Talk:2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi tornado

2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi tornado has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 7, 2016. (Reviewed version).

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Low-importance).

On 4 June 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to 2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi, tornado. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Does this tornado really warrant its own article?

This tornado was notable for being an EF5, but not much beyond that as there were only three fatalities and damage was limited to rural areas. A tornado like this might warrant a standalone article if it were isolated or the only major tornado in a small outbreak, but I don't think it needs its own article if we already have one for the outbreak. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The outbreak article is excessively large and needs to have prose reduced. Instead of just simply reducing content, having these sub-articles allows for the most relevant info to be maintained in the main outbreak article and the more in-depth details to remain available. Ideally, all 14 of the listed notable tornadoes should have their own articles given how much loss of life and damage took place. There's just too much information to cram into a single article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken; we can make exceptions for an exceptional outbreak, though I may have reservations about the Vilonia tornado if we go that way. Regardless, I am in favor of very strict notability standards for individual tornado articles when we already have an outbreak article. Perhaps a minimum of $750 million in damage or 30+ fatalities. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit and TornadoLGS: While you did a great job on this article (hopefully you can dig up some more to add), I am always a little skeptic about just publishing unnecessary articles. I feel that if anymore tornadoes from this outbreak were to get articles, they would just need to be Smithville, Rainsville, Shoal Creek, Rose Hill–Enterprise, and Cordova–Blountsville (those last two based mainly exceptional path length). Have y'all ever thought about creating a separate page (just for this outbreak) where it can go into more detail about the tornadoes that caused the most casualties and damage and can possibly incorporate a few more of the tornadoes for the "list" page that have pretty long damage summaries? I just thought of this and sort of like the idea myself. United States Man (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually thought about doing a page dedicated to just the major tornadoes of the outbreak. Whichever way we go with this, I was wondering if it might me a good idea to create a category for this outbreak as well, since we already have the main article, two lists, and three individual tornado articles.TornadoLGS (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclonebiskit and TornadoLGS: Check out this list of what I think are the most significant tornadoes (or, in a couple cases, groups of tornadoes) in the outbreak. I feel that if we wanted to put the time into this, we should be able to dig up some stuff on at least 75% of these. What do you guys think? Do you want to go for it? United States Man (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for an article dedicated to the major tornadoes, but do you think it should be that many? Aside from NWS pages it might be hard to find information on some of the less impactful of these tornadoes, since media coverage of Tuscaloosa, Phil Campbell, and Smithville seemed to drown out everything else, not to mention the articles being five years old. Perhaps we could find archives of local newspapers?

I don't think this was a well thought-out decision. Why do we have just one random article floating around for a particular tornado from the outbreak, while there are no articles to speak of for more significant tornadoes such as Ringgold, Smithville, or Rainsville? Makes no sense, and I'm inclined to revert it until there is a better idea proposed. Honestly, I think the 2011 Super Outbreak article was completely satisfactory as of 2016, albeit wordy. Sharkguy05 (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

I am in the process of creating these articles, Smithville and Cordova have articles now. Jdcomix (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be clear on which tornadoes will be getting articles. Smithville and Cordova are good candidates and I would support articles for Rainsville, Ringgold, and Shoal Creek, but I would be iffy at best on the others.TornadoLGS (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are actually the exact ones I am planning on creating lol Jdcomix (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think at this point there is a reason to revert the creation of this article, and if you did it you would look like a large hypocrite. Regarding my idea about the significant tornadoes, I don't think we would need to include all those, but they are just a list of ones that could possibly be included if adequate information can be found around the Internet. United States Man (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sharkguy05 and United States Man: Strongly disagree (obviously with some personal bias since I wrote the article) that this article should be merged. As I stated above, the main article for the outbreak page is far too large. Most readers want the basics of the major tornadoes: when it formed, when it dissipated, how much damage it caused, and how many people it killed. The long play-by-plays can easily be moved into their own articles and, if available, local aftermath and recovery can be detailed. Also, the existence of one article rather than another is irrelevant. I simply felt more comfortable getting back into writing individual tornado articles with one that was easier to handle rather than one that would have taken several days of research and a good week of writing. If you feel strongly that other, more notable tornadoes should have articles pushed for them by all means be bold and create them. But removing content goes against what Wikipedia is, in my opinion.

Re: USM's tornado list. I think that list is a good starting point for research, but more likely than not most of those will not require articles and the tornado table will suffice. As I said to LGS, the main ones that should be focused on are the 14 tornadoes listed in the "Notable tornadoes" section, including Vilonia. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Requesting move to 2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi tornado as we don't typically use commas at the end of states for tornado articles. Jdcomix (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 09:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria

Well-written:

With several grammatical tweaks, I believe the article now complies with MOS policies on grammar, along with general structure and layout. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses a good number of reliable publications. No signs of original research. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article seems to cover all encyclopedically relevant information for which reliable sourcing could be obtained. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

With a few tonal word adjustments made, I believe the article now satisfies neutrality criteria. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

The article has not been subject to any edit warring or similarly disruptive editing behaviours since its recent creation. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

All four images used in the article are relevant to the topic, and all are public domain, so there is no risk of fair use violation. Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

@Wilhelmina Will: Been a month since you started this, giving a courtesy ping in case you simply forgot ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the long wait. I believe, upon reading the article over and making the adjustments noted above, that it satisfies the GA criteria. Congratulations! Herein dwells the greatest dictionary ever composed! (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi tornado. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130320054100/http://www.nwas.org/committees/professionaldevelopment/NWAPD-2012-029_Carpenter_et_al.pdf to http://www.nwas.org/committees/professionaldevelopment/NWAPD-2012-029_Carpenter_et_al.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 June 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 01:46, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi tornado → 2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi, tornado – MOS:GEOCOMMA is a grammar rule and it does apply to article titles. Why is it different in this case? There has been some discussion relating to tornado articles in favor of MOS:GEOCOMMA, and while that article could be moved to avoid the problem, this one can't be moved so easily. @Amakuru: what discussion are referring to in this edit? What discussion said a grammar rule doesn't apply to titles? RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 00:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 18:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not Amakuru, but I think Talk:2023 Cleveland, Texas shooting is probably the rellevant recent discussion cited, --Quiz shows 02:24, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - in addition to the recent discussion linked by Quiz shows above, past discussions can also be found at Talk:Rochester metropolitan area, New York/Archives/2013 (two), Talk:Brunswick metropolitan area#Requested move 29 March 2016 - where the issue was resolved satisfactorily for metropolitan area naming, Talk:2015 Columbus, Ohio mayoral election, and on a project-wide level at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#Matching commas on attributive nouns in titles. In all these cases there were some editors who felt that a strict application of the grammar rules around commas was warranted, while others (including myself) felt that the nature of a title is fundamentally different from running prose, that WP:COMMONNAME doesn't support the change (most reliable sources do not include extra commas in such titles) and that the negatives of titles like that proposed outweigh the positives. More specifically, if you write it as Philadelphia, Mississippi, tornado that looks like a list of three separate things rather than a single adjective and noun title. The present title is preferable as it treats Philadelphia, Mississippi as a single proper name. Note that at Gosser Ridge I have eliminated the issue altogether by simply removing the state name, hence why it's now titled 1971 Gosser Ridge tornado; there weren't any tornadoes in other Gosser Ridges so disambiguation wasn't necessary, and that doesn't seem to have proved controversial. I'm not sure that can be done here, as Philadelphia would probably be misinterpreted as referring to the city in Pennsylvania... but I'd certainly be open to other compromises - 2011 tornado in Philadelphia, Mississippi would be one idea, or maybe 2011 Philadelphia tornado (Mississippi). But past consensus does not support the proposed change here, and I continue to oppose that. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the Cleveland, Texas shooting discussion (another one where just the city name would lead to confusion), the Columbus mayoral election discussion, and the Rochester metro area discussions. This is a case of "occasional exceptions may apply" (from {{guideline}}) being used on a decently large scale to ignore a grammar rule that is mostly agreed-upon to make very clunky and awkward titles that would not be spoken that way in actual speech (you don't pause after saying "Mississippi" in "2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi tornado"). I would not be opposed to opening up a new MOS discussion on this, but this is the first time I've chimed in on one of these GEOCOMMA/DATECOMMA discussions, so I'll leave it to more involved editors. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 02:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the extra comma is quite awkward, and the recent discussion at 2023 Cleveland, Texas shooting shows there is no site policy requiring it. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – In agreement with Skarmory. United States Man (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.