Talk:2011 Super Outbreak

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 2011 Super Outbreak has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 13, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
July 30, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

Supercell tracks[edit]

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[edit]

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 (TCGE) 14:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

YesY 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)

Dead links[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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[edit]

@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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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)

External links modified[edit]

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.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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)