Talk:Misocyclone

Redirect or article?
Hi, Arjayay, what's your rationale for keeping this as a redirect instead of allowing it to develop into an article? The term appears to be in use in the academic literature. –Pelagic (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)


 * John B123, would you care to discuss? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 10:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * The rationale is that the article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY. As you have restored the article, per WP:BURDEN, the onus is on you to add citations to verify the article. Would add that per WP:BRD, the article should be restored to the version prior to the reversions, ie the redirect, whilst it is discussed. Regards. --John B123 (talk) 11:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Restored as redirect until proper sourcing which meets WP:GNG and WP:VERIFY is provided. I have no issue with the article being created, but it has to meet those guidelines.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * My concern is giving new editors the time to develop the content and add supporting references, and not chasing them away. I understand that Wikipedia has matured and we need to exercise quality control, I found this whilst patrolling Recent Changes!
 * @John B123, thanks for replying. Fujita's paper appears reputable, and defines the term misocyclone, so it is sufficient to WP:VERIFY that the definition in our article matches his. Of course, in-line citations are more desirable: we have maintenance tags for that.
 * @Onel5969, GNG is another issue. That's why I asked Otakar.salaj Did Fujita coin the term? And if so, is there another source that discusses that? Unfortunately there isn't an answer yet, but I subsequently did a quick WP:BEFORE check and saw that the term is in use as I indicated in my first post above. (Yes, I know BEFORE applies to a specific process, AFD, but I see some parallels.)  Now that notability is being disputed, I will open another section below.  No point writing content if the topic is actually non-notable.
 * . ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In-line citations are a requirement of WP:VERIFY not just "desirable": ... it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution I don't disagree with your comments about developing articles, but the starting point needs to meet the minimum standards, verifiability is one of the 3 core content policies. Fujita's paper (full text) is a 1981 proposal for the use of various scales. The article would need further sources to show that the scientific community has accepted Fujita's proposals. --John B123 (talk) 07:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Notability
Please add items to the References section if relevant.

Discussion
⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 16:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Since sourcing is key, I've placed those above the discussion  ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Argh, nevermind. Seems like list-defined-references don't like that, and I can’t be bothered fighting with the software for a workaround. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:Evolauxia created this redirect back in 2016 with the summary these terms aren't equivalent and phenomenon merits its own article but for now this is best redirect although there are other forms such as waterspout. So although not templated as such, I would consider this a "redirect with possibilities". ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * AMS lists the term in their glossary (citing Fujita ). Is inclusion in a professional society's official glossary sufficient for notability, or do we need more? (Note, this is about notability, not citations for factual statements, which are a separate concern.) ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 00:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "Misocyclone tornado" is being taught as a "type 2 tornado" in this university course ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 02:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Please, can we now let the page "Misocyclone" develop into an article, with the Dr. Fujita's reference included? Let's let it be and call it a draft. I think that we can work it out. But that redirect to "Landspout" is just horrible. If I could unsee it I will do it. It's as I said, like referring to the entire biological group of cats (Felidae) as "Siberian tigers" or "Leopards", "Cheetahs" and so on. Better would be a redirect to "Vortex" and writing a specific part of this page. For example "Atmospheric vortices". And in this section of the "Vortex" article, there would be all of the sizes of a cyclonic atmospheric vortices. Mosocyclone (smaller than 40 meters), Misocyclone (40 - 4 000 meters), Mesocyclone (4 - 100 kilometers) and, finally, Masocyclone (> 100 or sometimes > 400 kilometers)
 * Otakar, what the hell? Please sign your own name to your posts, not mine! I think you might have to work up this article in your sandbox, or as Draft:Misocyclone, and copy it across when it's more developed, rather than writing it in-place. Unless you can manage to get sufficient references in a one-hit edit. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 14:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)