1531:
for that tornado is 5,700 bytes long. Roughly, if you subtrack what is duplicate/near duplicate from the two articles, you are left with about 16,000 bytes worth of content. So that is about 16,000 bytes of content that would be merged…meaning the outbreak article would be 131,000 bytes. Out of that 132,000 bytes, over 16% of the article would be about this single tornado. Note, a merge would mean over 16% of an article related to four days worth of tornadoes…with 89 total tornadoes…would be about a single tornado. That is why it was split out. I have been creating GA-worthy articles for tornadoes when they start reaching 10+% of a large outbreak’s worth of content. One tornado should not be over 16% of an article which is about 89 tornadoes. Right now, due to it being split out, it is actually 5% of the total article. The strongest tornado of the year should have additional coverage (obviously based on RS), but 5% for an article about 89 tornadoes sounds a lot better than over 16% coverage.
1809:; please add !votes and comments there. WeatherWriter, Hink says above that plenty of other users can sympathize with your situation, and I agree. Plenty of the articles I've created have been deleted; it's annoying, but you might think about it as a graduation process -- it's certainly part of how I learned the rules here, and it was no fun for me either to realize I'd wasted my own time on some things. I've been here a long time and I think I understand the rules but I still had a new article of mine taken to AfD not that long ago. It happens. And don't feel like your content is at risk of being destroyed; if the merge happens much of what you wrote will survive in the target article.
1782:
Knowledge. That does suck, and there are a lot of users who can probably relate to that feeling. At the same time, there is a right way of doing things, and sometimes that takes figuring things out, even if that includes input from meddling outside editors :P If you want to salvage as much as you can, then you can help participate in the process of making the outbreak a featured article. You're already invested in that topic. I don't think it will be that difficult, considering you've already tackled the most important part of the outbreak. Try not to be discouraged though. ♫
244:
234:
216:
185:
154:
1765:
to non-weather editors, several long-time weather editors (myself included) are too tired/busy to make articles. Just really annoyed that we have no clear-cut guidelines and everything has changed dramatically in the last 2-3 months. Now, one of things I was proud of is being more or less deleted. Yes, I know it isn’t deleted, but I was proud of getting that article to GA status…now y’all are about to take that pride 100% away.
1563:. So, if a merge was ever done, given that single tornado would be +16% of the entire article length, the entire article should be renamed, which consensus almost certainly would not fall behind, as other notable (and well RS-covered) tornadoes occurred that day as well. Basically, there isn’t any clear-cut guidelines on when to split vs not split, but my personal “go-to” is that 10% mark in terms of byte-length.
944:
800:
916:
351:
save as many articles as possible. Anyone not reviewing an article may jump in to help get it up to par if it does not meet the GA requirements. The process will start officially on
February 1 and will continue until every article has been checked and either kept or delisted. The task force may be found at
1764:
I’m not pouting. In the last 2 months, non-Weather editors have done a 180 to weather articles. Nothing personally against Mike
Christie, but at the same time, my dumb choice to do an FAC brought non-weather editors to the article. A lot of out tornado photos are going to be gone from the Commons due
567:
For sure, I'm just thinking it might be easier to flesh out the article if it covered a few tornadoes, including another notable one part of the same system. Although if there is enough aftermath (which there could be since it's still in the news) then that further establishes the case for notability
1781:
That's part of the process, figuring out better guidelines so they're in line with longstanding
Knowledge policies. It wasn't a dumb choice to do an FAC either, since you felt it was a good article. I'm sorry you went through that effort and now you're finding out that your work might not be kept on
1457:
Hopefully all of that information kept you informed on the
Commons copyright discussion process and how you can still create the best articles possible! If you have a question about something mentioned above, reply back and I will do my best to answer it! Also, ping me in the process to ensure I see
548:
My reply to that is that the Quebec tornado might warrant its own article, as EF2+ tornadoes seem to be quite rare in Quebec. However, aside from that EF2 and the EF3 in
Naperville, the rest were weak (EF0/EF1) and likely don't warrant an overall outbreak article. The Naperville-Woodridge tornado is
1688:
article is only 1,273 words, which includes the lead, the synopsis for the event, aftermath, and image captions. If you add the ~600 new words by merging, then the parent article would be 8,100 words, with about 1,200 words dedicated to the EF4 tornado, or 15% of the total word count. I don't think
1530:
It doesn’t need merged. It was broken out due to coverage vs the rest of the outbreak. That single tornado’s article is about 22,000 bytes in size while the outbreak article is 115,000 bytes. The outbreak article is for 89 tornadoes. The “small” (quotes for a reason) section in the outbreak article
1177:
I personally think that, while niche, it wouldn't be too hard to fill out since 2020 at least. Just this year, I can name off the EF2 in Rome, New York, the EF0 in
Rosemont, Illinois, and the EF3 in Omaha, Nebraska, all of which hit airports. For reference, this would be filled out about as fast as
1148:
Certain places, you'd almost expect the airports to be struck, like in the midwest or
Florida. It seems rather niche to focus only on airports, unless the airport was used as climatology for a certain area (due to their longtime weather records). There are lists of tornadoes in various states, like
350:
I would like to announce that a new task force has been created to re-examine the status of every GA in the project. Many good articles have not been reviewed in quite a while (15+ years for some) and notability requirements have changed quite a bit over the years. The goal of this task force is to
1201:
could survive AFD (indeed, there was an AFD back in 2017 that was 2 votes for deletion to 3 for keep), but that's for a different discussion. Is there a reason why the focus is on airports in particular? There are a lot of airports in the world, after all, not just in the United States (the three
1412:
The absolute key aspect of NFFs is that they relate to the article and are not decoration. For example with the Joplin tornado, the photograph: (1) shows the size of the tornado, (2) shows the "wall of darkness", which was described by witnesses, (3) shows a historic, non-repeatable event of the
715:
My view is that anyone can contribute to CoCoRaHS data, simply due to the nature of the program. I see it as generally unreliable in of itself, being a self-published primary source. However, I don't see why rainfall amounts from CoCoRaHS confirmed by the NWS or other relevant bodies couldn't be
1295:
Most of the photographs which were uploaded to the
Commons originally under the PD-NWS template (approximately 1,500) have been reviewed. Out of those ~1,500 images, only about 150 are requiring additional looks. Most images have been verified as free-to-use and switched to a respective, valid
1196:
That's the thing, the list would have to accomplish two things. First, you have to show that there is established literature on the subject, that is, tornadoes striking airports. Is there anything that unusual or important about that specific factor? You could also do tornadoes hitting sports
1051:
I'd like to also bring up tornadoes or weather events where the locations are not named in the title, for instance, if the 2021 Naperville - Woodridge tornado was titled the "Father's Day" tornado (which it could have been called, but currently doesn't have a widely used name in media
1697:, which has lengthy analysis and coverage of the single event. That doesn't seem to be the case for the Pembroke tornado. In general, I don't think individual tornadoes should get their own articles if they're part of a bigger outbreak, unless they're extraordinary on their own. ♫
1683:
A common discussion in merge discussion is counting the size in bytes (which includes references and coding) versus counting the number of words (readable prose). The outbreak sequence article has around 7,500 words, including 672 words (8.96% percent of the article as is). The
1591:, when it was an FA. What’s funny is the split article on Erick was only 7,200 bytes in size, I would even support that for a merge. My typical goal is that it needs to have at least 20,000 bytes in size before I even consider a split article, and 7,200 is well short of 20k.
527:
as part of the outbreak. I'm not sure what the notability criteria is for a single tornado, but I'm not sure the
Naperville one qualifies. If it's mostly for its significance in terms of Chicago tornado climatology, may I point you to the recently-created
992:
Cool. I think the second option is pretty much always better; very rarely is a weather event (other than wildfires and tropical cyclones) actually given a moniker that is less clunky than just describing the event as in the example above. —
1748:). You don't own the article, but at the same time, your contributions are generally appreciated. Try putting that editing energy toward something more important, which will likely mean that even more people will appreciate your edits. ♫
1660:
was larger than this and got merged as a redundant content fork. Heck, I created that article and argued for its merger since I saw Jasper Deng's oppose rationale at the FAC was correct. I see no valid reasoning for IAR to apply here.
1197:
stadiums, or college campuses, but unless there is a decent bit of information on that that topic specifically, I don't think it's worth making such a list. I honestly don't think it could survive AFD. I'm not even sure if
791:
1276:
On the
Commons, an RFC discussion is taking place to figure out how to manage the template. No "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred, so nothing has changed. That is not a surprise as the RFC is still ongoing.
1484:
1033:), they use the 2nd style since most news articles don’t say “2023 Rolling Fork tornado”. Most news article, when referencing the Moore tornado, for example, have to say the year. That is my take on the 2 styles.
500:, as they weren't the only events of those days, but I'll still work on them as Knowledge has a bit of a drought of coverage for individual tornadoes that weren't F5s, and as practice for future weather articles.
611:. Unfortunately, Knowledge pages are all assigned to the former, regardless of what they describe. Usually they are both about the scale and about the degree. This needs cleanup. I see two ways of handling this:
1025:), the bolding as in style one may be more appropriate in my opinion, since most news articles will specifically note the year with the tornado. But, if you look at the more recent tornadoes with articles (
1379:
1435:
article is confirmed to be free-to-use, therefore, no NFFs of that tornado can be uploaded on Knowledge. However, the "Dead Man Walking" photograph could almost certainly be uploaded as an NFF to the
497:
391:
520:
1734:
Instead of pouting, you could work on something that's important enough that won't be merged, such as the outbreak article that the article is the merger target. This isn't targeted toward you
652:
Create a Wikidata item like "Fahrenheit scale and degree" and move all Knowledge articles there. (Unless an article talks only about one of the concepts.) Redirects should still be assigned to
1474:
1161:
of requested lists for certain areas, including in the US, and other parts around the world. I think any of those would be more useful than a tornado that happened to cross an airport. ♫
1090:
I'd like to get the community's input on this example as well. Most newer tornadoes are named after where they hit nowadays, even something like the 2020 Nashville tornado that struck on
816:
352:
1413:
deadliest tornado in modern U.S. history. The exact reasoning does not have to be extremely specific as Knowledge's NFF guidelines "is one of the most generous in the world" (words of
1235:
Sorry if what I said dissuaded you from editing in any way. I hope you find a topic you want to explore and that it's a useful one too! I'll follow the discussion on the other page. ♫
730:
My personal view is that taking data directly from CoCoRaHS is a no no since it would be us directly analysing it. If WFO Honolulu includes it in their post storm report or the WPC (
493:
484:
Oddly enough, these all happened in June of their respective years. I'm certain that the Naperville–Woodridge tornado is notable enough to make it to mainspace, having attained
902:"If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead,
1826:
1708:
1524:
423:
1806:
633:
based on the name or main topic. If the same article also describes the other item, the other item should be assigned an appropriate redirect to the article. (For example,
1158:
145:
1406:! That photo's description can also be used as a template for future third-party tornado photographs uploaded to Knowledge...with their respective information replaced.
1260:
435:
1198:
1179:
1469:
411:
345:
365:
1133:
Would this topic be notable enough for its own article? I'd start a draft but I'd like to know beforehand if it has a fighting chance of making it to mainspace.
826:
I notice there are two distinct styles of introducing a tornado or other weather event in their lede. I'll illustrate it here with a hypothetical EF5 tornado in
550:
886:
821:
702:
1303:
807:
793:
39:
589:
1714:
Well, I’m never doing FACs again. F this. Two failed FACs and now one of my only 6-ever GAs is about to be entirely overturned on stupid merging rules.
709:
675:
1503:
for merging but wanted to check with this project first since I suspect there must have been discussions on this sort of thing in the past. Pinging
1425:
Tornado photographs will almost certainly qualify under the NFF guidelines, especially for tornadoes with standalone articles or standalone sections.
680:
1657:
1488:
1221:
By the way... I'm going to start a talk page at List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of large cities about changing the focus of the article.
403:
1403:
1325:
280:
1142:
549:
also still receiving news coverage as recently as 2 months ago, so it isn't completely forgettable like even the QLCS tornado mania during the
422:
has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the
275:
1555:. The 2020 Nashville tornado, despite not being the strongest tornado of the outbreak, is 20% of the entire article’s length. Due to it being
1398:
Experiments/testing has been done already! In fact, I bet you couldn't tell the difference, but the tornado photograph used at the top of the
694:
305:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
1551:
tornado that defines an outbreak, it should not be split out. But instead, the outbreak article is renamed. A good example of this is the
1122:
1671:
1652:
1629:
1246:
1230:
1213:
1191:
1172:
1044:
579:
562:
543:
453:
1793:
1776:
1759:
1725:
1602:
1574:
1542:
1641:
due to above. If it is over 16% of the article’s content, then it doesn’t need to be merged. It is notable enough to stand on its own.
725:
380:
74:
1320:
Given all of this, you might be wondering how the heck you use weather photos while creating articles? Well, here is what you can do!
1002:
987:
973:
747:
509:
1429:
NFFs cannot be used when a free-photograph is available, no matter the quality, unless the section is about that specific photograph.
1026:
295:
1378:
In the case of third-party photos...i.e. ones not taken by the National Weather Service themselves...there is an option which was
1858:
1853:
1443:
779:
1689:
that's unreasonable for the only EF4 of the event, so I agree that a merger is appropriate. The benchmark I think about is the
1340:
1128:
770:
978:
This is what I had figured. I only bolded it to be consistent with Option 1; most I've seen in Style 2 are indeed not bolded.
1863:
1685:
1500:
1480:
877:
Which of these styles is preferred, and is there any desire to standardize all short-scale weather articles into that style?
300:
285:
80:
1822:
1520:
516:
153:
1818:
1745:
1694:
1516:
1157:, so you would definitely have a chance of a successful article if you did a list for a state that doesn't yet have one.
1014:
1013:
The second option is what I always strive for. For the most infamous tornadoes where a date is often associated with it (
386:
830:
before sunset on June 14, 2025 (please note this is purely for illustration purposes and is by no means a prediction).
1269:
along with users who frequently edit weather-related articles an new update (2nd update) to the discussions regarding
477:
1499:
in 2013. Does this project have any guidelines on when splits or merges should happen? I'm considering nominating
489:
1559:
of the Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020, consensus formed to rename the article. A similar thing exists for the
1364:
426:. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.
660:
634:
627:
605:
1552:
594:
Not sure if this project is appropriate for handling this. If not, please forward to the right place or people.
1690:
1329:
20:
1588:
1496:
1351:
1030:
268:
257:
221:
69:
24:
689:
records would be acceptable as a source for precipitation records. For example, the precipitation total for
1150:
896:, which I think is useful here and even uses a natural disaster as an example. Underlined emphasis is mine.
440:
431:
196:
653:
620:
598:
1584:
1492:
471:
60:
1560:
1391:
1154:
529:
120:
463:
446:
1336:
1226:
1187:
1138:
1118:
1110:
983:
882:
721:
558:
519:
that extended into Canada, with 16 events overall. How would you feel about a bigger article, like
505:
1292:
has been placed inside a "License Review" template, which is viewable via the link aforementioned.
1814:
1788:
1773:
1754:
1739:
1722:
1703:
1649:
1599:
1571:
1539:
1512:
1466:
1289:
1270:
1241:
1208:
1167:
1041:
574:
538:
427:
419:
413:
1390:: Third party images of tornadoes & weather-related content can potentially be uploaded via
98:
1095:
862:
840:
1299:
As of this moment, approximately 50 photos have been nominated for deletion (results pending).
202:
105:
1619:. The main outbreak article is nowhere near the recommended minimum prose size for a split.
1436:
998:
969:
743:
376:
267:
and related subjects on Knowledge. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
8:
1662:
1620:
1399:
1302:
A handful of images have been deleted (either confirmed copyrighted or under the Commons
1222:
1183:
1134:
1114:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1069:
1022:
979:
931:
in April and May 2011, which were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the
878:
717:
554:
501:
356:
168:
50:
1810:
1783:
1768:
1749:
1735:
1717:
1698:
1644:
1612:
1594:
1566:
1534:
1508:
1504:
1461:
1432:
1236:
1203:
1162:
1091:
1036:
1018:
866:
844:
827:
569:
533:
90:
65:
1347:
1616:
952:
928:
812:
766:
671:
485:
362:
46:
776:
706:
641:
467:
955:
in April and May 2011 were among the largest and most damaging recorded along the
243:
994:
965:
739:
733:
698:
1309:
One image has been kept following a deletion request under the PD-NWS template.
1266:
690:
249:
1218:
I understand that. At this point I don't think I'll make the draft, after all.
904:
simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy
164:
1847:
1638:
1491:. I know I've seen some storm articles merged into their season articles --
893:
1094:. However, a lot of older tornadoes and a few outbreaks aren't, such as the
755:
667:
1082:
On the evening of June 20, 2021, an intense EF3 tornado, often titled the
524:
480:– Record-breaking discrete supercell in the Chicago area on June 13, 2022.
169:
1442:
NFFs currently on Knowledge can and should be placed in this category:
1065:
457:
398:
1547:
I am just mentioning this as how it is. If one tornado is indeed the
870:
848:
1439:
article as that photograph is the topic of a section in the article.
808:
Talk:2013 Washington, Illinois tornado#Requested move 20 August 2024
794:
Talk:2013 Washington, Illinois tornado#Requested move 20 August 2024
705:, but I'm unsure if CoCoRaHS is considered reliable enough. Thanks!
233:
215:
1487:
that I thought it should be merged into the parent season article,
1073:
686:
166:
1475:
Merging vs. breaking out storm articles into/from parent articles
263:
1360:
839:
was a catastrophic and violent tornado affecting the cities of
353:
Knowledge:WikiProject Weather/2024–25 Good Article Reassessment
1668:
1626:
1422:, the administrator reviewing all the PD-NWS template images).
799:
170:
1402:
was already switched to a Non-Free File (NFF)! Check it out:
948:
924:
532:. Some Chicago-specific climatology could be useful there. ♫
1182:, counting regional, municipal, and international airports.
956:
932:
648:
Option 2: create a new item for lumping everything together
1199:
List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of large cities
1180:
List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of large cities
1415:
1064:
was an intense EF3 tornado affecting the communities of
810:
that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.
1583:
As an additional P.S. note, you mentioned the merge of
1261:
PD-NWS Violations Update #2 (Key To Read Third Section)
1382:
to be valid from an English Knowledge Administrator.
892:
The second option is more elegant. But I'll point to
449:
right now, so feel free to help out. The drafts are:
346:
2024–25 WikiProject Weather Good Article Reassessment
239:
15:
1495:used to be an FA, for example, but was merged into
1431:For example, the photograph used at the top of the
1339:(NOT Third Party), you can upload it using the new
822:
Question about MOS in tornado / weather event ledes
490:
local news stories painting it as a big story still
1409:NFFs can be uploaded to multiple articles as well!
492:. The other two might go into joint articles for
445:I'm working on 3 draft articles centering on the
1845:
590:Fahrenheit degree vs Fahrenheit scale - Wikidata
1404:File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg
1326:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
27:and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
681:CoCoRaHS as a source for precipitation records
1328:(excluding NWS), You can upload it under the
619:Every article needs to be assigned either to
551:July 14–15 outbreaks across Northern Illinois
1489:Tornado outbreak sequence of April 4–7, 2022
695:Template:Wettest tropical cyclones in Hawaii
597:On Wikidata, there is a distinction between
1658:Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael
515:The Naperville seems to have been part of
195:does not require a rating on Knowledge's
1805:I've gone ahead and proposed the merge,
806:There is a requested move discussion at
1444:Category:Non-free pictures of tornadoes
1392:Knowledge's Non-Free Content Guidelines
498:Draft:Tornado outbreak of June 13, 1976
454:Draft:2021 Naperville–Woodridge tornado
1846:
666:, like described in option 1 above. --
521:June 2021 Great Lakes tornado outbreak
1027:2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado
738:) includes it then we can include it.
859:catastrophic and violent EF5 tornado
184:
182:
178:
1363:radar, you can upload it using the
1271:the PD-NWS image copyright template
1129:List of tornadoes striking airports
1086:, affected the communities of . . .
857:On the evening of June 14, 2025, a
387:Windsor Locks, Connecticut, tornado
201:It is of interest to the following
13:
798:
14:
1875:
1686:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado
1507:, the nominator of that article.
1501:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado
1481:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado
716:cited as fair secondary sources.
478:Draft:June 2022 Chicago supercell
255:This page is within the scope of
942:
914:
697:could be increased to 34.37" at
242:
232:
214:
183:
152:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
1695:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado
1611:A merge would be justified per
1553:2020 Nashville tornado outbreak
1367:template via via {{PD-NEXRAD}}.
1346:If the photo originates on the
1343:via {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}}.
1015:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado
1859:NA-importance Weather articles
1854:Project-Class Weather articles
1832:
1827:01:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
1794:22:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1777:22:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1760:22:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1726:22:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1709:22:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1691:1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak
1672:21:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1653:21:44, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1630:21:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1603:21:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1575:21:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1543:21:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1525:21:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1373:What about third-party photos?
1350:, you can upload it using the
1265:I am providing members of the
1113:) 14:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
959:waterway in the past century."
685:Hi all, I'm wondering whether
568:for the individual tornado. ♫
494:Draft:2022 Great Lakes derecho
412:Good article reassessment for
1:
1589:2007 Pacific hurricane season
1497:2007 Pacific hurricane season
1470:01:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
1335:If the photo was made by the
1324:If the photo was made by the
1247:00:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
1231:00:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
1031:2021 Western Kentucky tornado
935:waterway in the past century.
921:2011 Mississippi River floods
316:Knowledge:WikiProject Weather
37:Put new text under old text.
1864:WikiProject Weather articles
1359:If the photo is from a U.S.
1315:How to deal with new photos?
1151:List of California tornadoes
366:15:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
319:Template:WikiProject Weather
7:
1585:Tropical Storm Erick (2007)
1493:Tropical Storm Erick (2007)
1214:23:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1192:23:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1173:23:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1143:23:17, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1123:14:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1045:14:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1003:14:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
988:14:14, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
974:14:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
887:13:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
817:06:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
780:03:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
771:14:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
748:11:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
726:00:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
710:22:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
676:21:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
580:18:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
563:18:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
544:18:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
510:17:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
472:Argonne National Laboratory
436:10:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
45:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
1880:
1561:1953 Waco tornado outbreak
1155:List of Illinois tornadoes
530:List of Illinois tornadoes
88:
1348:Damage Assessment Toolkit
1062:2021 Father's Day tornado
615:Option 1: sort by subject
466:– F4 tornado that struck
464:Draft:1976 Lemont tornado
447:Chicago metropolitan area
441:A few Chicago-area drafts
227:
209:
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
1341:PD-NWS-employee template
1337:National Weather Service
752:I agree with this take.
261:, which collaborates on
1380:discussed and confirmed
1304:precautionary principle
861:affected the cities of
640:should be assigned the
420:2024 Wayanad landslides
414:2024 Wayanad landslides
1267:WikiProject of Weather
1202:examples you gave). ♫
1096:1925 Tri-State tornado
908:
851:on June 14, 2025 . . .
803:
70:avoid personal attacks
1458:it! Have a good day!
900:
802:
775:Makes sense, thanks!
428:~~ AirshipJungleman29
371:Articles under review
146:Auto-archiving period
1769:Weather Event Writer
1718:Weather Event Writer
1645:Weather Event Writer
1595:Weather Event Writer
1567:Weather Event Writer
1535:Weather Event Writer
1462:Weather Event Writer
1437:1997 Jarrell tornado
1084:Father's Day tornado
1055:Some examples below.
1037:Weather Event Writer
837:2025 New Ulm tornado
377:1949 Texas hurricane
1400:2011 Joplin tornado
1023:2011 Joplin tornado
258:WikiProject Weather
25:WikiProject Weather
1433:2013 Moore tornado
1092:Super Tuesday 2020
1076:. It was the . . .
1019:2013 Moore tornado
873:. It was the . . .
828:New Ulm, Minnesota
804:
792:Requested move at
654:degree Fahrenheit
621:degree Fahrenheit
599:degree Fahrenheit
517:a broader outbreak
276:Articles Requested
197:content assessment
81:dispute resolution
42:
1791:
1757:
1706:
1421:
1244:
1211:
1170:
961:
953:Mississippi River
938:
929:Mississippi River
923:were a series of
909:
664:
661:Fahrenheit scale
657:
638:
635:Fahrenheit scale
631:
628:Fahrenheit scale
624:
609:
606:Fahrenheit scale
602:
577:
541:
456:– EF3 tornado in
424:reassessment page
338:
337:
334:
333:
330:
329:
281:Project Resources
177:
176:
61:Assume good faith
38:
1871:
1839:
1836:
1787:
1753:
1702:
1419:
1418:
1332:via {{PD-NOAA}}.
1330:PD-NOAA template
1240:
1207:
1166:
1159:Here is the list
1098:and any and all
946:
945:
940:
918:
917:
911:
899:
815:
764:
737:
662:
655:
642:Fahrenheit scale
636:
629:
622:
607:
600:
573:
537:
474:on June 13, 1976
468:Lemont, Illinois
460:on June 20, 2021
324:
323:
322:Weather articles
320:
317:
314:
252:
247:
246:
236:
229:
228:
218:
211:
210:
188:
187:
186:
179:
171:
157:
156:
147:
108:
101:
16:
1879:
1878:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1837:
1833:
1485:commented there
1477:
1454:
1414:
1389:
1375:
1354:via {{PD-DAT}}.
1352:PD-DAT template
1317:
1290:Template:PD-NWS
1284:
1263:
1131:
960:
943:
936:
915:
824:
811:
797:
763:
753:
731:
699:Volcano, Hawaii
683:
592:
523:? Even the NWS
443:
417:
348:
321:
318:
315:
312:
311:
310:
286:Become a Member
248:
241:
173:
172:
167:
144:
114:
113:
112:
111:
104:
97:
93:
86:
56:
23:for discussing
12:
11:
5:
1877:
1867:
1866:
1861:
1856:
1841:
1840:
1830:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1729:
1728:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1633:
1632:
1606:
1605:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1476:
1473:
1452:Update Closing
1450:
1448:
1447:
1440:
1426:
1423:
1410:
1407:
1396:
1387:
1371:
1369:
1368:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1333:
1313:
1311:
1310:
1307:
1300:
1297:
1293:
1280:
1262:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1223:GeorgeMemulous
1219:
1184:GeorgeMemulous
1135:GeorgeMemulous
1130:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1115:GeorgeMemulous
1107:GeorgeMemulous
1088:
1078:
1056:
1053:
1048:
1047:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
980:GeorgeMemulous
962:
941:
937:
927:affecting the
913:
910:
897:
879:GeorgeMemulous
823:
820:
796:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
759:
718:GeorgeMemulous
691:Hurricane Hone
682:
679:
591:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
555:GeorgeMemulous
502:GeorgeMemulous
488:coverage with
482:
481:
475:
461:
442:
439:
416:
410:
409:
408:
396:
384:
373:
372:
347:
344:
342:
336:
335:
332:
331:
328:
327:
325:
309:
308:
303:
298:
293:
288:
283:
278:
272:
254:
253:
250:Weather portal
237:
225:
224:
219:
207:
206:
200:
189:
175:
174:
165:
163:
162:
159:
158:
116:
115:
110:
109:
102:
94:
89:
87:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1876:
1865:
1862:
1860:
1857:
1855:
1852:
1851:
1849:
1835:
1831:
1829:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1811:Mike Christie
1808:
1795:
1790:
1785:
1784:Hurricanehink
1780:
1779:
1778:
1775:
1771:
1770:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1756:
1751:
1750:Hurricanehink
1747:
1744:
1741:
1737:
1736:WeatherWriter
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1727:
1724:
1720:
1719:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1705:
1700:
1699:Hurricanehink
1696:
1692:
1687:
1673:
1670:
1666:
1665:
1659:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1651:
1647:
1646:
1640:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1631:
1628:
1624:
1623:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1604:
1601:
1597:
1596:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1581:
1576:
1573:
1569:
1568:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1541:
1537:
1536:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1509:Mike Christie
1506:
1505:WeatherWriter
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1472:
1471:
1468:
1464:
1463:
1455:
1453:
1445:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1427:
1424:
1417:
1411:
1408:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1395:
1393:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1381:
1376:
1374:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1344:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1318:
1316:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1283:
1278:
1274:
1272:
1268:
1248:
1243:
1238:
1237:Hurricanehink
1234:
1233:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1210:
1205:
1204:Hurricanehink
1200:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1169:
1164:
1163:Hurricanehink
1160:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1087:
1085:
1079:
1077:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1057:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1011:
1004:
1000:
996:
991:
990:
989:
985:
981:
977:
976:
975:
971:
967:
963:
958:
954:
950:
939:
934:
930:
926:
922:
912:
907:
905:
898:
895:
894:MOS:AVOIDBOLD
891:
890:
889:
888:
884:
880:
875:
874:
872:
868:
864:
860:
853:
852:
850:
846:
842:
838:
831:
829:
819:
818:
814:
813:Safari Scribe
809:
801:
795:
781:
778:
774:
773:
772:
768:
762:
758:
757:
751:
750:
749:
745:
741:
735:
729:
728:
727:
723:
719:
714:
713:
712:
711:
708:
704:
703:CoCoRaHS data
700:
696:
692:
688:
678:
677:
673:
669:
665:
658:
650:
649:
645:
643:
639:
632:
625:
617:
616:
612:
610:
603:
595:
581:
576:
571:
570:Hurricanehink
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
552:
547:
546:
545:
540:
535:
534:Hurricanehink
531:
526:
522:
518:
514:
513:
512:
511:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
479:
476:
473:
469:
465:
462:
459:
455:
452:
451:
450:
448:
438:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
415:
406:
405:
400:
397:
394:
393:
388:
385:
382:
378:
375:
374:
370:
369:
368:
367:
364:
360:
359:
354:
343:
340:
326:
307:
304:
302:
299:
297:
294:
292:
289:
287:
284:
282:
279:
277:
274:
273:
271:for details.
270:
266:
265:
260:
259:
251:
245:
240:
238:
235:
231:
230:
226:
223:
220:
217:
213:
212:
208:
204:
198:
194:
190:
181:
180:
161:
160:
155:
151:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
124:
122:
118:
117:
107:
103:
100:
96:
95:
92:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1834:
1804:
1766:
1742:
1715:
1682:
1663:
1642:
1621:
1592:
1564:
1556:
1548:
1532:
1483:at FAC, and
1478:
1459:
1456:
1451:
1449:
1428:
1420:(not pinged)
1386:
1377:
1372:
1370:
1319:
1314:
1312:
1282:What is new?
1281:
1279:
1275:
1264:
1132:
1083:
1081:
1061:
1059:
1034:
1021:or like the
920:
903:
901:
876:
858:
856:
854:
836:
834:
832:
825:
805:
760:
754:
684:
663:(Q105525247)
651:
647:
646:
637:(Q105525247)
630:(Q105525247)
618:
614:
613:
608:(Q105525247)
596:
593:
483:
444:
418:
402:
390:
357:
349:
341:
339:
291:Project Talk
290:
269:project page
262:
256:
203:WikiProjects
193:project page
192:
149:
119:
19:This is the
1613:WP:SIZERULE
1557:the tornado
1479:I reviewed
1288:The entire
863:Springfield
841:Springfield
777:Jokullmusic
707:Jokullmusic
644:redirect.)
1848:Categories
1774:Talk Page)
1723:Talk Page)
1650:Talk Page)
1617:WP:OVERLAP
1600:Talk Page)
1572:Talk Page)
1540:Talk Page)
1467:Talk Page)
1080:(Style 2)
1066:Naperville
1058:(Style 1)
1052:coverage).
1042:Talk Page)
995:Penitentes
966:Penitentes
951:along the
855:(Style 2)
833:(Style 1)
740:Jason Rees
734:Thegreatdr
486:WP:LASTING
458:Naperville
399:Wind shear
296:Assessment
99:WT:WEATHER
1416:Rlandmann
1365:PD-NEXRAD
1296:template.
1103:outbreaks
1070:Woodridge
871:Minnesota
849:Minnesota
701:based on
525:treats it
91:Shortcuts
83:if needed
66:Be polite
21:talk page
1819:contribs
1746:contribs
1693:and the
1517:contribs
1074:Illinois
761:(he/him)
687:CoCoRaHS
656:(Q42289)
623:(Q42289)
601:(Q42289)
470:and the
121:Archives
51:get help
1838:example
1823:library
1521:library
867:New Ulm
845:New Ulm
756:DJ Cane
668:Tengwar
313:Weather
301:A-Class
264:weather
222:Weather
150:30Â days
106:WT:WPWX
1639:WP:IAR
1549:“main”
1361:NEXRAD
949:floods
947:Major
925:floods
381:review
306:Alerts
199:scale.
1587:into
1100:super
191:This
79:Seek
1815:talk
1807:here
1789:talk
1767:The
1755:talk
1740:talk
1716:The
1704:talk
1669:BSBA
1664:Noah
1643:The
1627:BSBA
1622:Noah
1615:and
1593:The
1565:The
1533:The
1513:talk
1460:The
1242:talk
1227:talk
1209:talk
1188:talk
1168:talk
1139:talk
1119:talk
1111:talk
1068:and
1060:The
1035:The
999:talk
984:talk
970:talk
957:U.S.
933:U.S.
919:The
883:talk
865:and
843:and
835:The
767:Talk
744:talk
722:talk
672:talk
659:and
604:and
575:talk
559:talk
539:talk
506:talk
496:and
432:talk
358:Noah
68:and
1821:-
1792:)
1758:)
1707:)
1519:-
1388:KEY
1245:)
1212:)
1171:)
1153:or
693:at
626:or
578:)
542:)
404:GAR
392:GAR
1850::
1825:)
1817:-
1667:,
1625:,
1523:)
1515:-
1273:.
1229:)
1190:)
1141:)
1121:)
1105:.
1072:,
1029:,
1017:/
1001:)
986:)
972:)
964:—
885:)
869:,
847:,
769:)
746:)
724:)
674:)
561:)
553:.
508:)
434:)
363:AA
361:,
355:.
148::
140:,
136:,
132:,
128:,
49:;
1813:(
1786:(
1772:(
1752:(
1743:·
1738:(
1721:(
1701:(
1648:(
1598:(
1570:(
1538:(
1511:(
1465:(
1446:.
1394:!
1306:.
1239:(
1225:(
1206:(
1186:(
1165:(
1137:(
1117:(
1109:(
1040:(
997:(
982:(
968:(
906:.
881:(
765:(
742:(
736::
732:@
720:(
670:(
572:(
557:(
536:(
504:(
430:(
407:)
401:(
395:)
389:(
383:)
379:(
205::
142:5
138:4
134:3
130:2
126:1
123::
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
