Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good article reassessment
Kept
Current status: Good article

Original commentary on article/events

We're streaming WSMV on our site (11Alive.com), and they've pointed out yet another cell that is about to nail the city of Nashville yet again -- making the third major cell in the past three hours. --Mhking 21:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is their worst outbreak in eight years...there have been many more tornadoes than we have listed because the NWS office was shut down for a while there. When everything calms down, I will write a special section for the north Nashville area supercell. CrazyC83 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I knew this was going to happen, and the funny thing is I thought of another tornado outbreak after the one that happened on April 2 of this year. I'm looking at the radar and there has to be more then 50 tornados already by now. Could this outbreak cause a F5 which we have been all waiting for years? I saw that cell go by Nashville and i'm shocked, I wonder what reports will come out of that. I also checked the NWS and the area of Tornado watch's is insane. 216.110.254.167 22:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Gallatin was an F3 based on damage pictures. But who knows, maybe an F5 later this evening somewhere? (Hopefully everyone is well-prepared though!!!) CrazyC83 23:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm watching that next watch box to the south, across northern MS/AL. There's enough convection in front of that to explode moreso below it. Watch the cells near Meridian and moving up toward Decatur/Huntsville. --Mhking 23:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time I've seen the SPC use a 60% probability for tornadoes within 25 miles of a point in a convective outlook. This is truly amazing... and tragic... I really want to be down there right now, but I'm sitting here in Michigan north of the warm sector. Maybe later this month... or May. A repeat of the
Hudsonville-Standale Tornado of April 1956 is looooong overdue. —BazookaJoe 23:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Timing note and title

If the outbreak redevelops tomorrow or holds into tomorrow morning (after dawn), the title will change to April 6-8 and tomorrow will be covered here. It is hard to say what will happen. CrazyC83 03:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was holding together late last night and then started breaking up a bit. However, the line is still there and I see a hook shaped radar band!! It's a hook and you know what that means. There is also still some tornados ocurring right now but not nearly as much. I have a really sweet radar image that is a Supercell, where could it go? Can someone check that hook because it's a well formed one. 216.110.254.167 17:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gallatin radar

I don't know much about Wikipedia or how to add to articles, so maybe someone could help me out. I was watching the storms blow up in TN on radar, and I saved one radar image of a rather impressive cell with a classic hook echo indicating a strong tornado. It just happened to be of the supercell that hit Sumner county. This image is probably 5-10min before the tornado struck Gallatin. Maybe someone can make use of it in the article showing how these cells look like on radar?

http://www.altarf.net/misc/TNradar040706.gif

I could check to see if I can add that but I have 2 radar images that are really cool and they are from WHNT-TV (Armor 19 radar) and they show tornado Super-cells. I tried to post them here but it didn't work. 216.110.254.167 23:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed tornadoes

Here's some info from the National Weather Service on the confirmed tornadoes, now that most of the storm surveys are done. Kaldari 23:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the NWS has revised some of their reports. For example, there are now 3 confirmed F3 tornado touchdowns instead of 2. Kaldari 22:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The confirmed tornadoes list is a mess. The list was compiled using preliminary data and never revised, plus all the sources that are linked to are no longer there, so no one can verify any of the lists. The source links need to be updated to link to the proper pages (which are now probably archived). I do not believe this article should pass a Good Article nomination until these problems are addressed. Kaldari 21:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the NCDC site and completely revised the Confirmed Tornadoes list using the data. They finalized it as two F3's. CrazyC83 17:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick review comments

I was looking at this article from the Good Article review page, and while I'm not ready to do a full review yet, I have a couple comments:

The References section just has a lot of raw HTML links. They should really be listed with the article title, date of publication, and so on. Also, if a reference is used more than once in the article, it's more concise to put in a reference once like this: <ref name="linger">{{cite news| url=http://www.gallatinnewsexaminer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061007/COUNTY08/610070334 |title=Storms' losses linger |publisher=Gallatin News-Examiner |date=2006-10-07 |accessdate=2006-11-07}}</ref>. Then, to use the same reference later on, just put in <ref name="linger"/>. See

Wikipedia:Footnotes for some more information. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

To increase the article's readability, I am going to split the list of confirmed tornadoes to a seperate article. -Runningonbrains 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Passed

It seems the concern over cite format has been addressed, and the list was moved out, so it seems to me this is a GA. Be careful about using POV language though, its true that factually a tornado is going to be devastating, but words like that are used so much in the article it sort of seems like the article takes a turn for the dramatic side. But, I don't think that's POV enough for it not to be a GA. Homestarmy 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the

WP:GAN
.

  1. Image:VolStateTornadoDamage.PNG-Needs a fair use rationale.
  2. "However, that tornado was never confirmed; it was likely straight-line wind damage." The inline citation after this is malformed, please modify it to correctly show the reference for the information.
  3. "In fact, the drill had to be rescheduled from around that time because of Katrina." This could use an inline citation.
    Could not find a source for this so I removed it. IMO unneeded trivia anyway.
    talk) 20:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. There are no sources for the "Warren County Tornadoes" section, be sure to add some inline citations for the information present. The first paragraph in the aftermath section needs to be sourced as well.
    This is now sourced.
    talk) 20:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Throughout the article there are several choppy sentences that could use some cleanup; the article would benefit with a quick copyedit.

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of most of these points, with the exception of the references and citations. Those could use a good work-over. If there are any other choppy sentences still remaining could you point out and example?
talk) 17:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Good job so far with addressing the issues. After a quick read through, it appears that many of the choppy sentences have been corrected and I didn't catch any more. I also agree with your removal of the sentence below, I was a bit apprehensive about it when I first read it. It was a good idea to move the images from the gallery up into the article itself. Once sources are added fro the remaining two points above, I'll be happy to pass the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and find some more refs for this today.
talk) 12:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

Superb job on addressing the above issues. I believe the article continues to meet the GA criteria and the article will keep its status. Continue to improve the article with any available information, ensuring that it is properly sourced and neutral. I have modified the article history of the article to reflect this review. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. By the way, if you're interested, for your dedicated work you can add {{User:EyeSerene/boxes/GARescue|ARTICLE}} (replacing "ARTICLE" with "April 6-8, 2006 Tornado Outbreak") to your user page for helping the article maintain its GA status. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sentence mean?

"The high number of overall tornadoes is exaggerated, however, by the fact that most were weak F0 or F1 tornadoes." I removed this because it didn't make any sense to me. To me this claims that the number of tornadoes listed for the outbreak is more than what actually happened. Am I reading this right?

talk) 16:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

IR sat image

For interested parties, an infrared satellite image taken during an active part of the outbreak is now uploaded. Evolauxia (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on

Talk:April 14–16, 2011, tornado outbreak which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on

April 6–8, 2006 tornado outbreak. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 January 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to alternate format proposed by Amakuru, e.g. "Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006". Jenks24 (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– For consistency and as per

Talk:April 14–16, 2011, tornado outbreak (with follow-up discussion at User:BD2412/Archive 012#Commas for tornados). —BarrelProof (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I wouldn't say "distracting"... 8P United States Man (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't fancy having a pause between "2017" (or whatever the year is) and "tornado". There isn't a whole lot of mention of it on the Internet, but it seems that there is at least limited contention over the "MDY as an adjective vs. as a noun" issue. Regardless, if you're going to do this, you may as well also include:
    (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I also think that there is an issue of sorts with the April 4–5, 2011 derecho, and tornado outbreak article. Why is there a comma after the word "derecho"? There are only two items in that series.
(talk) 07:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You are correct, Dustin. The 4–5 April article should be revised to
April 4–5, 2011, derecho and tornado outbreak. The comma after 'derecho' does not belong there. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Oppose. See
    MOS:COMMA does not require us to. It would be better to seek a different word order to get round that problem altogether, as we have done for metro area articles.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I don't know what you mean by 'generally we don't put a double comma in titles'. A following comma is required to close an appositive in the standard English language. No variety of English allows for the lack of this comma, and nor does our MOS. I find it funny that you point to a valid move request that you closed (incorrectly, I'd say) as evidence that there is some sort of precedent on Wikipedia in favour of this ungrammatical construction. There isn't. The comma is required in the regular English language and in 'Wikipedia English', and is well-used across Wikipedia. It seems that you have been engaging in a long-running personal campaign to rid Wikipedia of the proper usage, which is endorsed by all style guides, in favour of an ungrammatical construction of your own favouring without evidence to back it. I would suggest that you halt this campaign, for if you do not do so, it will fall beneath the wave of propriety and evidence. RGloucester — ☎ 16:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shortly after placing the above comment, Amakuru has taken it upon himself to remove the second comma from numerous tornado outbreak page titles, citing a years-old discussion. I'd strongly suggest allowing this new discussion to run its course before moving any more pages. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
Talk:Columbus, Ohio mayoral election, 2015. That's not old, it's just two months old, where once again the community rejected these perennial attempts to enforce double commas on us. They are incorrect in titles, and almost all RMs on the topic affirm that.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The community did no such thing. Firstly, a
MOS:COMMA, and cited as a precedent a discussion you yourself closed, probably incorrectly, thereby rendering you the progenitor of the precedent you cite. If you do not see the issue with this, then I fear it will soon be 'curtains' for your administratorship. RGloucester — ☎ 16:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
(
WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:USPLACE, was a really nice one - by putting the state name at the end of the title, the double comma issue goes away and everyone is happy. Note that that approach is favoured by the Chicago manual of style as well, at [1], which suggests we avoid "City, State" constructs as adjectives. I don't know if there is a similar compromise available here, but it would be good if we could find one. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Minimising the use of commas, where possible, is something we can all agree on, and indeed, something included in
MOS:COMMA. What that does not mean, however, is that commas can be omitted where they are required. Your opposition to this move request, therefore, makes no sense. If you have a proposal for an alternative, grammatically correct title format for this series of articles, by all means, propose it. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason for you to stand in the way of this move request, which does nothing more than fix a grammatical error. RGloucester — ☎ 19:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see any comma purging by Cyclonebiskit – only Amakuru. Cyclonebiskit's remarks in the discussion above seem supportive. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Totally correct. I misread his or her move of
1975 Canton tornado. Sorry/thanks! —jameslucas (" " / +) 22:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I've gotten to the point where I just don't care enough to fight it anymore, but I'm with Dustin here: It sounds awkward when you put a pause after the year, at least (especially) when not in prose. Indeed it is more grammatical to have the comma in prose, but in a standalone title it just doesn't make sense and looks chunky to me. Fortunately I've gotten to the point where I can just ignore the second comma when reading such constructions. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 01:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, just to be explicitly clear, for the reasons I already detailed and well stated by Amakuru below, as well. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just to be clear, the nomination rationale here does not reflect community consensus, as discussed in RfCs on the MOS - we are told above that it is unequivocally wrong to style the titles the way they are at present, yet the discussion at
    WP:CONSISTENT in applying the one comma version. We should therefore not be making these moves. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
What style guide says that "single and double comma formats are OK for dates"? If you are referring to the Chicago style guide, that requires the second comma, but says that such constructions should be avoided if possible. That's also what our MOS says. What you think about what is mandatory and what isn't is irrelevant. What matters is what a) reliable sources (i.e. style guides) say b) what our guidelines and policies say. These are clear (
WP:JR), but most Americans would consider this unacceptable. RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The RfC actually does show disagreement about whether a second comma is necessary. That's how it all started. There's a list of editors mentioned in the close (section "Survey, and headcount") who expressly supported the "Rochester, New York metropolitan area" option, with rationales such as "Second comma is pedantry. Making a big change for pedantic reasons not called for.". On your final point, I can certainly agree with you there. 6–8 April 2006 tornado outbreak would be a better way to put it. Alternatively, Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006 might enable us to keep the American date format but avoid the comma issue. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An editor's opinion on what is 'pedantry' has no influence on how article titles are styled on Wikipedia, nor, indeed, does such a comment make any indication about what is necessary. What is necessary is predetermined by reliable sources, and, indeed, our policies and guidelines. The comma, therefore, is necessary, unless you would propose that we write a new policy that allows Wikipedia editors to create a new English grammar for their own personal use. Both of your suggestions for alternatives are acceptable to me. I prefer DMY, of course, but the second option is a suitable way to address the question of the so-called 'American date format'. RGloucester — ☎ 16:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the date to the end seems fine to me personally, but I do observe that
WP:NCEVENTS#Conventions suggests to generally put the "when" before the "what". I wonder whether we might need to modify that advice for cases that include MDY dates. I don't really understand why that advice is given there. To me, as I read the title of an article from left to right, I would think the more basic identifying information should come first, and I think I would rather know that the article is about a tornado than that it is about April 6–8, 2006. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
That's a good point. The tornado outbreak is what it is, whereas the date is more of a disambiguator, just so we know which one we're talking about.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. To me it seems like the dates in titles are almost always secondary disambiguation devices, not the basic topic identifier. Consider also what happens when you type into the search box. The first letters that you type form the basis of a drop-down menu of topics that start with that string (or a similar string). I want the drop-down list to consist of similar topics (although they might need disambiguation from each other). I would practically never want to be shown a list of events that occurred on a particular date or range of dates (like April 6–8, 2006). I'm likely to forget the exact dates of something I'm looking for, but if I'm looking for a tornado, I'll start typing "tornado". The "what" and "where" seem more fundamental to the topic than the "when". A lot of articles already put the date at the end (we have the article at
United States presidential election, 2016, and a redirect at 2016 United States presidential election), and that should probably be the generally encouraged convention. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed to me to a pity for this discussion to end without that alternative being placed on the table. Whatever its merits, not discussing it here might lead to a further RM in the future, or a move review. So relisting seemed to me to be the least worst thing to do, and I reverted my hatting and relisted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying comment and support of alternative proposal: The alternative suggestion is the one shown above by Amakuru, which is to move the articles to forms similar to "Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006". I support that suggestion, for the reasons that I already described above (although if that does not prevail, I continue to suggest my original proposal). —BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the alternative proposal as being more
natural, even without reference to the comma issue, but retain opposition to any retention of the present subversion of English grammar. If this alternative is to go forward, it must be implemented across these articles, and with swiftness. No retention of the ungrammatical lack of the following comma can be countenanced. RGloucester — ☎ 20:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
+1. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@
snowball to me. Just a suggestion, of course. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
This has only just been relisted, so a close now would be a bit hasty. I usually prefer not to close RMs which I have relisted, and even if I did, this looks to me well short of proper snow. It is more like a light dusting, which may or may not a the start of something bigger.
Don't push me too hard, or I will melt all the snow by generating great heat ... by asking why you all don't save yourselves a lot of grief by adopting the comma-free date format available for free across the Atlantic.<evil grin> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone for ISO 8601? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My watchlist is actually set to display dates in YMD format. It makes more sense to go from large to small than the converse. It's not a common format in English though, for whatever reason. Master of Time (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rather fond of that format myself, for some uses – but not for article titles like this one. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal works for me. Seems a good compromise to keep everyone happy. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 11:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone above for being accommodating to the alternative proposal.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The relisting has now sat around long enough to drift into the backlog category, and it's still
snowing. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006. 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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

60

Should we add something on how at 2000z April 7th a 60% tornado risk was issued Redfishtwofish (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornado_outbreak_of_April_6–8,_2006&oldid=1195429814"