Talk:2014 Louisville, Mississippi tornado: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content deleted Content added


 

Line 22: Line 22:

:* ”’Oppose”’ and would love if someone with powers would move [[1846 Grenada, Mississippi, tornado]] back to [[1846 Grenada, Mississippi tornado]] please [[User:Jengod|jengod]] ([[User talk:Jengod|talk]]) 05:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

:* ”’Oppose”’ and would love if someone with powers would move [[1846 Grenada, Mississippi, tornado]] back to [[1846 Grenada, Mississippi tornado]] please [[User:Jengod|jengod]] ([[User talk:Jengod|talk]]) 05:31, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

*::That one was moved more than a year ago. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 14:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

::That one was moved more than a year ago. —⁠ ⁠[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 14:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)


Latest revision as of 14:21, 8 December 2025

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination’s talk page, the article’s talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by HurricaneZeta (talk14:50, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Created by GrenadinesDes (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

GrenadinesDes (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article is new enough and is long enough for DYK. QPQ is not required since the nominator has fewer than 5 prior nominations. The article appears neutrally written and well sourced and it doesn’t show any copyvio issue. Although the hook is interesting, I’m not fully confident about the sourcing for the hook’s main claim (the “door thrown 30 miles” detail). The CBS link seems to quote a tweet rather than confirm the fact directly, so I’m unsure whether that is strong enough for a hook. I’m a new reviewer, so I would appreciate a second opinion from someone more experienced on the hook verification. 1475Steeven (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’ll take on that portion, looking thru the claim of the “30 mile door”, which I can see thru another subsequent article in 2020 by CBS affiliate WHNT-TV in 2020. The source of the quote is a weather reporter named Dennis Merserau, whose name and articles checks out in multiple books and publications and in addition, the article has additional citation of being an artifact of this tornado. Prose size is 27298 characters. Verification of the Earwig Copyvio Check checks out for me as well. It is thoroughly written, and if you would like, get this additional citation in just for “two-factor” authentication of the door quote. By all means, I approve of this article. NeverBeGameOver (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Louisville, Mississippi tornado2014 Louisville, Mississippi, tornado2014 Louisville, Mississippi, tornado – Undiscussed and controversial move not grounded in any policy besides “precedent”. EF5 14:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). TarnishedPathtalk 09:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Mississippi, WikiProject Severe weather, and WikiProject Weather have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPathtalk 09:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and speedy close per very recent similar request at Talk:2013 Washington, Illinois tornado which was closed as “not moved”. And also Talk:2010 Knox County, Tennessee mayoral election which also closed with no consensus. See either of those two RMs for why the present title is the lesser of two evils in such cases. These endless repeated requests along the same lines are becoming tiresome now.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: This is not the same situation as for the other two RMs mentioned by Amakuru. Here the proposal is to move the article back to the title it originally had before someone made an undiscussed move and a WP:MOVEWAR began. In the absence of a clear consensus to do differently, it should go back to where it was. The proposal is also supported by the MoS, so we’re not going to get a clear consensus to do differently. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the comma makes the title clunky and grammatically incorrect. I agree with Amakuru that this is getting tiring, and as noted previous RMs have generally shown that adding a comma is generally opposed. This is very much similar with the 2011 Philadelphia MS tornado in which that was generally seen as to not add a comma. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:20, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That one was moved more than a year ago. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top