→List of United States tornadoes in May 2008: link to ARCA principle |
Tag: Reply |
||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
:OH. MY. GOD. You're just pissed off that the ENTIRE project is against you because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. We have been making tornado lists for OVER A DECADE with no trouble and now you come along and have a problem with it? How did you even come across this? Hitting the random articles link? I called you out on your B.S. claim and now you're throwing a hissy fit. Move on and go mess with some other project; we are improving the articles we have made and don't have time to be dealing with s*** like this. [[User:ChessEric|ChessEric]] ([[User talk:ChessEric|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/ChessEric|contribs]]) 19:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
:OH. MY. GOD. You're just pissed off that the ENTIRE project is against you because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. We have been making tornado lists for OVER A DECADE with no trouble and now you come along and have a problem with it? How did you even come across this? Hitting the random articles link? I called you out on your B.S. claim and now you're throwing a hissy fit. Move on and go mess with some other project; we are improving the articles we have made and don't have time to be dealing with s*** like this. [[User:ChessEric|ChessEric]] ([[User talk:ChessEric|talk]] <b>·</b> [[Special:Contribs/ChessEric|contribs]]) 19:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
::*'''Comment''' Principle 6 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones in this recent Arbitration case] with connection to this Wikiprojact appears relevant to your replies here. It states ''''WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content, policy or procedures. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them."''-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 19:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
::*'''Comment''' Principle 6 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject_Tropical_Cyclones in this recent Arbitration case] with connection to this Wikiprojact appears relevant to your replies here. It states ''''WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content, policy or procedures. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them."''-- [[User:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">'''Ponyo'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ponyo|<span style="color: Navy;">''bons mots''</span>]]</sup> 19:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
::*:Well, the current consensus known to pretty much all participants to the Wikiproject is that of maintaining monthly tornado articles with all reported tornadoes for the month. That consensus in kwown to most or all of us that edit there articles daily. As such, we the editors, have created such consensus and followed it, without the need to be a rule set in stone within the project itself. So, no [[WP:CANVASS]] here, just people sticking to what we all have agreed upon already. [[User:Mjeims|Mjeims]] ([[User talk:Mjeims|talk]]) 20:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{ping|Fram}} What is your vendetta against this topic? You obviously aren't acting in good faith or to improve Wikipedia. Seems like you have ulterior motives. [[User:United States Man|United States Man]] ([[User talk:United States Man#top|talk]]) 19:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
{{ping|Fram}} What is your vendetta against this topic? You obviously aren't acting in good faith or to improve Wikipedia. Seems like you have ulterior motives. [[User:United States Man|United States Man]] ([[User talk:United States Man#top|talk]]) 19:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:02, 8 February 2023
List of United States tornadoes in May 2008
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of United States tornadoes in May 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list duplicates three other pages, Tornado outbreak of May 1–2, 2008, List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak sequence of May 7–15, 2008, and List of tornadoes in the tornado outbreak sequence of May 22–31, 2008. It has no actual content, just copies long lists of mainly minor tornadoes from these three pages. Efforts to rationalize this somewhat[1] were reverted. I don't see the point of this duplicative effort. Note that the three events are also at length described in Tornadoes of 2008#May, making this essentially a fifth page about the same events, but with the least information and the most WP:NOTDATABASE content issues. Fram (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep just because it doesn't have any content now doesn't mean it won't be added later. As a matter of fact, are start putting in tables now. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Indeed, a list of two tornadoes which did no damage. Why do we need a list of trivia? Fram (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Let's compare it to a finished one, List of United States tornadoes in April 2009; yep, loads and loads of trivial, minor events and one major outbreak which already has its own article. So the month article adds nothing of value. Fram (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- ...you serious right now? A tornado is a tornado; whether its an EF5 tornado that destroys a city or an EFU tornado that remains over open country, IT GOES ON THE LIST. IT STILL COUNTS. There is nothing 'trivial' about a documented tornado. If that's the case, you might as well go back to every tornado list ever made and delete it.
- @United States Man, TornadoLGS, Penitentes, Poodle23, Mjeims, Wxtrackercody, Halls4521, TornadoInformation12, Ionmars10, and CapeVerdeWave: Someone please reason with this moron who isn't part of the project and is being annoying. I have better things to do than argue all day. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:24, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Fram: Unfortunately, in tornado outbreak articles, we spare no expense and list every single tornado, from the weakest to the most destructive. As ChessEric said, articles listing tornadoes for a month or multi-month period include every single tornado documented for the month, and they also include the tornado tables for more significant outbreak days, which sometimes have articles of their own. I personally do not care if you do not find any value in having month articles with many supposedly "insignificant" events listed, but for history records and documentation that these Wikipedia articles are for, every single tornado has to be present, even if failed to be notable in and of its own. So, with that said, keep. Mjeims (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- This guy possibly got angry because he got an edit reverted. XD
- Seriously though, there are probably at least some people out there who want/need a combined list. Also, there are tornadoes that happened in between those time periods, and if someone wanted to find out about them, this article would need to exist. Poodle23 (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: This isn’t violating any guidelines or policy, and has been used for basically every…single…month for tornadoes. To the nominator’s comment about it being a duplicate to five other sources…I don’t see any of those other articles mentioning anything about May 5 or May 6, which means it adds new information that should not be combined with any other event as combining it into a tornado outbreak article would effectively be adding inaccurate information to Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment How is this notification not a violation of WP:CANVASS?-- Ponyobons mots 19:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Ponyo: I normally get pinged in weather-related discussions (many discussions to back that up), and my interactions with the nominator occurred generally before I started editing in weather-related articles. The person alerting me probably did not know my history with the nominator, especially since I do not wish to interact with them and don’t interact with them. The closing admin is free to exclude my !vote if they wish to, but I do have thousands of edits in weather-related articles over the past year & I am a member of WP:Weather. Either way, this will be my final message in this discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- He was giving me valuable information and besides, the nominator is not even part of this project and is trying to impose his will on it. I'm tired of s*** like this. Leave him alone. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:09, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- The entire conversation at Elijahandskip's talk page has a "poison the well" quality to it, including Elijahandskip pinging one of the participants here to their talk page to disparage the nominator. Pinging like-minded editors to an AfD with the expectation of them supporting you is canvassing. Going to a talk page of an editor and titling the section "Link to this stupid article deletion attempt" is canvassing. -- Ponyobons mots 19:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment How is this notification not a violation of WP:CANVASS?-- Ponyobons mots 19:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep – Definitely one of the sillier AfDs I've seen here in a long time. Nominator obviously has no understanding of the Wikiproject or standard practices within. Once the list is done it will be on par with the many other years that we've done. United States Man (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh look, every single editor who voted keep has been canvassed here, what a coincidence. Perhaps time to get a wider RfC to stop the practices if this insular Wikiproject and its foulmouthed members. Fram (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- You have to understand some of our frustration, and I wouldn't call this Wikiproject "insular". The fact that ChessEric pinged these editors (including myself) and we all responded with an agreeance to keep these articles should give you further reason to NOT call for a canvassing steamroll. There are many more editors that make part of this Wikiproject who would be in agreeance to the stipulations that have been in place for years. It is not an opinion only the ones that were pinged agree on. Its great that you are a veteran editor with many times more edits that all of us combined, but you can't just come here and decide that the way we are doing is wrong or unnecessary after it has been accepted for many years now, and will hopefully continue. Mjeims (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- OH. MY. GOD. You're just pissed off that the ENTIRE project is against you because you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. We have been making tornado lists for OVER A DECADE with no trouble and now you come along and have a problem with it? How did you even come across this? Hitting the random articles link? I called you out on your B.S. claim and now you're throwing a hissy fit. Move on and go mess with some other project; we are improving the articles we have made and don't have time to be dealing with s*** like this. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Principle 6 in this recent Arbitration case with connection to this Wikiprojact appears relevant to your replies here. It states ''WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content, policy or procedures. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them."-- Ponyobons mots 19:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well, the current consensus known to pretty much all participants to the Wikiproject is that of maintaining monthly tornado articles with all reported tornadoes for the month. That consensus in kwown to most or all of us that edit there articles daily. As such, we the editors, have created such consensus and followed it, without the need to be a rule set in stone within the project itself. So, no WP:CANVASS here, just people sticking to what we all have agreed upon already. Mjeims (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment Principle 6 in this recent Arbitration case with connection to this Wikiprojact appears relevant to your replies here. It states ''WikiProjects have no special status in developing consensus on matters of content, policy or procedures. Any Wikipedia editor may participate in developing a consensus on any matter that interests them."-- Ponyobons mots 19:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Fram: What is your vendetta against this topic? You obviously aren't acting in good faith or to improve Wikipedia. Seems like you have ulterior motives. United States Man (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2023 (UTC)