Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:01, 20 December 2024 editLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,683 edits Removed: Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (species).← Previous edit Revision as of 23:01, 21 December 2024 edit undoLegobot (talk | contribs)Bots1,667,683 edits Removed: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Weather.Next edit →
Line 11: Line 11:


'''The ]''' (] 03:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}} '''The ]''' (] 03:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)}}
''']'''
{{rfcquote|text=
Should we have notability standards for individual tornado articles? We already have informal inclusion criteria for "Tornadoes of YYYY" articles. Below is a preliminary proposal for such criteria, with the hope that it can evolve into a formal guideline that can possibly be referenced in future AfD discussions.

] '''Previous discussions:''' ], ]

This has been nagging at me for a while now, and since another editor has talked to me about this issue, I think we bring this up. Since we have a sort of "inclusion criteria" for "Tornadoes of YYYY" articles, I suggest we come up with notability criteria for individual tornadoes as well. I'll be copy-and-pasting this from ]:

{| class="wikitable"
|+EF5's Tornado AfD Table
!Criteria no.
!Sub-criteria
!Description
!Pass?
!Fail?
!Comments
|-
| rowspan="3" |1 (Coverage)
!1a
|Any coverage?
!
!
|Quick-delete if criterion is not met
|-
!1b
|Any '''significant''' coverge? (e.g. ] or the ])
!
!
|
|-
!1c
|Any lasting coverage past 6 months after the tornado?
!
!
|Usually a quick-keep
|-
! rowspan="4" |2 (Strength)
!2a
!Was the tornado EF0-EF2?
! colspan="2" |
!Usually a sign of non-notability, there are exceptions to this though
|-
!2b
!Was the tornado EF3?
! colspan="2" |
!May be a sign of notability
|-
!2c
!Was the tornado EF4?
! colspan="2" |
!Usually a sign of notability
|-
!2d
!Was the tornado EF5?
! colspan="2" |
!If a post-2013 EF5, then an instant keep. Usually a quick-keep
|-
| rowspan="3" |3 (Damage)
!3a
|Did the tornado kill at least one person?
!
!
|Usually a sign of notability
|-
!3b
|Did the tornado injure at least one person?
!
!
|
|-
!3c
|Did the tornado cause monetary damage totaling over $200,000 USD?
!
!
|
|-
| rowspan="2" |4 (Aftermath)
!4a
|Did the tornado significantly damage a town?
!
!
|If not, then usually a sign of non-notability
|-
!4b
|Any notable deaths?
!
!
|Usually not the case, can be skipped
|-
| rowspan="4" |5 (Content)
!5a
|Is the article not a ] of an existing section?
!
!
|Merge if criterion is not met
|-
!5b
|Can the content not be easily merged into a section?
!
!
|Merge if criterion is not met
|-
!5c
|Is the article longer than the page on its respective outbreak?
!
!
|Usually a quick-keep
|-
!5d
|Is the article a ], ] or has recently been featured on ]?
!
!
|Usually a quick-keep
|-
|6 (Overall)
!6a
|Are at least five of these criterion met, with exceptions made if needed?
!
!
|If at least '''1b''', '''3b''', '''3c''', '''5c''' and '''1c''' are met, then a keep is warranted. If not, then a delete/other option is warranted. Exceptions can be made.
|-
! colspan="2" |'''<big>Final verdict:</big>'''
! colspan="4" |
|}

This is my very primitive way of determining the notability of several tornado articles I've written, and am hoping that it could be integrated into a refined set-in-stone WPW policy that could be used in actual AfDs. I'd assume that the table will be gotten rid of and turned into a list. This has been discussed in the past, but never really came to anything. Maybe it could be... ] (with it's own project page)? Starting an RfC, since obviously community input is needed. Also pinging {{ping|Departure–}}, who suggested this. :) ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 18:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)}}
''']''' ''']'''
{{rfcquote|text= {{rfcquote|text=

Revision as of 23:01, 21 December 2024

The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:

Talk:2005 Birmingham tornado

Should the article’s infobox reflect EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6? This question stems from the fact the infobox inputs can only accept a single set of values (i.e. EF2/T4 or F3/T5-6, not both). The EF2/T4 rating comes from a peer reviewed paper by Timothy P. Marshall and Stuart Robinson with the Haag Engineering Co. which was published in the American Meteorological Society in August 2006. The F3/T5-6 rating comes from the Tornado and Storm Research Organisation (TORRO), the creators of the TORRO scale, T-scale, published in this 2015 paper.

Since the infobox can only contain one set of the ratings, this discussion more or less needs to determine which source (Haag Engineering Co. or TORRO) should be the infobox source.

  • Option 1 — EF2/T4 using the Haag Engineering Co. paper.
  • Option 2 — F3/T5-6 using the TORRO paper.

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Catnip

Should the lead of the article mention alternatives that may affect cats not affected by catnip? Escape Orbit 13:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2020 Cookeville tornado

I have serious doubts about the authenticity of the tornado image in the article, including whether it was truthfully even taken in Cookeville. The image mentions it was taken from Reddit, and searching the image on Reddit reveals a high level of skepticism even from users there. I propose that this image be discussed and potentially removed unless it can be otherwise proven that the picture was taken in Cookeville on March 3. United States Man (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Weather

Should weak and unimpactful tornadoes be included in list articles? Departure– (talk) 14:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Is the blog Science-Based Medicine in whole or in part, a self-published source? Iljhgtn (talk) 01:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Earth

Which picture should be used in the lead?

Prior discussion:

WhatisMars (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Decline in insect populations

Include or Exclude (diff) this text: 
In October 2024, researchers from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory tested the influence of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and plant growth inhibitors in the laboratory against to larvae of the fruit fly, caterpillars of painted lady butterflies (Vanessa cardui) and in larvae of mosquitoes (Anopheles stephensi). Results suggested that agrochemical exposure, even at sublethal levels, affects insect populations.

Thanks for your comments! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)


  1. Gandara, Lautaro; Jacoby, Richard; Laurent, François; Spatuzzi, Matteo; Vlachopoulos, Nikolaos; Borst, Noa O.; Ekmen, Gülina; Potel, Clement M.; Garrido-Rodriguez, Martin; Böhmert, Antonia L.; Misunou, Natalia; Bartmanski, Bartosz J.; Li, Xueying C.; Kutra, Dominik; Hériché, Jean-Karim (2024-10-25). "Pervasive sublethal effects of agrochemicals on insects at environmentally relevant concentrations". Science. 386 (6720): 446–453. doi:10.1126/science.ado0251. ISSN 0036-8075.
Requests for comment (All)
Articles (All)
Non-articles (All)
InstructionsTo add a discussion to this list:
  • Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
For more information, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment. Report problems to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment. Lists are updated every hour by Legobot.