story · music · places

2025 opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had). Today I had a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) - Thank you for improving article quality in January! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that the Greensburg FAC got archived (which, to be fair, was a big article and coming from nothing I'll say you've done extraordinary work there), and I was wondering if you wanted to revisit the Tri-State FA for its 100th anniversary. I know you're sick right now, so when you come down from that (and when the RM for the page is over), I'm going to start an FA and would love to have you as a co-nominator. My FAC on the Belvidere Apollo Theatre collapse is winding down as well (full support, only needing one more review to pass), and FAC rules dictate that another can be opened as a co-nomination with another editor even if one FAC is open. I do think that 1925 Tri-State tornado, as it is, isn't too far away from FA quality - some MOS, miscellaneous fixes, and a bit of expansion for the prose is going to be necessary, but the centennial of potentially the most important tornado in history seems a worthy inspiration for me. Even if you don't, I'll be working on that once my Belvidere FAC is passed / archived. I hope to see you on the Tri-State FAC when it starts. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but it won't be nominated within the March 18 timeframe by me, and since it's already been at DYK (I was going to ask for it to be pulled but for some reason it got moved far up the queue), you'd have to wait a year anyways. I'll keep working on Greensburg, although I'm sure it'll find a way to fail again. I really don't think the Trị-State article would pass an FAC, although I'd still co-nominate. I guess I'll just listen to the Carter Family while recouping from yet another disastrous FAC. :)E_F⁵ 15:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'd co-nominate, taking a second look it isn't that bad. E_F⁵ 15:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. March 18 is 55 days away. I've asked at WT:TFA and I'm hoping for good news there. We can always aim for the 101st anniversary, and regardless having this as a featured article will be preserving its legacy (and helping news organizations, which sometimes cross-reference Wikipedia even if they don't say they do to check for notability and important facts). I'll open that candidacy now. Departure– (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, I think I'll wait a few days and do a few hours of editing on the article before nominating. I don't want to be stuck in the limbo that was the first month of the Belvidere article's FAC. Departure– (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could always go ask around for reviews, I believe it's only canvassing if you're telling them "hey, support my FAC!". E_F⁵ 15:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Departure–: I also noticed that you are planning to write 2025 New Ulm tornado, I assume that's a typo of 1881 New Ulm tornado; no significant tornado has hit a "New Ulm" this year that I'm aware of (the hypothetical one is, well... hypothetical)? Just asking. XD E_F⁵ 16:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone made a hypothetical tornado based on one I made up out of nowhere to prove a point in an MOS question? Fun fact, that entire thing was based on the May 30, 2022 outbreak in Minnesota that was the first one I actually paid attention to while it was happening. I could never get into hypothetical tornadoes. Too many F41s for my tastes. Also, who are you to say there won't be a violent tornado in New Ulm this year? I also want to say that hypothetical tornadoes give me real issue, because they often show up in search results when I'm looking for actual tornadoes (see Cheyenne and Naperville) and it's more trouble than it's worth I feel. Fandom is scummy anyway.

After the Tri-State, I need to keep working on Jordan, the June 13, 1976 outbreak, Belvidere 1967, and Cheyenne. For Cheyenne, yes, adding media was easy enough but the image I made strikes me as uncanny and unrealistic - a bit too amorphous even for a meteorological phenomenon like a tornado, so I'll need to keep working on that. I'm still mad that Lemont 1976 fails GNG because that would be a joy to write about, but I guess it'll need to stay as just a section in the June 13 outbreak article. Here's hoping that there isn't a super outbreak this year, and that if there is, we keep NEXRAD and WOFS up and don't lie to ourselves about why it happened. Departure– (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although WP:NOTWEBHOST is something I've seen a lot of people get their user pages hit with in regards to hypothetical weather. I enjoy writing on Fandom, it gives me the joy of writing about weather without having to do the research (although I wouldn't say the community is the holiest). :) E_F⁵ 16:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of holiness and on the subject of the Tri-State tornado...

I need to get that book PBS referenced. I might try my luck at the resource exchange. Departure– (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny enough, neither of the weather encyclopedias I have mention the Tri-State tornado in their respective "notable tornadoes" sections! I can probably find a good physical source on a whim though, and WeatherWriter has that Grazulis book, so we should be fine. E_F⁵ 17:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. @EF5, now that you've recovered from your bout of sickness, are you going to finish your GA review of National Weather Service Quad Cities, Iowa/Illinois? I fixed the sources a while ago and the prose is all that needs to be checked. Departure– (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. I probably should've jotted down a list of things I started before getting sick. :) E_F⁵ 19:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Trousdale EF3 tornado.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Petit-Clamart attack you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Petit-Clamart attack and Talk:Petit-Clamart attack/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vigilantcosmicpenguin -- Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Petit-Clamart attack you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Petit-Clamart attack for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vigilantcosmicpenguin -- Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of 2011 Ringgold–Apison tornado at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Departure– (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:2016 Katie, Oklahoma EF4 tornado.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]