Draft:List of weather events considered the most significant[edit]
Hi WeatherWriter, I really think you need to look again at this draft as it just seems very subjective and something that doesn't really belong on Wikipedia in its current form. For example, in this edit summary you think 2023 is complete but yet you have failed to include the costliest tropical cyclone on record in the Southern Hemisphere. I also believe that Cyclones Freddy, Judy, Kevin, Storm Daniel as well as a whole load of other weather events that would meet your very subjective criteria of four yearly-based assessments if you did more digging. I feel that you’re onto something by identifying the important weather events each year, which probably belong in something like Weather of 1999, which will need to get created eventually.Jason Rees (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said 2023 was "complete", that was actually because I did a lot of digging. I found a total of 7 yearly-based assessments. I cited six of them (visually looking at the seventh one) before calling it "complete". It obviously isn't complete, since I could have missed a study. The key is Wikipedia is always needing work done. Out of those 7 assessments (one even from the UN), only six events were mentioned by four of them. Sure, Storm Daniel seems notable (and it is), but the yearly assessments I found in 3 pages of Google searches only had 7 actual non-self published assessments. That "complete" note was more for me so I could move onto other years/other assessments and not spend over a week on just 2023. The list is no where close to being published, but I want to get other years started/completed before I circle back to the more recent years. Also, it is modeled off of List of photographs considered the most important, which also uses the same basic idea. On that articles talk page, they are having a discussion about whether to set the criteria at one, two, or three surveys. So far for the weather list draft, the current criteria is one all-time assessment (someone looking all throughout history/multi-decade), two decade-based assessments (like "Top 10 events in the 2010s") or to cover the more recent years in the 21st century, four-separate RS-based yearly-assessments.
Like I said, it isn't actually "complete", just more of a note that I am moving onto 2022 or other years/other decade/all time assessments and not spending more time at the moment on 2023. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)21:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point wasn't about it being complete since as you say Wikipedia will always need work to make it more complete, but more about it potentially failing an AFD because it potentially fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTCRIT. This is because there will be lots of weather events that will pass your very subjective criteria regardless of if you set the bar very high at 10-separate RS-based yearly-assessments, especially when you consider that reviews of the year gone by are good filler for newspapers over the holiday season.Jason Rees (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree that it possibly fails INDISCRIMINATE, since the criteria would be clear. Also, with regard to LISTCRIT, I would this part of it is the key: In cases where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed, it is especially important that inclusion be based on reliable sources given with inline citations for each item. Instead of setting an arbitrary value of "four", it could be "several", with talk page discussions related to additional items or something like that. I think the list overall would be a good idea since the basic idea is a list, based on reliable sources, which events are cited the most for being the most important/notable/signficiant/deadly, ect... I would say even more important, the sources (the current 5 for 2023), aren't just a list with no info. The sources actually explain why each event is notable. For instance, only one of the seven mentioned Cyclone Mocha was one of the top events of the year. That said, five of the seven mentioned the 2023 Canadian wildfires as being a top event of the year.
I do see what you mean though. Just a thought: Based on what you said of like the yearly weather of year articles (like Weather of 2023), instead of a stand-alone list, would you think a section for the most significant events of the year in each of the "Weather of YYYY" articles would be better?
I really wanted to do the list (stand-alone) since there is a very similar article for photographs (and weather is a highly talked about/photographed thing). But if doing yearly sections would be better than a stand-alone list, I will take that into consideration. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)00:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be anything that makes this grouping of tornadoes special, that they are also (among other means) observed by mobile radar is not a defining characteristic, and is in many cases sourced to the most basic sources (twitter/X, primary sources like NOAA).
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Hi. Another editor already removed the information you added to this article; they considered it a BLP violation and I agree with them. Please be much more careful with BLP information, and more discerning regarding sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, now I really am confused. Looking back, I edited the article two times on January 3, 2024. My first edit (still exists), was reverted by an IP-address user who reverted that addition as their very first edit on Wikipedia. My reversion to restore the material is what was removed and what I presume this is regarding? Due to the mass removal, I am not even sure when it was removed, but the first large removal seemed to be April 23, 2024.
So yeah, I sort of want an explanation for this accusation, since as far as I can tell, an edit I made (which still exists in the article history) back on January 3, 2024 was not reverted until late-April 2024 (meaning it had silent consensus), and I get an alert over six months later that you agreed with the IP user and then you remove only one of the two additions of the information from the article history? Honestly, without some timeline and overall clarifications, I am just going to disregard this entire alert. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)03:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding it would be foolish. You added some incident based on what appears to be a social media shaming site, which identified someone and mentioned the school they graduated from. You had a second source--a tweet, now apparently deleted. Those are not valid sources for a BLP, and the alleged assailant shouldn't have been identified in this way. But thank you for pointing out that you had already inserted that material: I revdeleted your first edit as well. The IP was correct. Drmies (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the reply and additional explanation. I won’t fully disregard this. However, it does seem odd that this is the first time I’m hearing about this in over six months. Like, really odd. I don’t feel the need to escalate this, but to me, it feels somewhat like administration overreach. What went overall unchanged for months was just suddenly deleted and 100% removed from the article history, with 0 talk page discussions or alerts for over half a year. Something honestly just doesn’t feel right, but whatever. I don’t edit that article anyway. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)13:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the first time: this was the first--which you undid without a by your leave. So you were alerted but chose not to address the problem. This was the second, though you weren't technically alerted to it. Both edit summaries were valid. No, it's not odd for something to go unnoticed for a while. Removing BLP violations by revdeletion is something we admins do routinely. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado and Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
; see Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado for comments about the article, and Talk:2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
