This is an archive of past discussions with User:WeatherWriter. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hey, I hope it's not too much to ask, but can you get the Grazulis pages for the North Chicago tornado of September 26, 1972, and the one in Downtown Chicago some time in 1876? And if it's not too much of a chore, the ones for Crystal Lake (April 1965, F4) and Lake Zurich (April 1967, F4)? I need it for a draft I'm working on. Thank you! Departure– (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Here you go! Notes: k = killed, inj = injured, y = width in yards, m = length in miles, f = "family".
1876
IL
May 6, 1876
1710
2k
35inj
100yd
4m
F3
COOK -- "Rebounding like a bombshell," the tornado moved NE, ripping apart and collapsing both large and small buildings in downtown Chicago. Damage totalled about $250,000. One man died in the destruction of the Reaper Mission. The chimney of a candy factory was blown down, injuring workers, one of whom eventually died. At a county hospital (at 18th and Arnold) the roof and cupola were torn off, but the "terror- stricken" patients inside were unharmed. A freight depot collapsed, trapping and mangling the men inside. A church steeple and many brick chimneys were blown down. The Chicago Tribune printed a description of the multiple vortex structure of the tornado as it moved out onto Lake Michigan. The astute observation and conclusion (by a newspaper reporter) that air in the center of the multiple vortex tornado was moving downward was nearly a century ahead of its time. About a mile from shore "it was then composed of eight or ten columns grouped together, all whirling around a central point. The columns, or spirals, twisted and writhed like snakes. The group was about 500 feet in diameter, the various parts leaning at the top towards the centre, and bulging slightly at the middle. Now and then a column would draw away from its fellow and then sweep back. The down rush of air in the vacuum drew the cloud down. Directly under the mass the lake was flat and still. Around it the waters were lashed and torn. The waves dashed upon the spirals as if driven to madness by the attack. As the pillars curled around, binding themselves together, the cloud vomited lightning, as though sick of the performance. Another such scene may never come in this generation, and it is to be regretted that the cylinder could not have been caught and pickled for scientific investigation."
1965
IL
APR 11, 1965
1527
6k
75inj
400y
11m
F4
MCHENRY/LAKE -- (F-1) Moved ENE from the SW edge of Crystal Lake, passing through the SE side of that town, and ending 2m N of Wauconda. In a single subdivision, 45 homes were destroyed and 110 were badly damaged. Major damage also occurred along a four-block long, 200-yard-wide area of Island Lake. Five people were killed at Crystal Lake and one at Island Lake. $1,500,000. SEE FIGURES 143 and 144.
1967
IL
APR 21, 1967
1700
1k
123inj
150y
f17m
F4
KANE/COOK/LAKE-This tornado is plotted as moving NE from the NW side of Elgin, passing through Barrington Hills and Lake Zurich. It may have begun as far the to SW as a service station on Hwy-47 near Elburn. At Elgin, three people were injured as a factory was unroofed and torn apart. There was a $100,000 loss at the state hospital. Further to the NE, the tornado grew very intense and destroyed or damaged 500 homes. Homes were leveled at Barrington Hills, and a 1000- pound heating unit was carried a half mile from a home. A dozen cars were "thrown like toys" near the Hwy-22 and 59 intersection. $10,000,000.
1972
IL
SEP 28, 1972 (I presume this was a typo you made. Grazulis does not record any tornadoes September 26, 1972)
0555
0k
3inj
10y
f30m
F2
LAKE -- Moved NE from SW of North Chicago to Lake Michigan, east of Waukegan. Most of the injuries and much of the damage occurred at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center. Many trailers and barracks were destroyed. $1,000,000.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Would you like me to ask another admin? Clearly something's off with this; I don't like that we are guessing exact events this user will be at. Stalking is stalking, no matter who it's to. — EF515:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Also, he's sent death threats and harassed multiple people (including me) for just reporting his socks and not talking about his locations/IPs. I don't think he deserves privacy, especially because he chooses to use public Wi-Fi IPs that reveal their locations when you pull up Whois. Just my opinion. wizzito | say hello!16:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Sure, but that's no excuse to give exact locations this user will be at. It's like someome telling everyone online where you live, yet you never gave them consent to do so. — EF516:01, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Sure. Wizzito can tell his side (I obviously won't speak for someone), but I was concerned that we are guessing the locations Andrew5 will be at, which could constitute stalking. EF516:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I thought you saw talking about the IPs he has used as stalking, given I linked that SPI report that talked about the location of a sock IP. wizzito | say hello!16:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
No, that's fine (public IPs are public). I'm concerned that we are guessing places where he will be (two college-related events of note that Andrew may be going to today) which seems like stalking to me. Then again, I could be wrong, but best to wait for that second opinion. — EF516:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I do apologize for speculating on this, and I consider it to be more like stalking now. It was an impulse decision. The best action would be to wait for any edits and then go to SPI. wizzito | say hello!16:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Significant Tornadoes: A chronology of events - Public domain?
Odd question. On my online copy of the Significant Tornadoes: A chronology of events Volume 2 of Significant Tornadoes: 1880-1989 published in 1990 (this is the tornado book), there's a disclaimer on page three that notes "all written material herein is in the public domain". Hypothetically, if all the images in the book are blacked out, would the entire book be able to be transferred to WikiSource? I know nothing about it, so asking you. — EF519:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Here's the online copy if y'all want to confirm that. Maybe for once the Wx-Wiki community will actually have a good thing happen related to copyright! EF520:15, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
From a copyright standpoint -- yes, absolutely. The text is completely free. Whether it's within scope for WikiSource is another question that's outside my experience, but it looks OK to me. I'd still be asking over there though. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:16, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Lyza 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.
Hey Departure– I can get these summaries to you this weekend (my book is being borrowed by a friend for a class this week). I'll try to remember, but feel free to shoot me a talk page message as a reminder on Saturday or Sunday. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)22:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Also, if it's not too much trouble, it turns out there's a lot more that don't have much information online. If it's not too much trouble, can you get summaries for:
(talk page watcher) I assume you mean the Cook County F3 for the 1896 tornado? In the 1990 edition, he writes: IL | May 25, 1896 | 0150 | 0k | inj | 400y | 4.5m | F3 | COOK-Moved due E from the Leyden-Maine town line to the Jefferson-Niles area.The tornado passed through the towns of Park Ridge, Edison Park and Norwood Park. The worst destruction was on the highest ground, the Canfield-on-the-Hill section of Edison Park. In all, six homes were destroyed and 30 others were said to be beyond repair. $100,000. This is located on page 70. I do know the newer version is refined, so the details may be off. — EF517:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I just happen to see this and I am so sorry. I mixed up the date that my friend said. I will get the book back on April 22, not April 12, which is what I was thinking. So I won’t be able to get you the info until then. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)04:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Aw, I was hoping to get it out before the anniversary of the Oak Lawn outbreak. Oh well, there's plenty of other free sources available. Thanks anyway! Departure– (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
As it turns out that the old Significant Tornadoes book includes most of the tornadoes I'm looking for, I don't need the references for most stated above; however, there are still a few outside of the 1990's book range I'd like the citations for:
1781 (Chicago portage), may or may not be recorded
May 22, 1855
June 3, 1860
May 23, 1878
November 17, 2013 (both in Will County)
June 20, 2021
Glad to find out from your talk page the 1880-1991 issue is both free to access and in the public domain. Again, no rush for these, but two of these would be best sourced to the Grazulis book. Thanks! Departure– (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
I will definitely take a look at that. I am planning to spend a couple of weeks and get History of tornado research up to really good standards. So, I figure STP will be mentioned at some point in the history article, and I may find new info for the STP article as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)00:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.
2. Take another look at Spann's 4/27/11 ABC 33/40 coverage. Seems to be well-documented in RS's. I'm currently re-watching the entire broadcast today because I've never done that, very interesting yet sad.
Alright, so I completely forgot to re-inquire about the Grazulis books, but if you could, I'd just like the references for the three tornadoes near Chicago for the article preferably. The three were 1781 (Chicago Portage, again, might not be recorded by Grazulis), May 22, 1855 (Jefferson / Des Plaines, Illinois), and June 3, 1860 (throughout the Chicago metro). Everything else is either in the free Grazulis source or elsewhere easy enough to find. Thank you in advance! Departure– (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
No tornadoes in 1781 were recorded by Grazulis sadly.
1855 Below.
IL
MAY 22, 1855
1630 (start time)
3k (deaths)
6inj (injuries)
y (No width recorded)
m (No path length recorded)
F (No F-scale rating recorded)
COOK -- A tornado moved to the SE, and touched down briefly at "Jefferson," just east of Norwood Park, about 16m NW of downtown Chicago. It destroyed one home containing nine people, killing a woman and two children.
1860 Below. I presume this is the tornado you are referencing since it is the only one that hit Cook County like the 1855 tornado did. Two other IL tornadoes occurred that day along with the one below and both have extremely long summaries (like 2 pages are in the book just to cover those two tornadoes)....and a couple of really long Iowa tornado summaries same day.......How In The World Do We Not Have An Outbreak Article For These????? 100+ Deaths! List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks#1860s....We note the outbreak there with 148+ deaths and we do not have an article on it!
IL
JUN 3, 1860
2130 (start time)
0k (deaths)
4inj (injuries)
y (No width recorded)
15m (Path length in miles)
F (No F-scale rating recorded)
KANE /COOK /LAKE -- Moved NE from west of Elgin to near Dundee where homes were unroofed and the post office was destroyed. At Lake Zurich, the Brockway farm lost the upper floor of the farm house. Four people were injured and clothing was carried several miles. Another likely tornado hit at Glencoe, destroying one home and uprooted trees in Cook County. Ships reported a large waterspout out over Lake Michigan. Other possible tornadoes produced damage in and around Long Grove, Illinois and Ottawa County, Michigan.
Argh! I was specifically looking for F-scale ratings and Grazulis doesn't even record them. Figures. Oh well, thanks anyway! Departure– (talk) 21:28, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Photograph of the 2019 Havana tornado.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Photograph of the 2019 Havana tornado.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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).
Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Template:Timeline of attacks on the United States, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Would you perchance have satellite imagery of storms over KS on May 18 that ended up producing that bunch of massive tornadoes? I don't know if the GOES-East website has an archive; if it has, I haven't found it. Need it for the infobox of Tornado outbreak of May 18–20, 2025. Thanks. :-) EF518:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Hm… I'll see if I can find one. Also, great NFF pick for the Somerset tornado; I myself was going to go with that image but you uploaded it before me. Weird how such-a-thin tornado can take so many lives. EF514:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Orphaned non-free image File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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).
Not quiet the same Hurricanehink mobile, but that will for sure same some time in getting the non-American government sources listed! This is basically WP:WX's version of WP:RSP. So some sources, like government ones from NHC or BOM, are obviously being marked as "generally reliable". But, it is also to highlight which sources have been discussed over the years and are "generally unreliable" or even deprecated sources (like Force 13). Anyway, feel free to add any of your reliability thoughts to the discussions! There are nearly a dozen source discussions that are already ongoing at the talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Sources. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)21:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I didn’t know it was a page to determine the reliability of a source. I think that’s overkill. I would rather have a list of known unreliable sources, like Force13. I’d rather focus on getting more stuff written and having more sources than debating about reliability, sorry. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I disagree; verifiable accuracy is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. What may take a few weeks will help editors later on. Why shouldn't our project strive to be the most accurate it can be? — EF522:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
That’s fair, only I don’t know if it’ll take a few weeks, and my concern/focus has always been more about writing and expanding, and not so much of a source debate. If two sources say the same thing, and one is unreliable, but the information is still correct, then it’s an easy fix finding a new source. That happens a lot, when someone on a blog might say something factual. Wikipedia rarely allows blog sources (expert blogs like Jeff Masters being an exception), but the info might still be valid. Still that’s just my thoughts, I’m not going to dissuade you now that you got the ball rolling. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I can't find the EF5 DI on the DAT, and north of Morton I see only EF2 indicators that verify observation by mobile radar and that (at least one) tornado's peak wind speed was only 41 m/s (92 mph) - did you see something there earlier? Departure– (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
They switched the "EF5" to "EF2" literally a few minutes after my addition on Wikipedia. That EF2 DI use to be EF5. If you have a X or BlueSky account, you can easily find the tons of screenshots of it. I'll be adding a screenshot of it to the Commons shortly. But hey! That's why the Cite DAT format was created...since the DAT is always changing! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)21:34, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
So, a Keota, Iowa EF4 situation? In that instance, an EF5 point was added in error, and errors aren't official ratings. That doesn't mean it doesn't belong on that list, though; it still could have been EF5-equivalent from data that hasn't been released yet. Departure– (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.
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 non-free 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).
Hello, WeatherWriter. I wanted to ask for you help regarding a recent edit I made to the Wildfires article. I made this edit while I was unaware of SANDWICH. While I have fix the problem by re-adjusting the images, I think there is still a problem there with the images and was wondering if you had any advice. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
I just took a look at the article, and I do not see any WP:MOS-type related issues. I will say the easiest way to fix any SANDWICH-type issues is to actually use the Multiple image template. It shrinks the images and captions a little, and it removed blank space between the images. It is used a lot in infoboxes (examples would be Tornadoes of 2024 or Joplin tornado), but it is also very useful in article mainspace. A big six-day flood event in 2022 had six-days of forecasts, which are all listed together in one multi-image template, shrinking what would be six individual images down to the size of 3-4 images in space. You can see it here: July–August 2022 United States floods#Meteorological synopsis. The key thing is to not have text sandwiched between images or tables, since it can really mess up viewers on mobile devices. If you are worried about it though, you can switch to using that template to cut down on space. Hopefully that helps! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)03:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Gotcha and thank you very much. (To clarify, my edit above made the SANDWICH mistake while trying to adjust the right aligned images and I fixed it before responding here.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:50, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Just gotta say WW, thanks for caring about the encyclopedia so much. It's not easy to stay motivated, but you still give a fuck. Cheers to whatever is fueling the fire! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Hey, I saw your comment on my talk page, and noticed you are good at writing weather related articles (especially tornadoes), and wondered if you wanted to help me with a new article I am working on. I'm new to Wikipedia and am not that good and writing articles, but I noticed that you have access to a lot of helpful information, and wanted to ask you if you could help out with my new article. Andromeda8362 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Hey Andromeda8362! I don't have a lot of time currently to fully assist with gathering/searching for sources or information, however, I can help do some generic format fixes for the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)13:14, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm also free to help today (although I'm still planning on writing something else) so I'll be able to help with the prose itself and with adding some meat to the article. EF513:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Influence of severe weather during 2020 on American politics 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.
Some advice: based on this AfD (which I didn't see coming) I'd suggest rethinking writing all of the articles on this topic until the AfD closes, and only if it closes as "kept". It'd be a huge waste of time to write all these drafts just for them to be deleted in a few days. EF512:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
Nah, I’m continuing the drafts. I just dropped several sources in the AFD, including ones that go against the AFD. Myself and Fram have debated weather topics a lot before, including the deletion of all tornado list articles and such like that. This is no different than those debates. A very simple “2020”, “weather” and “politics” Google search would have ended the idea of an AFD before it happened, with nearly 500 quick sources coming up. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)12:57, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
I may just give up on the topic and all drafts entirely at this point. No matter the sources, people say there is no "influence". The TORNADO Act was not "influenced" by tornadoes. The state congressional investigation was not "influenced" by Isaias. The disruption of voting in Tennessee was not "influenced" by the Nashville tornado outbreak. Even Fram stated a state of emergency declaration from a hurricane is not "influenced" by the hurricane. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)15:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm still going to continue with Draft:Influence of severe weather on American politics, but instead of by-year or by-severe-weather-disaster, it will be by political topic. For example, the "Investigations" section will include a level 3 header for "Congressional", "Federal", "State", ect... I'll have some lists in it as well. I analyzed the comments in the AFD and generically, there isn't any disagreement (besides from one editor) that a severe weather and politics article can exist. But, it can't be a WP:COATRACK of severe weather impacts. But, there are several topics that have plenty of sources, such as conspiracy theories started by politicians (Helene/Milton), wanting to blame someone for disasters (Katrina, Ian, Helene, ect...), Sharpiegate (Dorian), new laws over severe weather (TORNADO Act, ect...). Losts of political topics. So, I'm going to make one giant article (maybe 10,000+ words) that covered every type of way politics are influenced, with appropriate sourcing. I think that is the main issue. I made the article based on the weather events, but people stated multiple times: too much meteorology, not enough political reasoning. So, I'll just do it in the reverse. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)01:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to Court cases related to tornadoes in the United States. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because It needs sources to establish notability of the topic as a whole. Lawsuits are pretty routine when it comes to deaths and insurance claims and these are mostly local news about minor cases..
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Are you still trying to get the Smithville tornado's article to GA status? If not, I'll be glad to swoop in and make my own attempt. EF513:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello, WeatherWriter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of notable publications in meteorology, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
What's the name of that Greensburg lawsuit/congress thing, again? I can't find much on it, but since the article is at FAC it should be included. — EF517:10, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
It is the Greensburg, Kansas, Recovery Extension Act. There is basically no information on it, since it was introduced into Congress on April 22, 2009, and then bounced around four different Congressional committees until May 21, 2009 (see "Action" here). It was never brought before the entire U.S. House of Representatives for a vote, so it "died in Committee" (as the dictionary calls it). At most, you could probably get a sentence or two in the article basically to say On April 22, 2009, Representative X introduced the Greensburg, Kansas, Recovery Extension Act to do Y, ect... The bill itself is stupidly short and was basically to give more funding for tornado recovery. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)17:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
. @Hurricane Noah: I really am sorry for the hothead statements I made. You may think I despise you, but I don't. You are a great editor. Please don't quit Wikipedia over a simple deletion discussion. I really want the best for Wikipedia. We can always have disagreements. You have created so many amazing and wonderful articles. I hope you eventually see this. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)21:51, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Sometimes, it's hard for me to find a way to create a wildfire-related page. So, I sometimes need something to guide me through. Although, I think it's only right to share my WP:Guide with multiple different users. So, here you go---User:CostalCal/Guide! I hope you read this next time you create or edit a wildfire-related page. CostalCal (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Move discussions are normally open for seven days and there is no real rush on it. Also, two of the editors you originally pinged for the move discussion have not left a comment yet. So, I would go ahead and give it the full seven days (until August 24) to let those editors comment if they wish too. I have a feeling no one is going to oppose the renaming of the article, but it is always good to be courteous. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)17:29, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
You are new to editing, so here is some additional information you should probably know about. For almost every discussion, it is not recommended for "involved" editors to close the discussion. For example, any editor who commented in the discussion or the editor who proposed the discussion, should not be the one to close it, given there is the potential for bias. However, this specific requested move discussion falls under the main exception to that "almost" above. In discussions where there is no opposition (no one opposes it), and there is clear support for the proposed thing (at least 5 or more people), then we have the Snowball clause (WP:SNOW), which is "If an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." The wording on that may seem confusing...But you can think of it as being used when no one opposes a requested move. In cases like this specific discussion, no one opposes it, so there is a very clear consensus to rename the page. Even if an involved editor (such as you or me) closes the discussion, there is no chance of bias, as there is no opposition.
Hopefully all of that helps! Right before closing the discussion, I would read over Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closure procedure, since it explains what you need to do in order to "close" a discussion!
At this time im waiting on the creator of the page and Randy to respond, i think i will close it once they respond shane (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello, WeatherWriter. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Hello, WeatherWriter. Per your request, your account has been grantedtemporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:
Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).
It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:
When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with an IP address or CIDR range.
Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! asilvering (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.
Nomination for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!
Nominations for the upcoming Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Hurricane Hazel tag
Hey, I saw that you were a little surprised that a featured article was missing information. However, a lot of the tropical cyclone featured articles are more than a decade old, meaning that some sources weren't available or known when the article was written. You might've noticed that several FA's underwent an FARC because of missing information from journals or other reports, so it might be useful to link the congressional hearing on the talk page, rather than just adding a tag that info is missing. As a reminder, there's nothing in the FA criteria that says the article must have everything about a topic, just that "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Of course, hurricane aftermath sections are often missing bits of information here and there on storm recovery, so at some point it becomes an academic discussion of whether "major facts" are missing or not. That being said, sometimes an article being featured means that people don't want to work on it, but just because it's featured doesn't mean it can't be changed! Cheers and hope you're having a good Labor Day. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I got a whole lot of work to do still for the article. Out of the whole article so far, only the political impacts from Hurricane Andrew and Hurricane Ian are complete. Hurricane Katrina is still missing so much information. I was actually just mentioning on the Wikipedia discord how there is at least two weather disasters in the 21st century, fully without Wikipedia articles, where the U.S. Congress launched a formal investigation into. The 2006 Rockford flood (notice there is no article) had 20 local residents testify before Congress regarding failures in the government’s response.
So it isn’t really shock on an FA missing information…but rather a shock on the large-scale information gap on weather-related articles. Just saying Hurricanehink, if you want to help out in any way…it would be greatly appreciated. Several hurricanes are missing their political-effects in their own articles…Hurricane Hazel is just one of several. If you are interested, but just don’t know which hurricanes, let me know and I can give you some hurricanes & sources to look into. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure Hurricane Camille is going to turn up a lot! That's been my recent focus, combing through a ton of info. There were lots of federal responses to Camille, including strengthening FEMA, the NHC maintaining inland monitoring, and probably some other changes. As for the Rockford flood, I'm not even sure if it needs an article. Checking the NCDC report only says $20 million in damage, and no deaths, so I'm not even sure if it needs an article. Sometimes Congressional investigations take place to check out infrastructure failures, or to see what went wrong, and it seems like the failure to have a federal disaster declaration was one of the bigger issues here. Could be enough for an article, but it seems really minor compared to Katrina, Ian, Andrew, etc. Still, it might be able to support an article. I'm curious what the other weather event was that doesn't have an article but did have a formal investigation. You're right that a lot of storms and events are missing information though. But again, a lot of articles were written more than ten years ago, so the bigger surprise is that there are a few articles that are "done" (which have the political impacts thoroughly discussed) rather than how many articles need work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
The main sections of the article, so far, is Election Influence (i.e. influence on U.S. presidential elections, state elections, and local elections), Investigations (primarily U.S. Congress, although, a few other state/local-level investigations have occurred; such as the Texas Select Committees on Disaster Preparedness and Flooding for the July 2025 Central Texas floods), New legislation (federal and state legislation that was started (pass or failed) as a result of severe weather), Conspiracy theories and misinformation (given those have influenced politics since the 1940s in the U.S.), State of emergency declarations (planning to have a chart/list of every state of emergency declaration issued in the U.S. as a result of severe weather, since those give the federal or state government more authority, and finally Damage tours (political controversy over the years). I don't believe there is any other weather–politics-related topics besides those. So some topics, might be mentioned in multiple sections in the overall article.
To answer your question, it was the 2007 Dumas tornado; specifically regarding FEMA's response.
This will be a very long, several-month (and hopefully dozens-of-editors)-long project. I'm trying to work backwards through time, so I am currently focusing on the impacts from Helene and Milton last year. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
Once I get a better handle on Camille, I'll share the political/governmental impacts that I find. A lot of the "bigger" storms still need a lot of work - Katrina, Ian, most recent landfalling major hurricanes, and a lot of older landfalling major hurricanes - but thankfully someone got around to finishing Andrew. And it does sound like the Dumas tornado outbreak might be article worthy, but someone will hopefully eventually get around to it. Sometimes I get invested in working on list-like articles, but I usually end up preferring single storms until either finishing them or moving onto something else that needs work. You're probably starting to realize just how much work needs to be done across Wikipedia, and it's too much for any one person to consider taking on themselves. That's why it's important to keep the community spirit strong. I had the idea for a monthly project newsletter for all of the weather project. Maybe part of that could have people nominating collaborations, for either drafts or existing articles that need work, since I'd hate for you to have to do the influence of severe weather article alone, but it's also the sort of thing I don't really want to work on. It's such a broad topic that has potentially another two centuries of severe weather to be added. I'm not going to dissuade you, as I think you're on the right track with the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
