You said "a pre-statehood proposed territorial division". Really? That seems to be a very fine distinction. So we have "List of U.S. state partition proposals". Is there a page for "List of U.S. pre-statehood partition proposals"? I suspect not, because it may be too fine a point to differentiate these cases. Is the Sequoyah proposal not serious enough? They wrote a constitution. They voted on it and it passed. But having an idea written about in the Walsenburg World-Independent is ok to include? :--) IMHO a list page is needed where there is a structure to the question but a search does not help find the thing. Doing a search, the results look fairly random and unhelpful and they do not include the Sequoyah proposal on the first page. Finally, does "a state partition" mean "a partition of a state" or "a partition that creates a state". If it is only the first definition, then you are correct that the Sequoyah page does not qualify. But why do you think that only the first definition is correct? I am adding a link to a good, quality page in a page that has problems. It can only improve the page. Is this a bad thing? Does it merit an automatic reversion? Why? RayKiddy (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RayKiddy: Regarding your question about the meaning "a state partition", the introduction clearly states and explains the scope of the article as "substantive proposals, both successful and unsuccessful, put forward since the nation's founding to partition or set off a portion of an existing U.S. state or states so that the region might either join another state or create a new state". Regarding the broader issues you raise concerning the page, I agree with you that there needs to be some standard for inclusion/exclusion developed, what constitutes a "substantive proposal" to partition a state. Talk to you there. P.S. Please, on all talk pages, place a new discussion topic under existing/older ones. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this edit, is "sovereign nation states" the same as "independent entities"? I wasn't making that assumption based on the name alone. Assuming that article is showing the full growth/expansion of the United States, there would need to be a place to include Northern Mariana Islands (and maybe Provisional Government of Oregon). Is there a different section of the page where they'd fit in your mind? Or how would you describe them? –Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure what sort of a response you are looking for here. Your reason for reverting to the previous picture seemed clear to me: you don't think the more informal photo of the current Roberts Court should be used and that the old, outdated formal picture should remain in place until the new formal picture is released. Is that accurate? If so, I'm okay with it. Drdpw (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, I was hoping to ask about this revision to the article on the 2026 United States gubernatorial elections. I'm not sure why the addition is considered "speculation," as the sections on California and Georgia both contain lists of potential candidates, which are still present on the article with attached sources, similar to Alabama's. Should these two be removed as well? Thanks. Kafoxe (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was reverted because this detail does not need a mention in the lead, which focuses on the office of speaker alone. Mention it in the article where the the Speaker pro tempore is mentioned. Drdpw (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding eligibility of non-members, I was in process of putting together further info when you reverted. Your revert was therefore fine, but I have now inserted that info. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While we're in the same ballpark, both the pro tempore emeritus title held by Chuck Grassley and speaker emerita title held by Nancy Pelosi are honorary titles with no real power. They are proverbial "gold watches" for past presiding members as tokens of appreciation. Neither is a presiding officer. You can't mention one without the other as they are both in the same vein, which is why the emeritus section is a fair compromise. Vjlmhds(talk)04:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strom Thurmond was given the title because Jim Jeffords flipped the senate when he left the GOP, giving the Dems control in the middle of the 197th congress. It is an honorary title with no real power, and is not a presiding officer. What was done for Pelosi is the same thing. Neither Grassley nor Pelosi are presiding officers, nor should they be listed as such. They were both given honorary titles for their past service. The pro tempore emeritus position has been around longer, and people after Thurmond have since been bestowed the title, but it doesn't make them presiding officers. Can't acknowledge one and not the other...that's all I'm saying, as it's the same basic idea for each. Vjmlhds(talk)05:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grassley got the title from the full Senate, whereas Pelosi got the title from a committee of the House Democratic caucus.[2]. So it’s similar but not quite the same. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completely missing the point...they are honorary titles, with no power and they are not presiding officers. Getting too hung up on the minutiae and not seeing the big picture (aka forest --> trees). Grassley is NOT a presiding officer in the Senate, and shouldn't be listed as such. His title and Pelosi's mean the exact same - honorary for past accomplishments. Whether they were voted on by the full Senate or just committees don't mean anything. They're honorary titles meant as "lifetime achievement awards" to honor their past positions. Vjmlhds(talk)05:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have just removed the emeritus/emerita mention from the page because neither is a considered to be a leadership position by their respective chamber according to their respective website. Drdpw (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now I can live with this. My whole point was that Grassley/Pelosi's status as emeritus were both the same...gold watch/lifetime achievement awards for past service. Neither is a leadership position, and one isn't more worthy of a mention than the other. Treat them the same. Vjmlhds(talk)15:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but we'll have to be consistent
Howdy, I've no problem with deleting the 'president pro tempore emeritus' from the 118th United States Congress page. But it should be done on the preceding th US Congress pages, too. FWIW, the honorary title was adopted by the US Senate. Where's the 'speaker-emirta' honorary title was not adopted by the US House of Representatives. GoodDay (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I would agree to removing the president pro tempore emeritus bit from the bio infoboxes of Strom Thurmond to Chuck Grassley as well. They're not constitutional offices & as you've accurately put it - they just 'gold watches', basically trivial. GoodDay (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitch199811: Perhaps that sentence should be removed. There is no would have been named statement in the season articles for the 1997, 2005, 2006 unnamed sub / tropical storms (1987, 1988, 2011, 2013 either). It is not done for depressions either, which go unnamed, or for PTCs when included as other storms. Drdpw (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2023 Speaker of the House election
Now that the List of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives elections has been split off from the too wide original List of speakers, I still have the same question about the 2023 election not displaying "Present" votes as do earlier elections, since we know that six members abstained in this election. The information is found at 2023 Speaker of the United States House of Representatives election, saying "On the fifteenth and final ballot, the six remaining anti-McCarthy holdouts voted "present", which reduced the threshold of votes needed for a majority from 218 to 215 members voting for a person by name, thus allowing McCarthy to be elected with 216 votes." I recognize that's a different article. I haven't checked to see whether all of the preceding "Present" votes listed here in this "List" article are specifically referenced here for this page. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you please engage with me in more good-faith dialogue and back-and-forth of my edits of US Senate and US Supreme Court pages? These reversions you make without providing a reason seem to go against the spirit of the site to open-mindedly follow the facts to collaboratively find the truth. I feel gaslit by the constant reversions. I appreciate the times when you do work on wording in more of a 'yes and' spirit to arrive at an altogether (hopefully) better final product.
Hello, and I hope all is well. The short descriptor edits I added at the first five U.S. presidents seem to be better than just listing them as presidents. Including 'Founding Father' covers, in two words, a vast amount of the other accomplishments of these men. Washington and the rest of course did much more than serve as early presidents, and adding two words applies both brevity and a condensing descriptor to those other activities. Can we go with it? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Kryn: I am inclined to stick with the standard short description used for all U.S. presidents. An additional descriptor could be added for several of them, but is not (as far as I know). Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thought is to then follow up on this. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, they are all far more than a president as their sole descriptor. Adding 'Founding Father' to, say, Jefferson's short description (Founding Father, third president of the United States), and dropping the unneeded dates, covers his initial unprecedented accomplishments in two words. Keeping later presidents' summaries as is seems fine, including Monroe (who didn't really "make his mark" in the initial founding years), but for the four major founders, it doesn't seem enough, and feels like it's placing too tight of a wording on their overall significance. Please mull this over a bit, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has reverted the Adams short descriptor with a good edit summary. Listing just the presidency for these four major founders still seems "off", there should be more (adding the two words "Founding Father" brings a cornucopia of encapsulated accomplishments into play). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People WILL get confused. If I said "I love the President of the United States" they will most likely think of Biden or something, not the band. Положение (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?
Regarding This edit, at my count, in the discussion, there were 7 supports (6 under it and one back in the main voting section) and no explicit opposes to that wording. I just copt-pasted it from the discussion. I am flummoxed as to how copying the actual text that had unanimous approval is somehow "misrepresenting" the discussion. Can you elaborate? --Jayron3211:41, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: There was Rfc consensus for at least a brief clause in lede but not for a full sentence: "…the participants largely agree that some mention in the lead is warranted. There does not appear to be consensus for the wording as proposed by the OP, but there are several proposals with various degrees of support - I leave it to the participants to agree on the best version". Your copy-paste edit was of a full sentence, and was simply attached to the end of a paragraph, thus looking like copy-paste add-on. In my subsequent edit, I took mention of the AIDS epidemic and included it within a sentence mentioning other key first term challenges – the assassination attempt, labor union fights, and the war on drugs. Before making the edit I looked at the wording discussion and considered where (and how) mention of the epidemic and the Reagan response fit best in light of the larger Rfc discussion. Hope this brings greater clarity. Drdpw (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That is fine by me, I just don't appreciate being accused of mischaracterizing something when I merely copy-pasted the consensus version from the discussion. I have no problems with you improving upon my changes, but in the future, please don't ascribe malfeasance to me (or to others) when you don't know intent. I misrepresented nothing. I may have been less than perfect in execution, but I represented the discussion exactly as it happened. Improvements are welcome, accusations of bad faith are rather not. But I thank you for explaining your thinking, and I am fine with your improved wording. --Jayron3213:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: The added sentence came from a discussion held while the Rfc was ongoing and did not take into account the emerging rough consensus for at least a brief clause in lede but not for a full sentence. In hindsight, stating something along those lines would have been more accurate and certainly more constructive, given that I did not mean to accuse you of malfeasance or of bad faith. Drdpw (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reagan/AIDS sentence
Hello Drdpw. The sentence I added was decided at the RfC. Please see the section at the bottom of the RfC discussion. Needless to say we can consider your alternative proposals, but the consensus version should remain in the article until we decide on a replacement. SPECIFICOtalk14:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Drdpw - concerning this edit to off-season Atlantic hurricanes, I was wondering why you removed all of those systems. I originally added them because they exist in the meta data. While they might not have full track maps like official cyclones, they are still listed as tropical/subtropical depressions. Take 1954, for example, where you removed two: you can find both of them here, clearly listed as:
Jan. 27 23N 57W Subtropical Depression
And later:
May 19 41N 31W Subtropical Depression
Because you already have edited the article since the edit in question, would you mind adding all of the missing systems in HURDAT back in? Thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. I can cite to the original documents. You can't.
SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, The the supreme court of the United States shall consist of a chief justice and five associate justices, any four of whom shall be a quorum, and shall hold annually at the seat of government two sessions, the one commencing the first Monday of February, and the other the first Monday of August. That the associate justices shall have precedence according to the date of their commissions, or when the commissions of two or more of them bear date on the same day, according to their respective ages.
Moreover, your confusion about vesting of the office is legally incorrect, as stated by Chief Justice Marshall himself in Marbury v. Madison, 5U.S.137, 162 (1803):
Mr. Marbury, then, since his commission was signed by the President and sealed by the Secretary of State, was appointed, and as the law creating the office gave the officer a right to hold for five years independent of the Executive, the appointment was not revocable, but vested in the officer legal rights which are protected by the laws of his country.
To withhold the commission, therefore, is an act deemed by the Court not warranted by law, but violative of a vested legal right.
As the language makes clear, the officeholder's right to the office is what "vests," and that at the moment the Seal of the United States is affixed to the signed judicial commission.
I don't know where you got the wrong idea from... Next time, assume good faith and hit up my talk page if you doubt. Have fun undoing your reverts. - Foofighter20x (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the presidents list
Hi i am friendlyhsitorian i wont press the issue now but it by deleting a polite request despite the fact i brought examples and everything and you just refuse to engage i legit wanted to discuss this . Why are you so hostile ? i apologize if i came out as hostile ok
@Friendlyhistorian: No hostility intended, it is simply that this not the place to discuss the objections multiple editors have had to your edits at List of presidents of the United States. The content of the table on that page has changed over time and changes have been and are made by consensus reached among editors on the article's talk page. Please open a discussion there on your desired changes. Drdpw (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: The long-standing practice has been to only include references when specific fatality number and/or specific damage figures are included in the table for an individual system. Drdpw (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a little counter-intuitive since that puts items in a table without a secondary reliable source. I think that practice may need to be re-evaluated since it doesn’t align perfectly with Wikipedia’s guidelines. I’m not going to start a discussion on this issue, but I think it is something that should be said at least. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation
Hello Drdpw!
The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.
Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!
Hi! FYI you've reverted the hatnote from Stormy Daniels to Storm Daniel 4 times (1, 2, 3, 4), and your edits are happening within a very short timeframe. The first 3 and last 3 reverts happened within 24 hours, and are therefore disfavored under the WP:3RR policy. I wonder if you'd be willing to self-revert and start a discussion on the talk page? Edge3 (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of US House speaker elections decided by multiple ballots
Why do you want the date column to be unsortable? I have never seen that in a sortable table and see no reason to remove the sorting. It's the initial sorting and the same sorting as the first column but readers may not realize that if they want to go back after sorting by another column. Based on your edit summary in [3] I wonder whether you realize it was sorted chronologically by the full date including year. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical Storm Bret
I am planning to start to create a draft for tropical storm bret. The season article is already quite lengthy and I don't know how much media coverage there is. If it doesn't prove to work well, I will redirect it, but please dont redirect while I am still working on it. Shmego (talk) 13:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Thanks for working on so many season articles, making sure the sourcing and wording are done properly. It's a lot of minor edits, but they all contributed to the encyclopedia being a little bit better. Keep up the great work! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know that I undid your edits re: Dora on the grounds of WP:GOODFAITH and WP:BOLD. We cannot give the article name "Hurricane Dora" to either 1964 or 2023 anymore per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As this situation is unique, to avoid placing WP:UNDUE weight to both storms in each basin (since the 1964 and 2023 incarnations are the most notable/researched currently and that retirees are usually the PRIMARYTOPIC), was why I had to add the (Atlantic) and (East Pacific) tags to each name. I don’t think, on those grounds, a discussion is necessary or needed, but you are welcome to start one regardless if you feel otherwise. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there Drdpw, I noticed and appreciate all of the work you've been doing toward retired names. I wondered if you had any thoughts on the List of retired Atlantic hurricane names page, which seems to be the inevitable endpoint with what you're working on. The list is B-class right now, but I wondered what you thought it needed before it was a featured list? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Thank you. I ended up doing much more than I set out to do, which was fine tune and add citations to the storm name sections in the mid-to-late 20th century Atlantic and Pacific hurricane season articles. Regarding the list of retired Atlantic hurricane names article, overall, it looks to be ready now for FL consideration, though a check of prose, citations, etc., might be a good thing beforehand. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, one of those famous wiki-holes, where you get started on something, and then you notice it everywhere. As you've probably gathered, there are a lot of articles that could use some help. The references are lacking for more recent years, so I'll add a few of those, now that I've noticed it. I always thought that it might be nice having a future FT for all of the retired lists around the world, with the parent topic being Tropical cyclone naming or something. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have a history of edit warring.
Hi Drdpw, you have a history of edit warring. I have never been in an edit war with anyone except for you. It seems like you are in the wrong here. Please ping me if you respond. Alexysun (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an alert being sent to all active editors on the WikiProject of Weather and any editor who has recently editors weather-related articles.
Editors on the Commons have received communication from the National Weather Service that the Template:PD-NWS, which is often used to upload weather-related images, is incorrect. There will be a discussion starting on the Commons Copyright Noticeboard within the next few days to determine how to manage this issue. Under the current PD-NWS copyright template, images on any NWS webpage was considered to be in the public domain unless it had a direct copyright symbol and/or copyright watermark.
One National Weather Service office has confirmed this is not the case. For the next few days, it may be best to not upload any image from an NWS webpage that was not made or taken directly by the National Weather Service themselves. Once the Commons determine how to move forward, editors will recent a new alert. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)23:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Ford
Please stop reverting valuable information pertaining to Ford's principal foreign policy actions during his presidency. The erasure of information demonstrating his support of a genocidal regime will not go unnoticed by the people that care about these things. Maurnxiao (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In what way am I failing to assume good faith? Erasure doesnt have to be intentional. And please stop threatening me every two minutes. I'm improving these articles for English reading audiences. Maurnxiao (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again? There was a discussion on the talk page which, and I have my arguments whereas you made one comment, I gave a rebuttal, and you did not respond, so what consensus? Why remove it?! Maurnxiao (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a conversation and we both gave our reasons, but I showed why yours were inconsistent and then you did not respond. So the talk page was there with no further contributions by any user. Done! Maurnxiao (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, no "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred. All that means is the template is not formally deprecated and is still in use. However, Rlandmann, an administrator on English Wikipedia, has begun an undertaking of reviewing and assessing all images (~1,400) that use the PD-NWS copyright template.
What we know:
Following email communications, the National Weather Service of Sioux Falls has removed their disclaimer, which has been used for the PD-NWS template for decades. This means, as far as the National Weather Service is concerned, the following statement is no longer valid:By submitting images, you understand that your image is being released into the public domain. This means that your photo or video may be downloaded, copied, and used by others. Currently, the PD-NWS template links to an archived version of the disclaimer. However, the live version of the disclaimer no longer contains that phrase.
See this deletion discussion for this point's information. NWS Paducah (1) failed to give attribution to a photographer of a tornado photograph, (2) placed the photo into the public domain without the photographer explicitly giving them permission to do so (i.e. the photo is not actually in the public domain), (3) and told users to acknowledge NWS as the source for information on the webpage. Oh, to note, this photographer is a magistrate (i.e. a judge). So, the idea of automatically trusting images without clear attribution on weather.gov are free-to-use is in question.
The Wikimedia Commons has a process known as precautionary principle, where if their is significant doubt that an image is free-to-use, it will be deleted. Note, one PD-NWS file has been deleted under the precautionary principle. The closing administrator remarks for the deletion discussion were: "Per the precautionary principle, there is "significant doubt" about the public domain status of this file (4x keep + nominator, 5x delete), so I will delete it."
Several photographs/images using the PD-NWS are currently mid-deletion discussion, all for various reasonings.
As of this message, 250 PD-NWS images have been checked out of the ~1,400.
The photograph of the 1974 Xenia tornado (File:Xenia tornado.jpg) was found to not be in the public domain. It is still free-to-use, but under a CC 2.0 license, which requires attribution. From April 2009 to August 2024, Wikipedia/Wikimedia was incorrectly (and by definition, illegally) using the photograph, as it was marked incorrectly as a public domain photograph.
Solutions:
As stated earlier, there is no "formal" rulings, so no "formal" changes have been made. However, there is a general consensus between editors on things which are safe to do:
Images made directly by NWS employees can be uploaded and used under the new PD-USGov-NWS-employee template (Usage: {{PD-USGov-NWS-employee}} ). This is what a large number of PD-NWS templated images are being switched to.
Images from the NOAA Damage Assessment Toolkit (DAT) can be uploaded and used under the PD-DAT template (Usage: {{PD-DAT}} ). A large number of images are also being switched to this template.
For now, you are still welcome to upload images under the PD-NWS template. However, if possible it is recommended using the two templates above. I will send out another update when new information is found or new "rulings" have been made. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)03:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Gilma death
Hello Drdpw, I saw you removed the Hurricane Gilma death that I found. Your reason was that the death may not have been directly associated with Gilma, but I did see that Gilma was referenced multiple times in the source. I thought that the death would have been caused by Gilma at least indirectly as winds may have directed it far from shore, as the source said, by over 1000 miles. Though you may be correct, just wanted to know if you had any other reasons for removing it. Regards, Shmego (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shmego: Yes, distance from the approaching storm, plus timing of distress call many hours before the storm neared the area, as well as a lack of details regarding the man's COD. Drdpw (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the Commons, an RFC discussion is taking place to figure out how to manage the template. No "formal" administrative-style rules have occurred, so nothing has changed. That is not a surprise as the RFC is still ongoing.
What is new?
The entire Template:PD-NWS has been placed inside a "License Review" template, which is viewable via the link aforementioned.
Most of the photographs which were uploaded to the Commons originally under the PD-NWS template (approximately 1,500) have been reviewed. Out of those ~1,500 images, only about 150 are requiring additional looks. Most images have been verified as free-to-use and switched to a respective, valid template.
As of this moment, approximately 50 photos have been nominated for deletion (results pending).
A handful of images have been deleted (either confirmed copyrighted or under the Commons precautionary principle.
One image has been kept following a deletion request under the PD-NWS template.
How to deal with new photos?
Given all of this, you might be wondering how the heck you use weather photos while creating articles? Well, here is what you can do!
If the photo is from a U.S. NEXRAD radar, you can upload it using the PD-NEXRAD template via via {{PD-NEXRAD}}.
What about third-party photos?
In the case of third-party photos...i.e. ones not taken by the National Weather Service themselves...there is an option which was discussed and confirmed to be valid from an English Wikipedia Administrator.
Experiments/testing has been done already! In fact, I bet you couldn't tell the difference, but the tornado photograph used at the top of the 2011 Joplin tornado was already switched to a Non-Free File (NFF)! Check it out: File:Photograph of the 2011 Joplin tornado.jpeg! That photo's description can also be used as a template for future third-party tornado photographs uploaded to Wikipedia...with their respective information replaced.
NFFs can be uploaded to multiple articles as well!
The absolute key aspect of NFFs is that they relate to the article and are not decoration. For example with the Joplin tornado, the photograph: (1) shows the size of the tornado, (2) shows the "wall of darkness", which was described by witnesses, (3) shows a historic, non-repeatable event of the deadliest tornado in modern U.S. history. The exact reasoning does not have to be extremely specific as Wikipedia's NFF guidelines "is one of the most generous in the world" (words of Rlandmann (not pinged), the administrator reviewing all the PD-NWS template images).
Tornado photographs will almost certainly qualify under the NFF guidelines, especially for tornadoes with standalone articles or standalone sections.
NFFs cannot be used when a free-photograph is available, no matter the quality, unless the section is about that specific photograph. For example, the photograph used at the top of the 2013 Moore tornado article is confirmed to be free-to-use, therefore, no NFFs of that tornado can be uploaded on Wikipedia. However, the "Dead Man Walking" photograph could almost certainly be uploaded as an NFF to the 1997 Jarrell tornado article as that photograph is the topic of a section in the article.
Hopefully all of that information kept you informed on the Commons copyright discussion process and how you can still create the best articles possible! If you have a question about something mentioned above, reply back and I will do my best to answer it! Also, ping me in the process to ensure I see it! Have a good day! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)00:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How are =≥ and =≤ not redundant?
Hi. Could you explain how =≥ and =≤ are not redundant? =≥ is "equal to greater than or equal to" and "=≤" is "equal to less than or equal to". The = is already part of ≥ and ≤. DOSGuy (talk) 00:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Helene
Hello there, I have opened a new section on the talk page for Hurricane Helene in regards to the claim that 1,400 are still missing. Perhaps you can provide some feedback on the matter? I see that you recently reverted an edit that I made [4]Undescribed (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking. Their origin, peak strength, and overall tracks were dissimilar. I would limit inclusion to analogues storms, those that formed in the (western) Caribbean that made landfall relatively near to where Nadine did. IMO, to include the ones I removed opens up the section to any and all tropical cyclones that have made landfall in Belize, or found to bear some coincidental connection. Drdpw (talk) 00:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Hurricane Kristy (2024). If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page!01:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LemonJuiceIsSour, We can certainly collaborate on the Rafael draft. The information you have collected thus far can be co-mingled with what I have gathered as we get this thing off the ground – all that we need now is a named tropical storm. Drdpw (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The PTC18 draft is a bit incomplete to base a draft off of. I have added the first narrative details to the system's section of the season article, and suggest we begin largely with that. Drdpw (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LemonJuiceIsSour & JayTee32, I have merged "Draft:Tropical Depression Eighteen (2024)" with "Draft:Tropical Storm Rafael (2024)". The text is hidden for now, until Rafael is named by the NHC, which could happen as soon this afternoon. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to create article Hurricane Rafael of 2024 as is and there is the article on Tropical Storm Chris (2024) since it is officially a storm in the next few hours it will intensify into a Hurricane, I do not understand why from the first days you are against all my contributions. --Pitille02 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pitille02, I have not been against all your contributions. You are welcome to collaborate on an article for Rafael, the draft of which was started yesterday and has grown substantially through the work of multiple editors today. Drdpw (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, I believe our draft is ready to be added to the mainspace, it'll grow significantly in the next couple days. Is there a way to get around the redirect issue? JayTee⛈️ 05:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the probable landfall and impacts coming in the days ahead, along with the growing size of the draft, you are probably right about its readiness for mainspace. One way would be to move the draft when Rafael becomes a hurricane, as there is currently not a redirect for that. Many of the redirects, such as the one for TS Rafael, were created by CycloneYoris (and several by me as well). @CycloneYoris, would you be agreeable to foregoing creation of a "Hurricane Rafael (2024)" redirect so that the Rafael draft could be moved directly mainspace under that title at that time? Drdpw (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rafael on the TL
Hi Drdpw! I have to say, I don't quite agree with your revert here. I feel like the sort of information I added is beneficial to the readers. Rafael was over land when it weakened to Category 2, and will be over the Gulf of Mexico when it inevitably weakens to Category 1. I feel like it could potentially be confusing to readers if one status change says, "Rafael did this thing inland..." and then the word "inland" is missing from the next status change, so I think it is worth explicitly mentioning that Rafael finished traversing Cuba and entered the Gulf, especially since we have a reliable source for it having done so. I've also included this sort of information in multiple hurricane season timelines that I've gotten promoted to FL status this year (two examples: Hilary 1993, Odile 2014); because such information was present in those timelines when they passed FLC, I was under the impression that it was pertinent to include. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following up: I have attempted a compromise with the wording by explicitly mentioning that the next event after Rafael's first downgrade to C2 occurred over water. I still think we should explicitly mention when Rafael disembarked from Cuba, if only for the sake of being complete, but I wanted to know your thoughts. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 04:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When a user recreates an article that you have draftified, as happened at Special:PageHistory/Effects of Hurricane Milton in Florida, that is an objection to draftification. It's a rather annoying kind of objection, from an admin's perspective, because it means we have to histmerge the draft back into the article... But it's still an objection. So, please don't edit-war to keep something draftified. If you think an article is unsuitable for mainspace but draftification has been objected to, you may take it to AfD. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline
Those reference points are derived from the TCRs. I used the NHC's latitude/longitude distance calculator to calculate the distance between the best track location coordinate and the breakpoint(s) provided in the TCR. I also used this script to determine the bearing from a breakpoint to a BT location point. To my knowledge, this has been accepted practice for years, and it helps make timeline articles more complete. For example, Carlotta's TCR mentions that Carlotta passed close to Clarion Island, so I used Clarion Island as a breakpoint for Carlotta's entries in the timeline from its closest approach to Clarion until its demise as a TC. I acknowledge that in 2023, the NHC scaled back the amount of TCR information for the vast majority of TCs that did not affect land, but they have recently been providing at least one breakpoint in their abbreviated TCRs, and I find that referencing those breakpoints is much more helpful to the reader than listing lat/lon coordinates in a vacuum. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 20:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dylan620, had you specifically mentioned that tool in your edit summary you would have spared us both some aggravation with each other. I have used that tool numerous times in TL articles for the purpose you noted. When I did some spot checks with it I found a couple distance discrepancies, and, as I see now in hindsight, "threw the baby out with the bath water" by removing all distances not stated in the TCRs. My apologies. Drdpw (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments on the Washington Talk page. I've moved the George Washington article forward as a co-nomination at FAC with Nikkimaria and it would be nice to see you there if you might be able to pull together some comments and criticisms for the article. New Years greetings. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Funerals of Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter
I saw that you removed my post in the articles about the passing and state funerals of Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter about final funeral and burial services for the president taking place in different parts of the country on the same day. The only reason I added it is because this didn't happen during the funerals of Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush. The only time this happened before the funerals of Reagan and Carter was for LBJ. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand, but I felt that given that the final funeral and burial services for Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush took place in different parts of the country on different days, I mentioned that the final funeral and burial services for LBJ, Reagan, and Carter took place in different parts of the country on the same day. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is still trivia. If there were a reason for doing it same-day rather than not, that reason might be notable, but even so, the comparison would remain a tangential footnote in presidential funeral history. Drdpw (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree on this. But I just felt that jets is the reason that we're seeing this. The state funeral of LBJ made jets an innovation to state funerals and given how long it has been since a funeral service and interment for a president taking place in different parts of the country being completed within the same day, I felt it was worthy of mention. I don't see it as trivia, but it's just worthy of mention given that the final funeral service and interment took place in different parts of the country on different days for Ford and Bush 41. SnoopyAndCharlieBrown202070 (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
