Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 3, 2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect[edit]

I disagree with redirecting the article. Is there a guideline/policy article that decides what is and isn't "too soon" for the creation of tornado articles? Falcon8765 (TALK) 22:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The situation was still unfolding, and there wasn't much data available. However, I would let the article stand...however, a geographical mention, such as Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, might want to be added instead as the outbreak was fairly localized. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

confirmed number, recent changes[edit]

I've noticed a few recent changes on the page that I believe need attention. First off: we need to include new sources on this article as NOAA is going to take quite a while to update with their confirmed reports. Second: I have so far seen 3 changes of people adding in a rating on the EF Scale for some of the tornadoes, and then these subsequently being removed; Confirmed ratings should stay, if data changes, then it can be changed easily. Given my experience with weather and the damage we've seen in the area, it is very safe to assume that the highest tornado is rated at least EF3 at the minimum;

there also needs to be an additional 2 locations added where 2 tornadoes were confirmed to have touched down: Johnson County in the cities of Joshua & Burlesa.

Finally, the National Weather Service has said they estimate now that there were about 10 tornadoes. This number is subject to change as many know.

thats all i have to say for now GokuSS400 (talk) 01:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just by looking at the video, I know that there's tornadoes not in the reports yet, and that some are at least EF2. However, that's original research that isn't allowed on Wikipedia. If people are adding the information without supplying a source, it can be removed immediately, since we can't verify their sources. The EF4 and EF5 ratings, additionally, are completely bogus at this point, as there hasn't been enough time for a detailed storm survey to confirm those ratings. As yet, I haven't seen any official ratings for any tornadoes; there's no reason to assume that the random IPs posting the unsourced ratings are providing valid information. rdfox 76 (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the 2 tornadoes i was talking about I can provide a source for: http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/texas-tornado_2012-04-03 I added this link as an external source to the main page just a few moments ago. Also, there are so far an estimated 10 confirmed so far by NWS, so i updated the page to reflect that. The information was from The Weather Channel's live coverage of the event. GokuSS400 (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot stress this enough...can we please not use The Weather Channel's live coverage as a source. For one, being live means that by default it is not verifiable after the fact unless there is a recording of it on TWC's website. For another, being a media outlet that makes revenue by increasing ratings I've noticed has led TWC's coverage to be somewhat sensationalist at times. I have no problem using TWC stories produced after the event, but TWC's live coverage should be avoided. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 02:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying, and I'll keep that in mind, however in this sort of situation live reports are a very good source of information. I'll keep in mind to look for additional confirmation. GokuSS400 (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, as of now, WFO Fort Worth is showing ongoing damage surveys for three tornadoes, one from Kennedale to Arlington, one from Lancaster to Hutchens, and one from Forney to Rockwall County. They are posting damage survey photos and such on their Facebook page at the moment, for those interested, and will release a Public Information Statement summarizing the day's surveys this evening. rdfox 76 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological synopsis[edit]

I just wrote up the section, primarily using the NWS Fort Worth area forecast discussion which was very informative and provided a great amount of detail on how it all happened (outflow boundary pushed south which was not progged by models). However, that source disappears quickly - how can it be locked in until (if) they publish a synopsis section on their website? CrazyC83 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.webcitation.org/archive is what I always recommend using, especially as then it archives the page. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article format[edit]

It might be worth noting the sections this article should have and what content those sections should have is specified at Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added back the "Aftermath" section, after reading Ks0stm's post regarding the Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado format. Hopefully this time what I contributed will be of value, and correct, since I'm a newbie to all of this. And "NO", I don't in the least mind constructive critique (again, new kid here). The format said the "Aftermath" section was required, and that disaster declarations should be placed there. Therefore that's what I've added. I'm a reclusive 23 year old writer and website designer for an Internet company based out of the Dallas-Fort Worth market. Since I live in the affected area, this is why I decided (first time ever) to contribute/add/etc. something here on Wikipedia. With that said, can anyone PLEASE tell me HOW you cite a television station's published articles, videos, photos, etc? For now I've been putting them under "cite interview" because that allows me to use callsign (for the station ID) and publisher for the parent company (ABC or XXX Television, etc), but these references aren't really interviews. These references are Internet published news articles mostly (from Television News coverage) and the "cite web" syntax doesn't allow you to reference either the callsign/station or network, nor does "cite web" either. I know "network" and "station" are potential variables for references by I can't find the "cite" category to use them with - only "cite interview" appears to have any possibility of citing a media news source like a network or television station. P.S. In case you can't tell, I'm new to "TALK" too. Daniel Callaghan 18:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the section back to the article. The reason that I deleted it in the first place was because it was only an update as to how many tornadoes were confirmed and it had nothing to do with the aftermath of the outbreak. The content that is in the section now is much better. United States Man (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way to cite stuff like that is to just use {{Cite web}} and put the callsign in as the publisher (if a story author is also available put that in the author parameters). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tornado outbreak of April 3, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornado_outbreak_of_April_3,_2012&oldid=1198836787"