Talk:Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021

Deprecate an article from Accuweather from Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021

Is the following Accuweather article, 2 long-track tornadoes confirmed amongst rare December swarm by Allison Finch, a reliable source of information for this article as well as for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado? (See this background section for further information)

Option 1: Deprecate (blacklist from this article)

Option 2: Allow Accuweather article to be referenced in the article, without the non-reference content from sockmaster.

Option 3: Allow Accuweather article to be referenced and information being added by the sockmaster be allowed in the article.

Elijahandskip (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Background

One editor named User:Andrew5, a well-known sockmaster, has been attempted to add a specific article from Accuweather to this Wikipedia article for months. The article in question is 2 long-track tornadoes confirmed amongst rare December swarm by Allison Finch. I will link the multiple attempts below. Based on this behavior from a sockmaster (ongoing for at least 6 months) & overall community consensus to exclude the Accuweather article from the Wikipedia article, a formal discussion is needed to help determine whether or not the article and material is viable for the article(s) or should be deprecated (blacklisted) from the articles.

Sockmaster attempts (going from recent to oldest, with all accounts in question blocked): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] (and others you can see in the edit history).

Discussion

• Option 1: Looking back through the article’s edit history, this sock master has been determined since the beginning of November 2022 to add the information as well as that Accuweather article. Seeing how the only person interested or wanting the information in the article is violating Wikipedia policy to get it done, I believe there is an ulterior motive at play here, which most likely means the Accuweather article violates WP:RS. Also, with numerous editors expressing their opinions on excluding it from the article prior to this discussion, there is a solid consensus already established prior to this formal RfC. Side note: This RfC was started with the hope of a formal blacklisting of that URL from Wikipedia, since this and 2021 Western Kentucky tornado are the only articles it even pertains too. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  (1) Is there a Wikipedia-wide consensus on the reliability of AccuWeather articles already? If it is reliable, we should include the statement and the AccuWeather article as its reference. If it is not a reliable source, see (2).

  (2) Are there any other potential references which confirm the statement the IP accounts are attempting to add? If there are, we can and probably should add both the statement and those references. If there are no others, case closed. Penitentes (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

As to part 1, all I found is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 365#AccuWeather and The Weather Channel from January 2022, but no formal discussion was made. As for part 2, I have no idea. That said, wouldn't a community consensus basically already be in place since the only person advocating for it's inclusion is the sockmaster and multiple other editors are not wanting it's inclusion? I think the question isn't fully whether AccuWeather in general should be deprecated, but rather if this article specifically should be deprecated from this article, due to it's inclusion being driven by a sockmaster. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

We can evaluate the content completely aside from the sockpuppet activity, in my opinion. It usually doesn't bode well when a sockpuppet evading a ban tries to repeatedly add content to an article, that's true, but the issue isn't that they are trying to add something, it's that they are evading repeated bans and using workaround accounts to do so. In my view this RFC shouldn't be about deprecating this specific AccuWeather source at all. If we chose to do so, what would that imply? First, that AccuWeather is not a reliable source, and second, that we should deprecate sources used by ban evaders in their attempted edits.

It feels like this RFC should be about whether the statement that User:Andrew5 has been attempting to add should be added or not. I tend to think it's notable enough to mention that the Bowling Green tornado had the second-longest path ever recorded in December, but the edit history of the article may show, as you say, that the majority disagrees. Either way, I think that's the more appropriate conversation to have. Penitentes (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

A RfC is not required for this at this moment. You can just start a talk page discussion, please refer to WP:RFCBEFORE. There is no prior discussion on the article talk or archive discussing this specific issue. Regarding sockpuppet concerns, bring that to the attention of WP:SPI. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: per Wikipedia:Deprecated sources, the process is done generally through an RfC. Also, with the amount of edit summary discussions (over the last 6 months) as well as Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Should AccuWeather be deprecated? (started and ended 2 hours earlier), there has been enough discussion (multiple times since November 2022) to satisfy WP:RFCBEFORE. As stated in my sidenote to my !vote option, I started this with the hope of a formal deprecation, so an RfC is needed for that as well as to avoid canvassing concerns since per WP:RSN, discussions like this are generally held of article talk pages, not a noticeboard. WP:SPI is already taken care of since the sockmaster keeps getting blocked. But for the source deprecation process, an RfC is the best option. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You don't deprecate an individual news article. If you get a consensus to remove it, then you can remove it; there's no need to deprecate it.

Is this source inaccurate? Is it biased? Those are the relevant questions to deprecation. If this is a concern for the entire accuweather domain, and deprecation is warranted, that should be discussed at WP:RSN. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment — Since it appears starting an RfC was not the right call, I have removed the RfC tag. However, I still hold to this discussion to blacklist that AccuWeather source from this article. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

New split

@MarioProtIV Was there a prior discussion and consensus reached before splitting the article? Did I miss a discussion within the weather project about splitting this article? A bold split like this requires editor to follow the procedure in WP:PROSPLIT rather than an unexpected content transfer. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There was technically one but it was started by a blocked LTAer so it’s null and void in that regard, so basically no. There’s been some discussion about individual tornadoes which, fair points to not really unless exceptional, but generally what’s been the case now (at least, for the last several outbreaks in April and May of the current year), is splitting if the table gets too long (once you reach about 75-80 tornadoes with several standalone sections (at least 4 or 5) for the notable tornadoes). Some discussion was brought up in early 2022 but the article was smaller back then, and in the past 2 years a lot more has been added, with a few more tornado sections having been added (which are long). It’s not a written consensus, but there hasn’t been pushback against it so it basically is BOLD in that regard. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 06:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think those recent outbreak articles are of the same high-profile status as this in terms of human/social impact and scientific significance (I'm an earthquake-focused editor I may be wrong). Being of that significance, following the split procedure to gain a clear concensus for this particular case should be the way to go. Do start the discussion if you would like to proceed with the split. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Table split?

Per request by Dora from the brief conversation above, I am proposing if we should split out the table into its own page. I initially did so BOLDly on the initiative that this page is getting too long, especially with the non-tornado details (aftermath, etc) which have a lot more detail. I should note that with outbreaks usually on the scale and significance (in terms of intense/violent tornadoes with this much impact and the details of the aftermath) as this one with a lot of post-outbreak detail, we have tended to split them out if the outbreak total surpasses 75 to 100 tornadoes. Arbitrary? Yes, but it seems to be more of a “silent consensus” that we seem to just follow on instinct, and that hasn’t had any pushbacks. Additionally, for mobile users, it would be helpful to split as well since it takes quite a bit of scrolling if one is going to read just the notable tornado sections or the aftermath and non-tornadic effects. Thoughts? MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: Given the number of tornadoes that needed sections, a split is needed in my opinion. ChessEric 18:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Bowling green EF3

This tornado should have a seperate article, as it is notable enough, has enough sources, and the current section is very long 2603:80A0:C00:137:CD8E:75AB:B17C:D7A9 (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

A draft could be made, I will not consider though because you is in Hurricaneeditor18 (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)