This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Felt this was necessary. Even though it's only been 2017 for 30 minutes EST and is still 2016 further west, the SPC is forecasting a slight risk for severe thunderstorms both today and tomorrow which may end up producing a few tornadoes. -- Anonymous Macaw ( talk) 05:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Tomorrow's risk was raised to enhanced MegaEarthquake ( talk) 18:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The outbreak on January 2 was fairly significant, on my terms, and I am questioning whether the event should get a page of its own. Afterall, more then 15 tornadoes touched down, and at least 4 fatalities being reported, it is larger then any other outbreaks in January in the past couple years (2014-16). So, should a page be made for the event? MegaEarthquake ( talk) 05:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Since it will be brought up soon anyway, I think it will be at least a couple days too early to suggest the current outbreak (January 21–present) be turned into an article. Yes, it is a huge area of the southern states affected, but it's still too early to to get a proper count of the storms (not to mention how many can be verified and their strengths). Maybe after we get more info concerning the current outbreak we can see if it warrants an article.-- Halls4521 ( talk) 16:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to help add the new survey results and I messed up the infobox.. can someone help? Thanks in advance! Jdcomix ( talk) 01:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The infobox image tells of only 121 tornadoes, but based on article information, it should be 130. Why the discrepancy? What is it between different organizations that the numbers differ so often? I'd like some clarification. -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 04:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Just a few moments ago a tornado warning was issued for Arkansas. Would this count towards tornado reports on the article, or should we wait for official reports to come in? -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 07:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Edit: It was issued right on top of Norfork, Arkansa. -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 07:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Should I provide an image? -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 10:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems to me like somebody jumped the gun on this. Not sure if this was article worthy, and even if it was, the current article title is not acceptable. Thoughts? Screven94 ( talk) 22:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Screven94
This tornado has has the strongest signature out of all the storms on the 7th and the most defined structure. My GRlevel2 indicates -146 MPH winds with Base Velocity, -122 Knots with Storm Relative. This is the most intense stage of the tornado as indicated by radar, with a MASSIVE debris ball
. I'm curious as to what the SPC will rate the twister. I'd say at least EF3 from radar alone, and I'm certain that if it hadn't passed over water, it'd probably have been stronger. Is there any rating provided for it yet? -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 15:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit: I looked at the list with the Killian Tornado and saw that its path length was only recorded at 1 mile. This is objectively incorrect, as the dying tornado was seen in Madisonville at or almost 30 miles away. Not to mention it re-intensified just southeast of Hammond to the strongest of any tornado that day. I understand surveys take time, but do they not take radar data into account AT ALL???? -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 16:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit: http://www.wdsu.com/article/viewer-video-of-reported-tornado-in-madisonville/8686487 here's the roping out video. -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 00:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to know where I can go to find recent storm surveys made by the SPC. As of right now I know of one tornado that was confirmed high-end EF2. -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 13:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
A significant tornado outbreak has yet again occurred. No fatalities occurred but damage is severe, including some reports of damage in the Kansas City metro. A strong, long-track tornado struck the towns of Oak Grove, Bates City, and Odessa, Illinois with homes destroyed in each town. Potentially violent damage occurred in Trimble, Missouri with anchor-bolted homes completely swept away. This outbreak has produced at least 27 tornadoes, and I expect that number to rise dramatically as damage surveys begin. I'd expect 50+ tornadoes confirmed with this event including some EF2s and EF3s (maybe even an EF4 with the Trimble tornado). Thoughts on an article? Discuss. Screven94 ( talk) 08:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Screven94
In the past few days we have had two completely unnecessary articles made by one user, with no consensus or discussion regarding creation of an article among other users. The first of these two articles covers an "outbreak" that occurred from March 28 to 30th and produced only 25 tornadoes, no major damage, no tornadoes above EF2 strength, and no fatalities. The second is an ongoing that has not produced any major damage or confirmed strong tornadoes at this point. This rash, reckless creation of articles over what are overall not article-worthy events does not sit well with me. Other users please help me fix this mess. Thanks. Screven94 ( talk) 04:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94
As far as I can tell, it doesn't meet any of those. Jh23487 ( talk) 16:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
That article should not have been created and I have no idea who did so without consulting any other users. I'll let it slide though since it happened a while ago. An article worthy event usually is defined by numerous EF2 AND EF3 tornadoes, one or more violent tornadoes, multiple fatal tornadoes, and overall major damage. Not every single one of these criteria have to be present for an article, but your last two articles meet NONE of the above criteria. If we make an article every time a system spits out a few EF2s, that would lead to one or more articles every week once April and May roll around. That just isn't practical, and such events can be and always have been covered by the Tornadoes of 2017 page. Yes I know you put time and effort into this, but that effort needs to be redirected to smaller sub sections within the main 2017 page. Most importantly, you CANNOT just make articles without consulting others on the talk page first. Doing that completely overrides any degree of consensus that is vital. Hope you understand! Screven94 ( talk) 16:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94 Screven94 ( talk) 16:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I think we should wait until the intensites of the tornadoes are confirmed, then if there is ar least 2 tornadoes of an EF2/3 or higher we should make an article. MegaEarthquake ( talk) 00:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I should not have to be doing this, but let's discuss how we are going to handle the next potential event. The next possible tornado outbreak of 2017 may unfold from April 4th to April 6th across the southern US and east coast.
First and foremost, destructive and or deadly tornadoes must occur before anyone even CONSIDERS starting an article. If we do end up with a major event unfolding, it is an ABSOLUTE must that someone (probably me) starts a talk page section to discuss whether an article needs to started. If there is consensus, only then can an article be created. I don't care if we wake up with a High Risk and a 60% risk area for tornadoes. We wait until after the event, or after it is undeniable that a high impact event occurred to make an article. Period. This all has been running my patience thin and apparently we need a refresher on how this works. Screven94 ( talk) 18:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
You are technically correct, but by that definition every system that is able to spin up a few EF2s is now article material? With an active year predicted ahead, that means we are going to basically have an article for every weekly event May through June. Things are going to get cluttered and impractical fast. I understand where you are coming from, but it makes no practical sense. Saying "we don't really know what is and isn't article worthy" is going to open up one huge can of worms. Just my opinion. Screven94 ( talk) 20:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I should add, by that definition, there are now 3 or 4 additional minor 2017 events that would fall into the article criteria. Like I said, huge can of worms. Screven94 ( talk) 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand what all of you are saying, but the main reason I initially took issue with the creation of that article was that it was for an outbreak on April 2 that hadn't even really occurred yet (for the most part). Drafts are probably fine, but I don't think that we should be too hasty when it comes to creating articles in mainspace. That doesn't mean that I don't think individual editors should be able to use their own discretion when it comes to creating articles, but I do not think that a high risk should automatically constitute article-worthiness, and I don't think that articles with little information such as the "Tornado outbreak of April 1–3, 2017" article in its early stages should be published. An article on a current/recent event with only a short list of tornadoes and a small Meteorological synopsis can be contained in a relevant "Tornadoes of year" article and "List of United States tornadoes in month year" article. Sections of the relevant "Tornadoes of YYYY" article can be good starting points for tornado outbreaks that can later break off as articles as the event unfolds if need be. Once enough tornadoes have occurred / enough information written, then the article can be created. I support the 'existence' of information on Wikipedia, it's just the necessity of very short articles on recent/ongoing outbreaks that I am calling into question, particularly if such information can easily be contained elsewhere. I'd give the current draft a bit more work and if there is enough information added / the article becomes better-developed, then it can be later published (in the meantime, information can also be added to Tornadoes of 2017#April 1–3). On a final note, I consider Screven's requirements to be much too strict, as that would necessitate a discussion for every last article and result in the removal of noteworthy articles just because they don't meet his EF3+ criterion. There are outbreaks with 50+ tornadoes where none of the tornadoes received a rating of higher than EF2. EF2 is a "strong" tornado, so I could hardly disagree more on that limitation. Master of Time (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Screven94 ( talk) 06:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94
As I understand it, merely attracting the attention of the news media does not necessarily constitute notability; Wikipedia knows they overhype things. A high risk outlook may lend some notability to an event, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it unless the outbreak had a significant impact, since the outlooks can be wrong. While I agree that Screven's standards are rather strict, I think he is right that we should wait until the impacts are known before going ahead with creating an article. TornadoLGS ( talk) 00:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Screven94: New high risk issued and violent tornado apparently on ground in Georgia. Should we make Tornado outbreak of April 4–5, 2017? There was a few tornadoes last night as well. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 16:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@MarioProtIV I agree with you. The NWS did issue a particuarily dangerous situation tornado watch for a large portion of the Mississippi Valley and Southern states. In addition to that, a tornado warning for south-central Georgia was noted that there was an observed "large, extremely dangerous and potentially deadly" tornado on the ground, with a "catastrophic" damage potential. However, there has been no confirmed tornadoes and only 7 filtered reports of tornadoes so far. The part though that the 3rd high risk of the year was issued so early in the year is pretty notable (by my terms, though). MegaEarthquake ( talk) 22:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Screven94 ( talk) 23:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94
Screven94 ( talk) 00:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94
In my opinion, we just have to wait and see what the tornadoes are rated. The tornado that has the best chance of a high rating is the one in southern Georgia that had the tornado emergency issued on it. My bet is at least EF2/3 (crossing my fingers though for an EF3+ cause I like to see strong tornadoes, eccept when they kill people) MegaEarthquake ( talk) 01:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Screven94 ( talk) 15:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94
I really think there's little point to these early discussions. It all comes down to speculation until surveys come in unless there has been a clearly catastrophic tornado. Outlooks shouldn't have all that much bearing since, as the latest events have demonstrated, they can be wrong. Even with the tornado emergencies that have been discussed, many of these tornadoes have failed to do particularly heavy damage. TornadoLGS ( talk) 01:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Are we still putting in the damage column in the monthly tornado lists? I think someone mentioned removing it until the information is put in the NCEI database. Right now, January is probably complete in the database. For the first part of the list, the damage amounts, if mentioned, got put in the damage summary section. If no one objects, I'll just put it back. Also, if a tornado crosses state borders, is the state abbreviation supposed to be listed after each county or starting or ending point to clarify which state it is in? I know some people do that and some don't, so it isn't really consistent. Jh23487 ( talk) 22:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Lately this talk page has been flooded with discussions on potential future outbreaks. I think it best that we avoid such discussions moving forward. I know it can be exciting to see significant tornado potential in an outlook, but as TropicalAnalystwx13 says above, this is not a forum; it is a page to discuss the content of the article. Discussing outlooks does nothing toward that purpose and creates unnecessary clutter on the talk page. Outlooks can be wrong and we cannot judge the significance of an outbreak or its worthiness for a section or article until it actually happens. Most of the information that would go into an article won't even be available until surveys come in. So, please keep discussions relevant to the page. TornadoLGS ( talk) 04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, any tornadic activity associated with the major storm plowing through the Central US will also be included on April 2017 North American storm complex once I finish it to an acceptable level (should be up by tomorrow at least). For now just keep a section for it if needed so and probably add a hidden text with the main link template for it. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 04:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you update the fatalities map in the events section of the Tornadoes of 2017 page. Also, I read an article that said the death toll has been raised to five people, but I'm not sure the authenticy of the page. MegaEarthquake ( talk) 04:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Heads up 2: I have surgery tomorrow to get all 4 of my wisdom teeth out, so someone else will have to take over updating tomorrow and maybe Tuesday. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 01:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
According to RT, there were multiple tornadoes but no deaths. Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I know that there has been an article for the Tulsa tornado for the past several days, but should it really have its own article? I mean, it's only an EF2 tornado, which is extremely common in the Tulsa area, and this one wasn't any different. The only thing that it is notable for was that it was rare in August, but nothing else is particularly significant. The article needs some huge expansions, unless that is all the info available. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 12:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Just wondering if we should end up creating a separate section for tornadoes that were spawned by Hurricane Harvey. -- greendevil32 ( talk)
https://weather.com/news/news/2017-11-05-severe-thunderstorms-midwest-early-november-impacts
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/officials-tornado-injures-small-ohio-city-50954822
209.96.101.75 ( talk) 15:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There was no deadly Tornado in Germany this year. There is no source for it. This is the only possible source i found. http://www.dw.com/en/2-dead-as-tornado-storms-batter-northern-germany/a-39373673
There was a confirmed F2 Tornado that day in Germany. But it occured in Töppel (Saxony-Anhalt) and the deaths were in Uelzen in Lower Saxony (around 90 miled away) and in Gifhorn in Lower-Saxony (around 70 miles away). Check this list, it is the official List of Tornados in Germany. http://www.tornadoliste.de/ -- 217.24.226.52 ( talk) 19:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Lukatz
You should mention their name instead of calling them person Alvaro ivan daniswara ( talk) 01:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Felt this was necessary. Even though it's only been 2017 for 30 minutes EST and is still 2016 further west, the SPC is forecasting a slight risk for severe thunderstorms both today and tomorrow which may end up producing a few tornadoes. -- Anonymous Macaw ( talk) 05:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Tomorrow's risk was raised to enhanced MegaEarthquake ( talk) 18:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The outbreak on January 2 was fairly significant, on my terms, and I am questioning whether the event should get a page of its own. Afterall, more then 15 tornadoes touched down, and at least 4 fatalities being reported, it is larger then any other outbreaks in January in the past couple years (2014-16). So, should a page be made for the event? MegaEarthquake ( talk) 05:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Since it will be brought up soon anyway, I think it will be at least a couple days too early to suggest the current outbreak (January 21–present) be turned into an article. Yes, it is a huge area of the southern states affected, but it's still too early to to get a proper count of the storms (not to mention how many can be verified and their strengths). Maybe after we get more info concerning the current outbreak we can see if it warrants an article.-- Halls4521 ( talk) 16:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to help add the new survey results and I messed up the infobox.. can someone help? Thanks in advance! Jdcomix ( talk) 01:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The infobox image tells of only 121 tornadoes, but based on article information, it should be 130. Why the discrepancy? What is it between different organizations that the numbers differ so often? I'd like some clarification. -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 04:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Just a few moments ago a tornado warning was issued for Arkansas. Would this count towards tornado reports on the article, or should we wait for official reports to come in? -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 07:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Edit: It was issued right on top of Norfork, Arkansa. -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 07:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Should I provide an image? -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 10:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Seems to me like somebody jumped the gun on this. Not sure if this was article worthy, and even if it was, the current article title is not acceptable. Thoughts? Screven94 ( talk) 22:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Screven94
This tornado has has the strongest signature out of all the storms on the 7th and the most defined structure. My GRlevel2 indicates -146 MPH winds with Base Velocity, -122 Knots with Storm Relative. This is the most intense stage of the tornado as indicated by radar, with a MASSIVE debris ball
. I'm curious as to what the SPC will rate the twister. I'd say at least EF3 from radar alone, and I'm certain that if it hadn't passed over water, it'd probably have been stronger. Is there any rating provided for it yet? -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 15:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit: I looked at the list with the Killian Tornado and saw that its path length was only recorded at 1 mile. This is objectively incorrect, as the dying tornado was seen in Madisonville at or almost 30 miles away. Not to mention it re-intensified just southeast of Hammond to the strongest of any tornado that day. I understand surveys take time, but do they not take radar data into account AT ALL???? -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 16:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Edit: http://www.wdsu.com/article/viewer-video-of-reported-tornado-in-madisonville/8686487 here's the roping out video. -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 00:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to know where I can go to find recent storm surveys made by the SPC. As of right now I know of one tornado that was confirmed high-end EF2. -- AVeryWiseWolfy ( talk) 13:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
A significant tornado outbreak has yet again occurred. No fatalities occurred but damage is severe, including some reports of damage in the Kansas City metro. A strong, long-track tornado struck the towns of Oak Grove, Bates City, and Odessa, Illinois with homes destroyed in each town. Potentially violent damage occurred in Trimble, Missouri with anchor-bolted homes completely swept away. This outbreak has produced at least 27 tornadoes, and I expect that number to rise dramatically as damage surveys begin. I'd expect 50+ tornadoes confirmed with this event including some EF2s and EF3s (maybe even an EF4 with the Trimble tornado). Thoughts on an article? Discuss. Screven94 ( talk) 08:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Screven94
In the past few days we have had two completely unnecessary articles made by one user, with no consensus or discussion regarding creation of an article among other users. The first of these two articles covers an "outbreak" that occurred from March 28 to 30th and produced only 25 tornadoes, no major damage, no tornadoes above EF2 strength, and no fatalities. The second is an ongoing that has not produced any major damage or confirmed strong tornadoes at this point. This rash, reckless creation of articles over what are overall not article-worthy events does not sit well with me. Other users please help me fix this mess. Thanks. Screven94 ( talk) 04:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94
As far as I can tell, it doesn't meet any of those. Jh23487 ( talk) 16:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
That article should not have been created and I have no idea who did so without consulting any other users. I'll let it slide though since it happened a while ago. An article worthy event usually is defined by numerous EF2 AND EF3 tornadoes, one or more violent tornadoes, multiple fatal tornadoes, and overall major damage. Not every single one of these criteria have to be present for an article, but your last two articles meet NONE of the above criteria. If we make an article every time a system spits out a few EF2s, that would lead to one or more articles every week once April and May roll around. That just isn't practical, and such events can be and always have been covered by the Tornadoes of 2017 page. Yes I know you put time and effort into this, but that effort needs to be redirected to smaller sub sections within the main 2017 page. Most importantly, you CANNOT just make articles without consulting others on the talk page first. Doing that completely overrides any degree of consensus that is vital. Hope you understand! Screven94 ( talk) 16:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94 Screven94 ( talk) 16:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I think we should wait until the intensites of the tornadoes are confirmed, then if there is ar least 2 tornadoes of an EF2/3 or higher we should make an article. MegaEarthquake ( talk) 00:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I should not have to be doing this, but let's discuss how we are going to handle the next potential event. The next possible tornado outbreak of 2017 may unfold from April 4th to April 6th across the southern US and east coast.
First and foremost, destructive and or deadly tornadoes must occur before anyone even CONSIDERS starting an article. If we do end up with a major event unfolding, it is an ABSOLUTE must that someone (probably me) starts a talk page section to discuss whether an article needs to started. If there is consensus, only then can an article be created. I don't care if we wake up with a High Risk and a 60% risk area for tornadoes. We wait until after the event, or after it is undeniable that a high impact event occurred to make an article. Period. This all has been running my patience thin and apparently we need a refresher on how this works. Screven94 ( talk) 18:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
You are technically correct, but by that definition every system that is able to spin up a few EF2s is now article material? With an active year predicted ahead, that means we are going to basically have an article for every weekly event May through June. Things are going to get cluttered and impractical fast. I understand where you are coming from, but it makes no practical sense. Saying "we don't really know what is and isn't article worthy" is going to open up one huge can of worms. Just my opinion. Screven94 ( talk) 20:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I should add, by that definition, there are now 3 or 4 additional minor 2017 events that would fall into the article criteria. Like I said, huge can of worms. Screven94 ( talk) 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand what all of you are saying, but the main reason I initially took issue with the creation of that article was that it was for an outbreak on April 2 that hadn't even really occurred yet (for the most part). Drafts are probably fine, but I don't think that we should be too hasty when it comes to creating articles in mainspace. That doesn't mean that I don't think individual editors should be able to use their own discretion when it comes to creating articles, but I do not think that a high risk should automatically constitute article-worthiness, and I don't think that articles with little information such as the "Tornado outbreak of April 1–3, 2017" article in its early stages should be published. An article on a current/recent event with only a short list of tornadoes and a small Meteorological synopsis can be contained in a relevant "Tornadoes of year" article and "List of United States tornadoes in month year" article. Sections of the relevant "Tornadoes of YYYY" article can be good starting points for tornado outbreaks that can later break off as articles as the event unfolds if need be. Once enough tornadoes have occurred / enough information written, then the article can be created. I support the 'existence' of information on Wikipedia, it's just the necessity of very short articles on recent/ongoing outbreaks that I am calling into question, particularly if such information can easily be contained elsewhere. I'd give the current draft a bit more work and if there is enough information added / the article becomes better-developed, then it can be later published (in the meantime, information can also be added to Tornadoes of 2017#April 1–3). On a final note, I consider Screven's requirements to be much too strict, as that would necessitate a discussion for every last article and result in the removal of noteworthy articles just because they don't meet his EF3+ criterion. There are outbreaks with 50+ tornadoes where none of the tornadoes received a rating of higher than EF2. EF2 is a "strong" tornado, so I could hardly disagree more on that limitation. Master of Time (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Screven94 ( talk) 06:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94
As I understand it, merely attracting the attention of the news media does not necessarily constitute notability; Wikipedia knows they overhype things. A high risk outlook may lend some notability to an event, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it unless the outbreak had a significant impact, since the outlooks can be wrong. While I agree that Screven's standards are rather strict, I think he is right that we should wait until the impacts are known before going ahead with creating an article. TornadoLGS ( talk) 00:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Screven94: New high risk issued and violent tornado apparently on ground in Georgia. Should we make Tornado outbreak of April 4–5, 2017? There was a few tornadoes last night as well. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 16:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
@MarioProtIV I agree with you. The NWS did issue a particuarily dangerous situation tornado watch for a large portion of the Mississippi Valley and Southern states. In addition to that, a tornado warning for south-central Georgia was noted that there was an observed "large, extremely dangerous and potentially deadly" tornado on the ground, with a "catastrophic" damage potential. However, there has been no confirmed tornadoes and only 7 filtered reports of tornadoes so far. The part though that the 3rd high risk of the year was issued so early in the year is pretty notable (by my terms, though). MegaEarthquake ( talk) 22:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Screven94 ( talk) 23:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94
Screven94 ( talk) 00:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94
In my opinion, we just have to wait and see what the tornadoes are rated. The tornado that has the best chance of a high rating is the one in southern Georgia that had the tornado emergency issued on it. My bet is at least EF2/3 (crossing my fingers though for an EF3+ cause I like to see strong tornadoes, eccept when they kill people) MegaEarthquake ( talk) 01:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Screven94 ( talk) 15:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94
I really think there's little point to these early discussions. It all comes down to speculation until surveys come in unless there has been a clearly catastrophic tornado. Outlooks shouldn't have all that much bearing since, as the latest events have demonstrated, they can be wrong. Even with the tornado emergencies that have been discussed, many of these tornadoes have failed to do particularly heavy damage. TornadoLGS ( talk) 01:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Are we still putting in the damage column in the monthly tornado lists? I think someone mentioned removing it until the information is put in the NCEI database. Right now, January is probably complete in the database. For the first part of the list, the damage amounts, if mentioned, got put in the damage summary section. If no one objects, I'll just put it back. Also, if a tornado crosses state borders, is the state abbreviation supposed to be listed after each county or starting or ending point to clarify which state it is in? I know some people do that and some don't, so it isn't really consistent. Jh23487 ( talk) 22:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Lately this talk page has been flooded with discussions on potential future outbreaks. I think it best that we avoid such discussions moving forward. I know it can be exciting to see significant tornado potential in an outlook, but as TropicalAnalystwx13 says above, this is not a forum; it is a page to discuss the content of the article. Discussing outlooks does nothing toward that purpose and creates unnecessary clutter on the talk page. Outlooks can be wrong and we cannot judge the significance of an outbreak or its worthiness for a section or article until it actually happens. Most of the information that would go into an article won't even be available until surveys come in. So, please keep discussions relevant to the page. TornadoLGS ( talk) 04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads-up, any tornadic activity associated with the major storm plowing through the Central US will also be included on April 2017 North American storm complex once I finish it to an acceptable level (should be up by tomorrow at least). For now just keep a section for it if needed so and probably add a hidden text with the main link template for it. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 04:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Can you update the fatalities map in the events section of the Tornadoes of 2017 page. Also, I read an article that said the death toll has been raised to five people, but I'm not sure the authenticy of the page. MegaEarthquake ( talk) 04:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Heads up 2: I have surgery tomorrow to get all 4 of my wisdom teeth out, so someone else will have to take over updating tomorrow and maybe Tuesday. TropicalAnalystwx13 ( talk · contributions) 01:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
According to RT, there were multiple tornadoes but no deaths. Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I know that there has been an article for the Tulsa tornado for the past several days, but should it really have its own article? I mean, it's only an EF2 tornado, which is extremely common in the Tulsa area, and this one wasn't any different. The only thing that it is notable for was that it was rare in August, but nothing else is particularly significant. The article needs some huge expansions, unless that is all the info available. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 12:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Just wondering if we should end up creating a separate section for tornadoes that were spawned by Hurricane Harvey. -- greendevil32 ( talk)
https://weather.com/news/news/2017-11-05-severe-thunderstorms-midwest-early-november-impacts
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/officials-tornado-injures-small-ohio-city-50954822
209.96.101.75 ( talk) 15:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There was no deadly Tornado in Germany this year. There is no source for it. This is the only possible source i found. http://www.dw.com/en/2-dead-as-tornado-storms-batter-northern-germany/a-39373673
There was a confirmed F2 Tornado that day in Germany. But it occured in Töppel (Saxony-Anhalt) and the deaths were in Uelzen in Lower Saxony (around 90 miled away) and in Gifhorn in Lower-Saxony (around 70 miles away). Check this list, it is the official List of Tornados in Germany. http://www.tornadoliste.de/ -- 217.24.226.52 ( talk) 19:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Lukatz
You should mention their name instead of calling them person Alvaro ivan daniswara ( talk) 01:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)