User talk:WeatherWriter/Archive 7

Your GA nomination of Battle of Kherson
The article Battle of Kherson you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Battle of Kherson for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Amitchell125 -- Amitchell125 (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Your edit on 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel
Hello, you recently added an edit where you made a claim that 3 Jordanians were killed, with a citation by twitter accout "Visegrád 24". However, on the article for that account, it says that they post misinformation about the Israel-Hamas war, and thus it is not a reliable or good source to use and that claim has no source to back it up. Please remove it as I have already done so once. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no discussion about their reliability. They have also been cited by reliable sources such as the Times of Israel and CNBC (per their Wikipedia article even). Please open an RSN to determine their reliability status. I will not be removing it as there is enough in their Wikipedia article to where one can justify the potential for them being a reliable source. Also see this NBC News article for further info on that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While you may be right, Twitter should not be used in this case as a source as it is, so I think you should wait until a reliable non-social media source makes the claim. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To note, social media sources are sometimes used and considered reliable sources. Example is BNO News, which is a Wikipedia reliable source that is 95% social media based. So again, without a RSN to determine reliability, usage by other RS is a decent indication it may be a "generally reliable" source, which doesn't require it to be perfectly reliable 100% of the time. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that your edit has now been reverted twice, what is your purpose in adding it a third time? Why are you so dead-set on having this in the article? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a source used by others & has not been deemed unreliable on Wikipedia. That simple. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 🙂 Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a tweet, it's a tweet making an exceptional claim and it's all that and more from an outlet Wikipedia defines as a nogoodnik. Not looking good. Plus, it makes the Jordanian Air Force look negligent; err on the side of not pissing off an air force, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
Hello. I have noticed that you edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Stefen Towers among the rest!  Gab • Gruntwerk 06:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If you're changing a stat and removing a citation, like in 1974 Super Outbreak, it's not self-explanatory -- it needs an edit summary for other editors to fully understand the change. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 06:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not leaving an edit summary. The tornado project reference was outdated as the book was more recent. The book says the updated total. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Al-Maghazi UNRWA school airstrike 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. BilledMammal (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikisource
I'm considering writing a sort article for the Signpost about contributing to (English) Wikisource, which I've been doing on and off since this January. Since you're another Wikipedian who recently joined that project, I wondered if you would like to say a few words about your experiences getting started on Wikisource (learning curve, pros, cons, anything really). No worries if you don't want to. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, I would love to!


 * Getting started on Wikisource was so much different than getting started on any other Wikimedia project. Actually, I struggled to even really learn how to get started. Unlike Wikipedia, there was no “learn to edit” style of buttons to click. They just have a “Help” button, which then takes you to a very short beginners guide. In terms of getting started, it probably has one of the worst layouts for new editors of any project. After that, I discovered you actually need gadgets on, especially for new editors. Every pages has a “header” for basic information. However, only going into your preferences and turning on specific gadgets allow it to be automatically generated. So my first ever page was actually a weird copy/paste from an existing page, rather than a guided creation. Besides getting started, the process is fairly simple and it actually easier than creating English Wikipedia articles. As an editor who contributes almost entirely into weather-related articles, it is a huge perk to be able to have Wikisource articles. For any U.S.-weather event, the primary source is always the United States government, specifically the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Since everything U.S. government publishes is in the public domain, it can also be added to Wikisource. So now, weather-related articles can have links for readers to a Wikisource-version of the primary U.S. government sources for tornadoes, hurricanes, winter storms, floods, ect…
 * To conclude, Wikisource is a major perk for weather-related articles on Wikipedia and I would love for every editor on weather-related articles to use it, but honestly, the guide to newcomers needs a major revamp (maybe similar to have Wikimedia Commons’ newcomer process works) before I would personally sent a new editor there. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hope that works! If you have any other questions for me, let me know! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

CT Eastern Europe or the Balkans
You have recently made edits related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans. This is a standard message to inform you that Eastern Europe or the Balkans is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. TylerBurden (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of The People’s University for Palestine


Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, the introduction of inappropriate pages, such as The People’s University for Palestine, is considered vandalism and is prohibited. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Josethewikier (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And contested. Lol. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Confused About Current Criteria Status
Hey sorry I haven't participated in the discussion as much, I got bogged down with work and life stuff. So anyway, I'm a bit confused about what the current status is for EF2 tornadoes that don't hurt anyone. Are we just doing the "soft" case-by-case approach where we just discuss it when it happens, and reach a consensus for each individual instance? The discussion has become so long-winded and convoluted I can't really make heads or tails of where things currently stand. Can you give me a "dumbed down" summary of what the current agreement is when it comes to no-injury EF2s? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * 5+ EF2s for inclusion and then when an editor feels an EF0/EF1/EF2 was “high impact”. High impact can be included by anyone, and then once challenged, it discussed on the talk page.
 * That is the “dumbed down” version of it. The formal RFC to add both of those to the criteria is ongoing right now, but so far, everyone (so far 8 editors) seems to be in support of both of them with no opposition. If all goes well, May 23, those will be formal criteria to use on articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for the info! That all sounds good to me.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Re: FAC
Hi there WeatherWriter, I'm glad to be of assistance in helping you get a featured article.


 * Immediately, I notice that the lead is too short.
 * You say in the lead that Thomas P. Grazulis was a tornado expert, but you don't say his relationship to the information here. When did he assess these F ratings? In addition, the article reads as if it was told by Grazulis, since that's the first thing that I read after the lead. I would expect a section on meteorological synopsis.
 * There is 0 meteorological synopsis history on the event as far as I am aware (none from the U.S. Weather Bureau, NOAA, or Grazulis). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "That said, the National Weather Service (NWS) office in Birmingham, Alabama, published a list of tornadoes, which occurred in Alabama, during 1945." - is that true? The website most certainly wasn't in 1945.
 * The NWS website cited there, which exists in at least 2023/2024, does state those ratings for tornadoes in 1945. I do not know how else to phrase that, so any guidance on phrasing how the NWS (sometime since the Internet has existed) rated those tornadoes back in 1945 on the Fujita scale would be helpful. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Why is there a sub-section for February 12 event, when all of the events were on the same day?
 * Standard process for tornado articles. We do that in modern-day events as well (Tornado outbreak of March 13–15, 2024 is an example). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The article is formatted like a list, but it's abstract in how it talks about some of the lesser significant events. Like, you say "The tornado started", "This brief intense tornado struck a cluster", and "The tornado destroyed". I'm being nitpicky here, but you came to me for my advice, and one of my main rules for writing is avoid using the passive voice. You used phrases like "A home was leveled", by what? If you want some variation to saying tornado, you could always say "twister". But you should least say something like "The tornado" did something
 * I will take a look at the article and see how to remove some of that passive voice. You are right though, I did use a lot of it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * " The U.S. Weather Bureau documented that this long-track tornado killed 40 people and injured 200 others." - did the tornado kill 40 or 11?
 * They said 40 in a formal publication, then months later, said 11. That phrase is because the original official publication said that. Same idea as when NHC said Ian was Cat 4, then months later, Cat 5. The difference in this case though, is that the "40" was not preliminary, but the actual official release, which was later formally changed months later. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There should be a source at the bottom of the table for all of the events. Otherwise, where is the source for all of the tornado widths, F ratings, all that.
 * Just a question, do the sources for the summaries not count as that as the sources citing the tornado summaries are the sources for widths/deaths, ect...? I can certainly do that if you think it would be beneficial, but I am not sure if that would be considered overlinking to others. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Are you sure about the number of railroad cars derailed? I came across this source after a quick Google search.
 * Wow, you just found a source discrepancy! Grazulis was the source for the number of train cars derailed, but that newspaper article says differently. I will add that information to the article tomorrow and note the difference in sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Speaking of sources, are you sure you've gotten as many sources as possible, and used as much useful information? As I noted earlier, there wasn't a meteorological synopsis.
 * See note earlier about that.


 * "5 miles (8.0 km) " - why do you have 8.0? Your other usage of km doesn't have the .0
 * I actually have no idea and I have no idea how to fix that. It straight up is " 5 mi . Template being weird? Honestly, not sure. If you know how to fix that, please let me know. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "The tornado started 5 miles (8.0 km) southwest of Montgomery, Alabama and moved northeast, towards Montgomery where it would brush the western edge." - that's three references to the cardinal direction. Maybe split it up a bit and add the time of day here? Also, the material you have in the second paragraph seems more appropriate for the first paragraph, like the length of the tornado path, and width.
 * Paragraph split was done by a GA reviewer last year when the article was up for GA. I would probably want someone else to mention the paragraph splitting before changing it, only due to the fact it was split to get to GA status. The cardinal direction thing though seems odd now that I think about it. Also there isn't a time of day listed. One thing I can say is this is a tornado from 1945 and the information about it is no where close to what NWS or NHC would produce in 2024 for tornadoes/tropical depressions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "The tornado leveled two government or U.S. army warehouses." - that seems a bit odd to be the second thing you mention in the section. I would think the first paragraph would be a summary, before getting into the impacts.
 * GA-reviewer split for that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "were ripped and tossed about like match boxes" - who said this? You have a random quote in there without attributing it.
 * There is a citation immediately following the quote. I can add who stated the quote though (Associated Press with no direct author name), however, I am unsure the best way to state it. Maybe this?
 * "A freight train was also struck, where, according to the Dothan Eagle and Associated Press, 50 cars "were ripped and tossed about like match boxes".[3]"
 * Any thoughts about the wording for it before I add it to the article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * For all of the fatalities in Montgomery, you don't really go into much detail about any of them. Were they all in people's houses?
 * The info about the fatalities was in this part: After hitting Montgomery, the tornado struck Chisholm, Alabama, where it caused catastrophic damage. Thirty homes were completely swept away in Chisholm. All the fatalities from this tornado occurred in 15 homes within a 20-block radius. That is all the information about those exact deaths as well from Grazulis, U.S. Weather Bureau, and Rich Thomas.


 * You describe the tornado as "devastating" twice in the lead, but don't provide much context. Are tornadoes are in Alabama? Had Montgomery ever been hit by a tornado? Was this event the deadliest in its history?
 * I see a lot here that could be potentially useful. Rich Thomas, the author, is also cited below, and in this random source
 * This site says Montgomery County tornado deaths are rare, and that this event was indeed Montgomery County's deadliest, as well as other deadly events since then.
 * Added! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

So that's a lot right off the bat. I wonder if the FAC was perhaps a bit premature, but I don't want to tell you what not to do. Let me know if you have questions. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 07:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * some information has been added based on your comments! I really thank you so much for the comments and I know you were being nit-picky on purpose. FAC's involve the nit-picky details. Hopefully I was able to explain some of them and I also left a few questions. Since your comment was more in a bullet-list format, I hope you don't mind that I replied individually to them under the bullet point. I really do thank you for the comments. One other thing: Would you care if I leave a transclude-link to this talk page discussion over on the FAC page? Before your reply, someone else had already commented on the FAC page, so trancluding this discussion over there would probably be useful. But, I wanted to ask before just doing it. Again, thank you for the comments and maybe (just maybe) I can get it to FA-status. (fingers crossed). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 16:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Please Don't Add This Photo To Sulphur
The photo that keeps getting added to the Sulphur section is NOT a confirmed photo of the Sulphur tornado. There actually isn't a single source saying it is from Sulphur, so I don't know where people are getting the idea that it is. The one you posted claims it was taken near the town of Byng, Oklahoma, and yet I found two more instances of the pic posted that same night, claiming to be from Ardmore, Oklahoma (shared below). If it was taken near Byng though, it would mean it is more likely a photo of the Holdenville EF3, as that town is closer to Byng than Sulphur. In any case, this all way too speculative for Wikipedia and we have no way of knowing where this photo was actually taken, and we shouldn't be having this issue to begin with, because we aren't supposed to pull random pics from social media that we cannot 100% verify. We can't just guess and hope we get it right, so stick with pics from the DAT or the NWS. We are going to get misattributed photos and false info published if we aren't more careful. Now if we find proof that this photo is from Sulphur, we can add it back, but for now it is a random unverifiable photo from social media that shouldn't have been added in the first place.

PROOF: 1.) https://twitter.com/dylantbrown/status/1784433337823621608 2.)https://twitter.com/JeffreyMHough1/status/1784555615013990792 3.)https://twitter.com/NeckerZak/status/1784421774563631487

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * Well can you speedy deletion request it then? Non-free media guidelines mean the image must be used on an article. Also you are right that it isn't the confirmed EF3 photo, as SW of Byng (per RS media/NWS surveys) had an EF1 and the EF3. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure I'll take care of it now.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Orphaned non-free image File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:2024 Sulphur tornado photograph.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization
You withdrew your RM (requested move) at Talk:List of tornado outbreaks by outbreak intensity score, but then you keep capping it. I've undone that. Let's discuss more if you don't see how MOS:CAPS applies here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

And for a topic that's not yet likely to pass WP:Notability, you're sure playing it up. Dicklyon (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine, I promise to drop the issue. I will say that my respect for you plummeted as, to me, you are ignoring sources (and even removing one that disagreed with your capitalization). However, I am tired of fighting it. You win. Sources do not determine what is or is not capitalized. Wikipedia does by interpreting the English language. Either way, you win and I will not edit war to capitalize it nor will I start a discussion over it. I am dropping the stick and backing away from that issue. With that being said, I feel this is warranted as I want to part ways fully: Respectfully, stop fucking contribution watching me. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not watching your contribs, just following up on WP:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations. You can see that most of my edits are just that, over many topic areas. And your impression that "Sources do not determine what is or is not capitalized. Wikipedia does by interpreting the English language" is contrary to what MOS:CAPS specifies. Dicklyon (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And how did “Outbreak Intensity Score” get listed on that database as a supposed “miscapitalization”? Did you add it there? Also on my statement, I stand by it as you are ignoring RS and saying RS does not determine it. I’m done fighting, but my statement stands as it, per your own remarks. You do not truly believe in MOS:CAPS based on your statements. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Eh, forget it. Debate and discussion over anyway. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Barnstar(s) for you!
Also to add a note on the Jarrell deletion discussion, everything that was mentioned under reasoning has been fixed and rewrote. Feel free to delete this portion of the message if you'd like :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

FAC
Hey there, I just wanted to remind you about the FAC you asked me to help with ;) ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 17:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, thank you so much for reminding me. I 100% had forgotten about it. I went ahead and replied to the few newer comments you added on May 5th. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You work so hard on your edits and I'm sure that you have made a change to the knowledge widely available by the public. <3 /plat

.allthefauna (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC) 

Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1960–1969)
Hi WeatherWriter, I see you started Draft:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (1960–1969) in September 2022, and last made some very minor edits in September 2023. As a Brit, this is not a subject I know anything about, but is there any reason this has not, or should not, be published? Best wishes - Arjayay (talk) 10:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The format parameter in citation templates
The  parameter in citation templates such as cite web refer to the File format of the work referred to by url; for example: DOC or XLS; displayed in parentheses after title. They are not meant to encode information about the type of medium like a press release (e.g., your edit here). Use the  (or  ) parameter for that information. &mdash; TheAustinMan (Talk ⬩ Edits) 16:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that info. Sadly, "Type" or "Medium" doesn't even show up in the webcite template format, which is stupidly weird. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Primary source inline" template at 2024 in climate change
I've noticed your additions of the "Primary source inline" template in 2024 in climate change. Your explanation is that links to original studies "acts more as a self-published sources, not a secondary reliable source."

However, in cases of scientific studies, it's actually best to link directly to the study as a primary source rather than depend on a secondary source's interpretation; see WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. This is why I think your primary/secondary distinction is misplaced. If, on the other hand, your actual concern is about the reliability of the source or study--that's why I try to always state the source in article text, to place the source in context.

Can you reconsider those templates? Thanks. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying remove the sources, but add a secondary source. Linking to primary sources is perfectly acceptable, but the articles quality would be improved by adding an additional secondary source. Basically something to show the primary source topic is actually notable enough for the article. On various weather articles, there has been discussions on what is/is not primary sources and to me, something like the WMO quote, which is the entire section, is sourced entirely by WMO. Basically, the tags are for adding/finding additional sources, not removing the primary source. Hopefully that explains why I added the templates. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Basically instead of (CONTENT)[1], with [1] being the primary source, it should be (CONTENT)[1][2], with [1] being the current/primary/self-published sources and [2] being a secondary source to back up the primary source. That is why the "non-primary source needed" templates were added. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, we don't need to prove something is notable/important/reliable in the content itself, or the footnote itself. But in cases in which there may be some question, I'll give it a whirl. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Actually, we sort of do. Per WP:SPS, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources (bolding my doing). Even if it is from a well regarded expert or expert organization, if the study in question is notable, someone is bound to talk about it in a secondary reliable source. I would say after a month after primary source publication, if a secondary reliable source isn't found, then I would honestly remove it as being not-notable for the content in the article, especially since all of the things I tag do fall under SPS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In the "Climate change in 20xx" articles, almost all the entries I've made have been discovered by reading general news sources that quote scientific journals that they link. I source the content to the scientific articles, of course, since they're the ultimate source. It shouldn't be difficult to find the articles that pointed me to the (primary) scientific articles. I think it's largely an unnecessary extra step in almost all cases, but if you point out specific items of concern to you, I intend to look into them; so far, there have been only two. — RCraig09 (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think it is unnecessary, then that is fine. Personally, if I was reviewing 2024 in climate change for a GAN or FAC, the four things I tagged would be places I would have issues with. I believe you that you find the scientific articles via news sources. Like I said, I am not saying you should stop that. But if it is a primary/self-published case study/report, you should cite the case study/report as well as at least one news article. I will give a specific example from the 2024 article below:
 * 2024 in climate change – "19 March: "The climate crisis is the defining challenge that humanity faces." —Prof. Celeste Saulo, Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization, in State of the Climate 2023.
 * Why is Celeste Saulo notable? Why is that quote notable for climate change in 2024? Who said it is a summary of climate change in 2024? It may seem dumb/too technical, but that is why that second clause WP:SPS (bolded above) exists. Right now, that section is a quote from WMO about climate change, sourced by WMO. I.e., WMO quote sourced by WMO. That is the exact same thing as taking a quote from Greta Thunberg and citing only the tweet posted by Thunberg. No context, no reasoning, no actual evidence to support why that is notable. That is what I mean.
 * Look at the first point in the "2024 in climate change" section. 5 February: a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences proposed adding a "Category 6" to the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale to adequately convey storms' risk to the public, the researchers noting a number of storms have already achieved that intensity.
 * That wikilinks to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, which explains that it is a peer-reviewed journal, meaning not published by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of Wisconsin–Madison, which are the author affiliates. The WMO quote is published by WMO. No citation says why that is notable for the article or why that statement matters. A wikipedia editor just saying it matters/adding it with only a source from the quoter is borderline original research. That is why secondary sources are needed for primary/self-published sources.
 * To add on to that, a better example is the May 8 point by Ember. Why is Embers report important? If the answer is "Well it related to climate change", then that is original research. A secondary source is needed to say why it is important. Hopefully that explains my full reasoning on why the templates were added. Personally, as it stands now, I would delete all four of those points as no supporting evidence says they (they being the specific reports/case studies) are important to climate change in 2024, except the self-publishing organizations themselves. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * brief summary which should solve all questions if I interpret it correctly: You stated, "almost all the entries I've made have been discovered by reading general news sources that quote scientific journals that they link." If that is true, then someone else says that the report is important; "someone else" being whatever general news source you found mentioning it. All I am asking is that if it is a self-published source, meaning if the author affiliation is the same as the website and/or publisher, then also tag along the news source citation. If it is from a peer-reviewed journal, no additional sources is needed. I think that summarizes all the points into a neat "too-long, didn't read" format. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wowzerz! I appreciate the concerns. But the "20xx in climate change" series merely documents what was happening, or what was published, in a certain year. The quotes in question, and the sources in question, are not offered for the truth of their findings or to claim they're particularly important, but to document what was said and claimed, and when. I've been careful to place the quotes and findings in context by clearly stating the source in narrative text, in keeping with the general approach to alert readers when something is self-published. Those who follow climate science know the noteworthiness of each paragraph; almost all the entries I've made are the result of news articles published the same day or the very day after the technical article being linked. — RCraig09 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep! Like I said, the easiest way to solve any concerns is to cite the scientific article and tag along whatever the news article is. Having two citations at the end of an entry is not a bad thing. Doing that alone solves every concern I have had regarding the “self-published/primary sources”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just did one example of what I mean. Take a look at 2024 in climate change. The WMO statement is sourced by WMO as well as The Weather Channel. The second source I added is a secondary reliable source that is not affiliated with the author/person making that statement. That is all I mean. That section now is solved and good and there is no further concerns with it. That is all I mean. If you find a scientific article via a news source, just add the news source as a citation as well. That way, it is clear and obvious to other editors why X report is important. Hopefully that clears up what I was mentioning you should do going forward. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

1997 Jarrell tornado image
Please IGNORE the | discussion linked here that I started because I did not know this at the time; but I started a discussion on the wrong file. Please direct any comments on the dead man walking tornado to the actual deletion discussion. And also, please ignore my struck out comments on that discussion. Apparently I didn’t know until just now that there were TWO pictures taken in the exact same spot, by the exact same person, and presumably by the exact same camera. Just at different times. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Follow up question: as per @MemeGod27’s request for someone more experienced. I am asking you on his/her behalf. Would an ArcGIS StoryMap produced by the National Weather Service be sufficient public domain rationale? Especially if it is directly linked from a .gov url as an event summary produced by the National Weather Service? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The website of the source is https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/05696a8e01bc4e91a0a941290a62e86d by the way. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thumbnail for Poison.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Thumbnail for Poison.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I have a somewhat abandoned draft article you can help me with.
I invite you and anyone else who wants to to edit Draft:list of particularly dangerous situation watches. It seems as if that article has sorta been forgotten about. We’ve only gotten down to 2020 (for completely listed) and if I recall, the entries only go back to 2019. There’s still a lot more in IEM archives. Your help at expanding the list to mainspace ready format would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @WeatherWriter, please see the article talk page for more information. Don’t reply here. Thank you. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Do not disregard consensus to not use video thumbnails in infoboxes
In case you had forgotten, there was a deletion discussion at regarding using Hazbin Hotel video thumbnails as cover artworks in which the consensus was to not use them as cover artworks. You even acknowledged the consensus and restored the thumbnail over an actual Spotify cover artwork of a remix. It does not matter if you use image=, which is an alias of cover=, or that other editors restored the image to the infobox on the other articles—since you have these articles watchlisted and you know consensus disapproves, you should have reverted the editors doing so and pointed them to the consensus. as an admin involved in that discussion.  Ss  112   03:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In reply to this, as I already said, WeatherWriter, you acknowledged the consensus and still decided to replace the cover with the video thumbnail anyway, even if you weren't the first editor to move it there after the consensus. That is in effect you moving the image as you restored it being there after it was removed by another editor. "Per consensus, there is NO covers". Yes, because at the time there weren't any. I'm sure if editors there had been made aware there was a 300×300 cover artwork used on Spotify for a remix of the song, that would have been preferred over a video thumbnail.  Ss  112   03:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Before accusing me of breaking that discussion, you should have done your research. I did follow the discussion. I did not add the image into the infobox as a "cover". If you actually bothered to check, you would see that User:71.89.173.107 changed it to an infobox image. I expect an apology, unless you do want to claim these soundtracks have covers, despite you saying in that deletion discussion "the songs do not have individual covers". By reverting my change, you restored content from an editor who directly claimed the image you restored was the "cover". So please, do not accuse me without getting your facts straight. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, as I have been told by other editors throughout my time on Wikipedia, is it not my job to fix every "error" I see. In fact, I did not realize "image=" was the same as "cover=". The discussion said no covers and the no "cover=" parameter. I never changed it. In fact, I listened to the deletion discussion, as per your own words, the songs do not have covers, so I reverted someone who claimed a song had a cover. So not, I did not do anything wrong. I do appreciate you letting me know "image=" is the same as "cover=", as "image=" was not even mentioned in that deletion discussion, so I was unaware they were considered the same. I shall keep that in mind going forward and revert anyone who changes it to "cover=" or "image=" parameters. But I do expect an apology for the blatant accusation that I added it as a cover, when I clearly didn't. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did have my facts straight. You restored the image to the infobox by reverting an edit, which is what this diff literally shows—"YT thumbnail is more detailed than Spotify thumbnail". It doesn't matter that you were not the first one to add it there (and I didn't say this)—by reverting the usage of the other cover, you replaced it with the thumbnail, which is against consensus to use in the infobox. As I literally just said, at the time I was unaware of there being a remix cover. If I was aware, I would have absolutely preferred that be uploaded instead. That is a cover—of a remix, which can be denoted in caption=. Video thumbnails are still not covers and should never be used.  Ss  112   03:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The songs were on spotify at the time. I did not violate the discussion and I will hold to that. The discussion never discussed "image=", only "cover=". This is the first time I am hearing about "image=" being the same as "cover=". On top of that, as I clearly showed above, I did not change it to "image=" in the first place. In my eyes, I did nothing wrong. I believe the notification that "image=" is the same as "cover=" was valid, but you really worded it very poorly, as an accusation more than a "hey, don't do that". I appreciate the notification, but I did nothing wrong. I also find it funny how you only messaged me and not the editor who added the image to the infobox in the first place. I still believe this was an warranted message that was poorly written into an unwarranted accusation. I shall be disregarding everything else mentioned here except for the fact that "image=" is the same as "cover=". I will ensure no one adds "cover=" or a "cover" (as I was before) and "image=", now that I am aware they are the same. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The consensus was to not use the image in the infobox at all as it's not a cover artwork. As for I also find it funny how you only messaged me and not the editor who added the image to the infobox in the first place, the IP editor who added the image back to the infobox on "Poison" hasn't edited in close to a month. There would be no point because they've probably moved to a different IP and wouldn't see it. But speaking of doing one's research, I don't think you did yours: I did message the user who restored the thumbnail to the infobox on the other three Hazbin Hotel song articles: see here.  Ss  112   04:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Appologies. Directly, I was referring to the IP-user btw. Either way, discussion solved. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Vandalism of Stonehenge for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vandalism of Stonehenge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Vandalism of Stonehenge 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. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
 Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 22:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this! I had yet to receive a CTOPICs notice regarding it, so I appreciate you giving me it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:List of weather events considered the most significant
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Proposed deletion of List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars


The article List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "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)."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of tornadoes observed by mobile radars is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at 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. Fram (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

File you uploaded as fair use is actually a free image
Just letting you know that File:2024 vandalism of Stonehenge.png is actually under an Attribution license on their google drive, so I uploaded File:Vlcsnap at 0010-VIDEO 19062024 JustStopOil Stonehenge.png to Commons. - Sebbog13 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

List of antisemitic incidents in the United States
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)
 * What edit is this referring to? I don't even remember editing that article? It isn't even on my watchlist, so I must not have edited it recently. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Your GA nomination of 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado
The article 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. 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)

Your GA nomination of 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado
The article 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado you nominated as a good article has passed ; 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)

A cup of tea for you!

 * Thank you ! You really did a lot to help improve the accuracy of the article as well by reviewing the FAC. I appreciate the words of encouragement, because I really was feeling down. I really appreciate the really detailed review. As you said, we are working to make the best thing we can, and it takes all of us to do that! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. You also have the unfortunate task of working on something that not a lot of people have written about. Storms like Hurricane Katrina have the opposite problem, almost too much information. Sometimes older storms fall into the realm of "well it's probably important enough" but it might be a bit of a niche local event. I have to commend you for doing something from so long ago. Often, those topics get ignored. But you know my pitch, that we need to have yearly articles going back at least to 1900, to get a better sense of it all. Crazy even that there isn't even a Tornadoes of 1945 for you to link the tornado outbreak article to! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 05:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up to primary vs secondary
I didn't feel like cluttering the 2024 AHS talk further so I thought I'd post this here instead. To quote No original research: As you can probably tell from the examples I listed above, NOAA sources would be primary or secondary depending on what exactly the source is about. Stuff like NHC TCRs would be secondary, but things like TAFB weather maps or NWS weather station raw data published by NOAA would be primary. Whether it would be good to cite a primary or secondary source would again depend on context: if an article on a location's climate needs a climograph, I wouldn't see any issue with citing NOAA climate tables (a primary source) to make that climograph. Meanwhile, if someone tried to add to Beryl's article that a 126-knot SFMR was recorded yesterday citing an archive of aircraft recon HDOBs, that'd be a situation where I'd ask for a secondary source e.g. a NHC discussion (where the forecaster may have tossed the value out due to being rain-contaminated/part of a mesovortex/etc.).
 * A primary source consists solely of original materials that are close to an event. For weather, this would be direct expressions/consequences of a weather event. For a hurricane, this would include stuff like satellite imagery, reconnaissance aircraft data, wind/rain data from ground weather stations, and storm surge data from tide gauges. Other weather-related primary sources would be things like weather maps or model outputs.
 * A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, e.g. a NHC forecaster interpreting satellite images via the Dvorak technique to give an intensity estimate in a NHC advisory, or a NCDC storm event report that has summarised ground damage and linked it to a meteorological synopsis. In this vein, NHC advisories and reports would be secondary sources, provided there has been some sort of analysis done on the primary data.

Whether a source is reliable (in the Wikipedia sense), meanwhile, is orthogonal to whether a source is primary and secondary. Primary sources can be reliable (e.g. rain gauge at a NWS station) or unreliable (measuring cylinder in someone's backyard). Similarly, secondary sources can be reliable (NHC) or unreliable (F13). Generally secondary sources are more reliable than primary sources since there's at least some level of analysis/quality control done in secondary sources, but whether that analysis is good or not depends on who/what's doing it. Hence why policy states Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense.

These days I think it's safe to say I wouldn't prefer mainstream media as sources on niche or technical subjects. They tend to keep getting things wrong, e.g. not distinguishing between 10-/1-minute sustained winds and gusts. Especially after the recent aviation turbulence incidents where a descent rate of 2,000 ft/min is somehow newsworthy (though that's not really weather related).

Just my two cents - I think some people would like to see one more degree of separation from primary to secondary, but this is where I stand. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Bare URLS
Hey, just so you know for the future, this:


 * The NHC's latest public advisory on Potential Tropical Cyclone One

isn't technically a bare URL. A bare URL would look like this:


 * https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/text/refresh/MIATCPAT1+shtml/172335.shtml?

Your post at ANI should have been about the WP:ELBODY guideline rather than Bare URLs. If you encounter a problem like this in the future, then I suggest that you try the External links/Noticeboard instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Vandalism of Stonehenge for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vandalism of Stonehenge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Vandalism of Stonehenge& 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. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Screenshot from Hazbin Hotel Season 1 Episode 5 (Alastor).png
Thanks for uploading File:Screenshot from Hazbin Hotel Season 1 Episode 5 (Alastor).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, legit assumed it was a promotional still based off the search. Then again I wasn't even able to find a proper press kit for this thing which is kinda standard one would assume? I do think both it and Charlie's articles need proper character artwork over a screenshot, or at least a screenshot that's been cleaned up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1764 Woldegk tornado
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1764 Woldegk tornado you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dora the Axe-plorer -- Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)