[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:1997 Jarrell tornado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is the "Dead Man Walking" tornado photograph copyrighted?

[edit]
CLOSED
Image copyright discussions occur on the Commons, not Wikipedia. See comment at the very bottom of discussion for links to related Commons discussions. Duplicate discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Copyright of the famous 1997 "Dead Man Walking" image?. Closing as valid, content discussion is turning into a more or less forum.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I know that it was taken by Scott Beckwith, who allowed the NWS to use his images of the tornado and damage. Would this mean that the "Dead Man Walking" photo is PD? MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only way it would be PD is if and only if you can locate it on a .gov URL. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see. It is one of the most famous tornado photographs ever taken, and would 100% be needed in this article if it is PD. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 20:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found the photo sequence on a .gov PDF published by the NWS about the tornado, and Scott Beckwith is attributed to it. I'm pretty sure the photo is not copyrighted, as every photo I have seen from Beckwith so far has either been given to the NWS and put in PD or just doesn't have a copyright. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I have found the entire sequence. I will upload them shortly. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PUT NON-FREE RATIONALE ON IT!! Based on a talk page on WP:WEATHER, it is likely that the picture IS copyrighted. It needs to either have a non-free rationale or it needs to be DELETED. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'l try to get it listed under non-free rationale, it is vital to the article itself. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I’ll add that some images on a .gov url are NOT public domain. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some. National Weather Service images are public domain, this has been confirmed. Same goes for NOAA, which is where most of these images are from. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is only two clauses for things not being public domain on the .gov websites: (1) it has the copyright watermark (©) on the image or (2) it is by Getty Images. There are 0 other exceptions, as determined by the Commons. Attribution watermarks (even if large ones) do not count. I am just making that note since it was brought up that some things aren't free-to-use on .gov websites. See Template:PD-NWS on the Commons for further information. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like a link to the site where the image is. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is literally the reason the image is being deleted. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.weather.gov/media/pub/pdf/sdata/051997.pdf it clearly states that the person who took the picture was NOT an employee of the National Weather Service. I’ll do some digging but let’s continue assuming that it’s copyrighted until we know for sure. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can’t find anything on the disclaimer at NCDC about copyright. But nothing saying anything is copyrighted (or in the public domain either). 12.74.221.43 (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is stupid at this point. English Wikipedia does not determine copyright stuff, the Commons does. If there is a problem with any image, open a discussion on the Commons. The direct image which started this discussion File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg is currently nominated for deletion on the Commons. The other image referenced by others and the one currently in use on the article, File:Dead man walking Jarrell.jpg is, as far as I am aware, public domain due to being used, without a copyright watermark, on a .gov URL website. If you believe otherwise, nominate it for deletion on the Commons. I am closing this discussion as this has turned from a discussion about the content to more or less a forum with the same repeated question, which is already solved/answered (or will be answered within the week on the Commons). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft-space Discussion

[edit]

I am going to be guiding MemeGod27 through the process of creating a solid article. For ease of discussion, I am using the good article criteria layout, however this is not a formal GAN or anything like that. Just making that note for future editors. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. For File:1997 Jarrell tornado peak strength.jpg, the caption reads "The 1997 Jarrell F5, as it was at peak strength", however the source for does not state the photograph was taken at peak intensity. As such either (1) a source saying the photograph is the tornado at peak intensity needs to be added in the caption or (2) the caption needs to be rewritten to remove the original research (WP:OR).
  2. Same thing for File:1997 Jarrell forming.png & File:1997 Jarrell tornado roping.png, which has the current captions of "The tornado as it was forming" & "The tornado as it was roping out outside of Jarrell". The source with the images does not directly state the tornado was forming/roping out, so a source needs to be added or the caption needs to be rewritten.
The other sources have solid captions that are verifiable and good. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll just rewrite the captions. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are now good image-wise, as every major part of the article has a companion image MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 23:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MemeGod27: We can add notes about each point (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for what each point states) and add comments under it similar to a talk page discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeatherWriter The article is looking really good as of right now, the only thing that needs worked on is the citations. :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been assessed as B-class, I'll try to work it to GA :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 00:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished sentence in article

[edit]

In the section "Tracking into Jarrell", the 5th sentence is cutoff: "The tornado tore off asphalt as it crossed County Roads 308, 305, and 307; the thickness of the asphalt pavement was roughly.". Hopefully someone knows the thickness and can complete the sentence. Jamezkoe (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've got that. The original first edits of the draft were a copy-paste from the outbreak article, but I refined and worded apparently (almost) everything. I'll get to it as soon as possible! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded* MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issue has been fixed. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 00:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The “Fatilities” section should be removed

[edit]

It seems to be entirely composed of sentences taken directly from previous parts of the articles, word for word. This whole article needs a clean up Jamezkoe (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over it, and can I get an example of where it is copied word for word besides "all 27 fatalities occurred at the Double Creek Estates"? Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. The following passage exists word for word in Both the "Damage to Jarrell" and "Fatalities" sections: "The high intensity of the Jarrell tornado left those in its path with little recourse; most homes in Double Creek Estates were built on cement slab foundations and few had a basement or any form of storm shelter; nineteen people sought refuge in a single storm cellar." 2. In the previously mentioned "Damage to Jerrell", it states "Three businesses adjacent to Double Creek Estates were also destroyed. In total, the tornado dealt $10–20 million in damage to the neighborhood. Around 300 cattle grazing in a nearby pasture were killed and some were found 0.25 miles away. Hundreds of cattle were also dismembered and a few cows were also skinned by the tornado.". In the fatalities section it says Three businesses adjacent to Double Creek Estates were destroyed. Around 300 cattle grazing in a nearby pasture were killed and some were found 0.25 miles (0.40 km) away. Hundreds of cattle were also dismembered and a few cows were also skinned by the tornado.". Jamezkoe (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I shouldn't have titled it as I did. I think a section dedicated to the victims is wholly deserved, but the state that it's currently in is simply disrespectful. Jamezkoe (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I'll go ahead and change the content/reword it. The fatalities section is 100% needed, as this tornado very unfortunately caused some extremely gruesome and disturbing wounds to people. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 10:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 May 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado → 1997 Jarrell tornado – Tornado did not actually directly hit Prairie Dell, and is not needed in the title. Prairie Dell isn't mentioned in most sources for the tornado, and the only reason that it's even in the article was because of the ArcGIS Damage Viewer and Tornado Archive. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 21:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 15:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The event is notable for being the "Jarrell" tornado solely, and should be represented properly in the title as the "1997 Jarrell Tornado." None of the sources refer to the event as the Prairie Dell tornado Wikiwillz (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self promotion claim?

[edit]

@Headbomb (alt):, you rececently removed part of the page + a source under the rational of "self promotion / self published". The author, Marlene Bradford, is a PhD'ed meteorologist from Texas A&M University with a doctorial on tornado forecasting. I think this qualifies as a subject-expert. Btw, the author is academically published in the field of meteorology as well ([1]), with a publication in the American Meteorological Society. Could you explain further on your rational for removing it and/or could you re-add the information? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article claimed "Multiple books have been written and published on the subject of the tornado, the most notable being Marlene Bradford's "Incredible Destruction in Central Texas: The Jarrell Tornado"." This is an extraordinary claim supported by no source whatsoever. This is a self-published book, putting it at the bottom of notability of any books dealing with this tornado. Wikipedia does not exist to promote the works of self published authors, no matter how 'qualified' they are. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Weather Event Writer's rationale. Just because it's flagged by a bot doesn't make it a self-promo. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't start an edit war until this discussion is complete. That's not how it is done here. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Notable" part has been fixed, everything is good now. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't. There's no sources save the self-published book itself. This is spam at worse, and WP:UNDUE at best.Headbomb (alt) (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's "spam". I'm done with that part, I'll add something else that does have a reliable source. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

[edit]

Since there is an active copyright discussion on the "Dead Man Walking" photo, we need a new image for the infobox. Any thoughts? While the tornado was a wedge in its' F5 phase, it also had extremely high windspeeds even as a rope. Honestly anything would represent it. Thanks! :) MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I have found one that fits. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 14:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image (2)

[edit]

This is more of a continuation of the previous message, but I found about 30 other photos relating to the tornado that could fit in the info box:

- 1. This one of the tornado at F4+ intensityA

-2. The tornado as it was strengthening

-3. The tornado at peak intensity

For other images, see Category:1997 Jarrell tornado on commons.

WxTrinity (talk to me!) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

300mph

[edit]

There is only a single semi-reliable source for 300mph wind speeds, and despite four different citations, neither are truly reliable here. Mississippi-based meteorologist Eric Graves, on a Facebook post, stated "Winds were estimated to be over 300 mph at times", which was followed up by the mysanantonio article. Beyond this is the Plainview Herald article, which states the tornado had "winds up to 318 mph", and the SF Gate article, which I believe is the true original article, which stated victims had "their skin burned by the deadly friction of 300 mph winds." All 4 of these sources appear to be based on the Fujita scale's F5 rating, which ranged from 261-318mph, which was likely picked up by the media who sensationalized the articles by using the high ends of that as those of the tornado itself (the tornado was never confirmed to have winds over 300 miles per hour). I believe claim was fabricated by SF Gate and Plainview Herald independently, then passed onto Eric Graves, who passed it onto mysanantonio. Jarrell has never officially been acknowledged as containing wind speeds over 300mph by the National Weather Service or European Severe Storms Laboratory. It also has never been officially rated on the TORRO scale, regardless of what some uncited and soon-to-be-reverted edits would have you believe. Ideally a good source would come from an expert, in which case Thomas P. Grazulis is probably the one to consult here, but until a reliable source can be found, the article should not state the tornado contained a wind speed of over 300 miles per hour. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this statement, but mentally it is still hard to accept because how violent and horrifying this tornado was. Алексеев Н. (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The highest reliable wind speed we have is >261 mph. I have no idea why people keep adding the 300. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 12:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because its very difficult to accept the lack of absolutely reliable sources that can prove 480+ km/h windspeeds. I provided these 4 links, but you discover their not-complete reliability. So, if there's no any reliable sources, i accept your official position. Алексеев Н. (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. Riley1012 (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1997 Jarrell tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sir MemeGod (talk · contribs) 15:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Riley1012 (talk · contribs) 14:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will be completing this review in the coming days. -Riley1012 (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I am going to quick fail this nomination based on it being far from meeting criteria 2 (verifiability).

The main issue I will note is the use of unreliable sources, specifically, blog posts. This Stormstalker blog post is used as references 20, 30, and 31 (another note- the sources should not be broken up into different citations like this), and it is written by someone who calls themselves a "professional weather geek" and does not appear to be an actual meteorologist or other subject matter expert. The post also does not specify where the information came from. I also have similar concerns with reference 39 because I cannot tell who the author of this is. At least this blog post lists its sources- I would recommend using those more reliable sources instead of the blog post.

There are also several paragraphs that have no reliable source attached to them. Here are some examples:

  • The damage in these areas was extremely sporadic and unusual; and in one case, a mobile home suffered only minor damage while an adjacent house lost half of its roof. Metal buildings were unroofed along County Road 305 south of Jarrell. The road's guardrail was impaled by wooden planks thrown by the strong winds.
  • County Road 305 and Double Creek Drive have been repaved multiple times since the event. Many businesses have rebuilt and returned to normalcy, while other lots that were completely wiped away in the tornado were abandoned.
  • Between May 29 and June 1, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research carried out aerial and ground surveys of the tornadic damage in Texas in coordination with the Texas Wing Civil Air Patrol.
  • Despite the violence of the tornado and the presence of its associated mesocyclone aloft, the thunderstorm did not exhibit a distinct hook echo on weather radar typically associated with such tornadoes. This may have also been caused by the unusual southwestward motion of the thunderstorm, resulting in the tornado's placement in an atypical position relative to the thunderstorm's motion.

Earwig's Copyvio Detector highlights a potential copyright issue with this NOAA report. Specifically, the following sentences should be rewritten:

  • Many said they were aware of the tornado warnings, and the majority said that they first learned of the warnings through commercial television. Due to the slow movement and high visibility of the tornado, most of the residents interviewed said they watched the approach of the tornadoes prior to taking shelter. Most said they knew to go to the center of their houses, to avoid staying in mobile homes, and to seek shelter rather than trying to flee the tornadoes. These actions would have saved lives, but in the case of Jarrell tornado became useless.

I would suggest doing your own spot-check before renomination to avoid copyright issues.

I will also point out some issues with criteria 1 (well-written).

  • There are statements in the article that are so generic that they should be given more detail or removed entirely. (ex: Many videos of the entire event exist, and all have been heavily studied.)
  • The case studies section could be re-written to avoid having multiple block quotes and instead summarizing the findings of the studies.
  • Overall, the paragraphs should be more consolidated.

I believe this article has GA potential, but more work needs to be done for a successful GA nomination. Feel free to ask me any further questions. -Riley1012 (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The damage path...

[edit]

Tornado Archive does not show full damage path... Beluga732 (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Second) good article conversation

[edit]

Hey there @Tails Wx, Sir MemeGod here! I'm finally ready to start working the article to GA status (I feel bad that I haven't started earlier!) The main issues (many of which were emphasized in the above GAN) were that the article was or had:

  • Unreliability of sources - Many of the sources that we do have are still unreliable
  • Many sentences just don't have a source - I believe we should work to add sources for unsourced claims, and then double-check once we're done to make sure that they are covered.
  • Too many images (I came up with this one) - I uploaded way too many damage photos to Commons, so we need to pick and choose to summarize which images work best for the summary and articles as a whole.
  • Consolidation/Rewriting of paragraphs - This was stated in above sentence, particularly with the "Case Studies" portion.
  • Infobox image I've spent so much time deciding which photo of the tornado is best for the infobox. We've gotta figure this out (lol)!

I've mainly set this section up so that we can discuss the improvements that we can make, among other things. Let's get this (pretty heavy) ball rolling! :D Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I literally had all these points in mind before this discussion started, ironically. I'll be happy to help with a new device that's not my phone! ~ Tails Wx 02:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile editing is... definitely something. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did go that way for two months, yes; I did try to push on with other projects while mobile editing, that's the thing! ~ Tails Wx 02:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like visual editing on mobile is impossible! Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sorta is. Anyway, let's get workin'! ~ Tails Wx 02:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm going to begin with trimming down the quotes in the case studies section! Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tails Wx: How does the article look now? Here's what I've done:

  • Cleared out all contested or copyvio images, since they will almost 100% be deleted, I also added an NFF in the infobox.
  • Fixed the placement of images per MOS:SANDWICH.
  • Merged a few sections into subsections, like "See also" and "External links".
  • Added "Further reading" section, with two books from experts.
  • Copy edits, including adding "(1997 USD)" after monetary estimates.
  • Removed all citations from the lede and relocated them somewhere else.
  • Addressed and fixed all [citation needed] or [clarification needed] tags.

Thanks! :) SirMemeGod  14:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod, I still don't think it's ready for GA-nominating just yet, sadly. I still think the lead could be a little more organized and expanded, and we probably have to deal with removing the unreliable Wordpress source that still remains. Also, could we find a better source than the KVUE YouTube video, just in case if that's rendered unreliable despite it being published from a news channel?
I think several sections and sub-sections in the article could be further improved or expanded as well, particularly the "Aftermath", "Fatalities", and "Reactions" (there might be more out there that isn't noted already) ones. If you'd like me to go a little more in-depth on why is this, I'll be happy to explain but I had to rush to reply quickly (just to give you an idea on how the article looks in general) for school-related reasons – do expect a lengthy amount of time for me to respond if so, though. But I'll say this at the moment: "Between May 29 and June 1, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research carried out aerial and ground surveys of the tornadic damage in Texas in coordination with the Texas Wing Civil Air Patrol" in "Reactions" section is unreferenced and the entire section could benefit from copyediting; possibly the same thing for "Aftermath" in terms of copyediting; and we definitely should discuss more on whether the "Fatalities" section should be included or not. Thanks! ~ Tails Wx 14:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir MemeGod: I think the article is almost GA-ready now. It still needs some copyediting and a bit of formatting for the references present in the article, and the lead needs to be significantly expanded. But that'll be probably be taken care of in no time, so just updating ya on the progress of this article to GA–almost there! ~ Tails Wx 04:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll work on it more today, I've just had so many other things going on (like that megalist). I can help expand the lede, if t does seem to be missing info. :) SirMemeGod  12:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sir MemeGod: I believe it's ready now, and before I nominate it for GA, do you have any other issues or concerns in the article that you think that might need to be addressed? ~ Tails Wx 18:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None that I have found. If you don't mind it, do you want to co-nominate since we've both worked on it? SMG chat 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! How would that process work, though? Would it be one of us just nominating it or...? ~ Tails Wx 18:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone just nominates it and says "co-nomination with _____". Currently in a Geometry class, so I can't start one, feel free to go ahead. :) SMG chat 18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Title image is potentially edited

[edit]

I've taken note of the title image being potentially a reversed and darkened version of a photo from Scott Beckwith's album on the Jarrell tornado. Observe the bottom right pic in this section of the album.

https://x.com/ForensicsJack/status/1655520713242038274?t=F0URWwxiMm52mWwu-OctzA&s=19

Is there a policy against edited images being used for real life events? 2600:1004:B0BF:D073:0:8:AEC2:E01 (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The closest guideline I could find was Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Editing_images which says the file page should always list editing done and that you may need to mention something in the caption. Commander Keane (talk) 02:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1997_Jarrell_tornado&oldid=1254788471"