the current two-comma form would be fine. In an article title it really tangles up on the tongue. Appealing to the MOS is not a definitive answer in this case, as the relevant changes were only made this year, and without the full weight of community consensus. On the other hand, the years of precedent in individual article titles mean this must be seen as a viable and in my opinion preferable outcome.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about an RFC

[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style as to whether the second comma should be made optional and left up to individual Projects. United States Man (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That RFC has been closed ("with consensus being against the proposal and most editors supporting a different proposal"). The second comma remains required according to the WP:MOS guideline. I suggest that this means that this RM should be closed as not moved, and any other article titles that don't follow the guideline should be moved instead. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take another look at the second RfC. Assuming the new guidance is adopted, it does not require a second comma when a date is used as an adjective. Instead, it recommends restructuring to avoid that construction - precisely because whether to use the final comma is subject to dispute. Dohn joe (talk) 05:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This links to the the "second" RFC mentioned above by Dohn joe. Steel1943 (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed wording is "Wherever possible, avoid using compound place names or dates in month–day–year format as adjectives, as such uses can seem unwieldy and may raise disputes whether the final comma is appropriate in this context." This does NOT mean that the comma can or should be omitted when the adjective form is used. So we have the same options as before: the matching comma, or some alternative title to avoid it. So how about "April 2011 tornado outbreak"? Do we need more specificity? If so, then "14–16 April 2011 tornado outbreak" would do. Or leave it as it is. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proposed wording does not offer guidance one way or the other when it comes to commas. It leaves that question open. So we have the same options as before: drop the final comma to match the majority of similar tornado articles, or find an alternative construction to avoid it. "Tornado outbreak of April 14-16, 2011" is not a bad option. "14-16 April 2011 tornado outbreak" still uses a compound date as an adjective, which is the one thing that the proposed guidance is actually clear about. (I realize that it's not MDY format, but it's equally unwieldy.) The status quo is still not acceptable, for consistency with other articles if nothing else. Dohn joe (talk) 05:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the additional RFC. The current proposed wording says "Dates in month–day–year format also require a comma after the day and after the year." That statement is not qualified to any particular context. How does that leave the question open? To me, it appears to clearly say that the second comma is required (if the construction is not avoided). It is not optional in that statement, and there is no exception there for adjectives. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point, too. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence needs to be read in context with the entirety of the guidance, which goes on to address the adjective use separately, and which notes in part that the adjective use "may raise disputes whether the final comma is appropriate". There would be no need for that clause if there were guidance on the final comma. This wording acknowledges the existence of disputes over the final comma, but does not resolve them, opting instead to recommend against the construction altogether. Dohn joe (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I quoted in full just above. The point of rewording is to avoid the disputes that may arise. It does not change what is correct. Dicklyon (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My reading is that although the proposed wording does acknowledge a potential for disputes, it also firmly prescribes which side of such disputes should prevail (if the construction is not avoided). If that is not what it is intended to say, then it should be rewritten, because that sentence is there and it expresses no flexibility on that topic. Whatever it is trying to say, it should state it clearly. Anyhow, that proposed guideline change has not been adopted anyway, and even if it is adopted, it says not to use the phrasing that is advocated here for these titles. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 19 February 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: All moved. There is no need to discuss these separately, as they are all identical in format to those that had consensus to move in the other discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– Per consensus just established at Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006#Requested move 27 January 2017, as per MOS:DATEFORMAT and MOS:COMMA, which would demand an additional comma in the current form of the title. Please note that the proposed move for April 30–May 2, 2010 tornado outbreak also involves adding spaces per MOS:DATERANGE. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Tornado outbreak of April 14–16, 2011. 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) 19:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tornado outbreak of April 14–16, 2011. 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) 22:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornado_outbreak_of_April_14–16,_2011&oldid=1209003136"