Talk:Super-Derecho

message: We recently had a similar article to tornadocane called landphoon removed from wikipedia because the term was not in the glossary of meteorology.  What's interesting is that landphoon had about seven unique sources, while tornadocane has exactly one source using the term.  I'm going to remove the link, and propose the article's removal, for consistency's sake.  For reference, I was the creator of landphoon last August.  Thegreatdr (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tornadocane/Landcane/Landphoon

message: --CopyToWiktionaryBot (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So the wiktionary allows anyone to define any term, even if there's no accepted definition for the term, other than in one person's web page?  I'd think that would be a violation in wiktionary as well.  Thegreatdr (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess tornadocane survives for another day.  It appears if the delete and keep votes are the same, wikipedia opts to keep an article, even if it doesn't otherwise fit wikipedia criteria.  Thegreatdr (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2008-02-9 Automated pywikipediabot message 

message: There was a system that went through Missouri and Illinois as well as other states on May 8, 2009 that had a structure very similar to a tornadocane, including an eye-like stucture.  Sustained winds were reported to be as high as 90 mph and gusts were over 100 mph.  Also, inches of rain fell in the area and there were numerous tornadoes.http://www.fox2now.com/ktvi-storm-damage-050809,0,2208268.story  I have a series of radar images of the system developing, if no one else saw this.  I am wondering if this event would be considered a tornadocane or something else. Dy 162.5 (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It could possibly be considered one. It was very similar to the July 21, 2003 event although it was a stronger derecho. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I really think this article should be renamed landphoon.  Tornadocane was a name made up by one person and is not listed in any meteorological reference.  Thegreatdr (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; I moved the article per WP:BOLD. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I realistically couldn't, since I initiated a delete campaign against the article over a year ago, and it would have looked bad.  Is there any way to retrieve any of the info from the old landphoon article?  I never merged it in, because I expected tornadocane to disappear.  I noticed it wasn't within the history of this page.  Thegreatdr (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 8, 2009 event 

message: The Reason this page should have its name changed is because this event is scientifically known as Agukabam (Australian Aboriginal Word since it was first recognised in Australia from inland non Baroclinic Rejuvination of Tropical Systems) Every time i add the name to the also known as with references even it disapears which is annoying.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haslantis (talk • contribs) 09:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change The Page Name 

message: This article is typical of a lot of conceit on Wikipedia from American contributors, where an undue focus is put on a US perspective rather than an international one.  The whole "tornadocane" business is typical of this mindset, as is the references to a number of systems in the US, but zero reference to Australian systems which are actually the ones that gave rise to the whole category of Agukabam in the first place.  The use of state and regional names in the US as chapter headings without stating that these places are in the USA is both unhelpful and arrogant.  It seems that we are all supposed to know exactly where the heading "Southern Midwest" refers to. I wonder if an American audience would understand appreciate some reference to a state or region of, lets say, Botswana, without stating first that it is in Botswana!
I hope someone can rewrite this entire article from a neutral, international perspective.  Heck I wish the entire Wikipedia could be rewritten from a neutral, international perspective!! 101.103.2.86 (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much focus on US meteorology 

message: Sharkguy has been editing this article without discussion and removing all references to the Australian meteorology term for these events as Agukabam.  This article is a mess and has too strong a focus on US sources as I mentioned before.  Ive never edited a wikipedia article before but this is pissing me off! 124.177.186.10 (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undiscussed edit 

message: See Talk:Derecho#Merge_of_Super-Derecho_article. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Merged to main derecho page