This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives ( Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Ok so I'm wondering what we do if we get an event with multiple EF2 tornadoes in a rural area, or one single EF2 that causes widespread significant damage but doesn't hurt anyone? Those both seem like scenarios that would be notable enough for inclusion, especially the second. It's not likely, but an EF2 tornado can go through a densely-populated area, cause major damage, but cause zero injuries. The other scenario is an outbreak of multiple EF2s in a wooded or rural area, where there is widespread major destruction to forests, outbuildings, farming equipment, livestock, and power lines, but no injuries occur. I know the current criteria requires an EF3 or stronger OR injuries, and I'm concerned about these two scenarios which could allow significant events worthy of inclusion to "slip through the cracks" so to speak. TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 08:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 reply

Support In light of recent events, this question of creating sections for tornado events with large numbers of EF2 and weak tornadoes, totally makes sense. And there are valid points to creating such pages, if there are significant numbers of tornadoes (50+), AND significant damage reported ($1+ million in costs) and possibly multiple causalities. However, I believe two of the three points regarding the size and human impacts of such outbreak must be met for inclusion. And of course,

Take for example, the July 16th event or the October 30-31st event from Tornadoes of 2015 for precedence. These were generally weak events in rural parts of Oklahoma and Kansas that were left included in the Tornadoes of 2015 article because of the major damages they caused in both states. Also, 1999 Salt Lake City tornado establishes a precedence that covers your other scenario of an EF2 tornado in a densely-populated area, cause major damage, but cause zero injuries or deaths. HamiltonthesixXmusic ( talk) 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Agree with your sentiment, but the Salt Lake City tornado killed a guy and injured over 100, so it doesn't really make for the best example. There's examples out there, I'm just having trouble thinking of them. Maybe the Spartanburg, SC EF2 tornado of 2017? Cut right though the city, yet the only injury from that one was a guy who had eardrum problems after due to the pressure drop inside the vortex.

TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 11:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 reply

I would assess this in a couple of days. Preferably, if I may ask TornadoInformation12 if this discussion could possibly wait 3 days to let that RfC conclude. Let's get the base criteria established and then change/admend it from there as needed. But yeah, some addition based on the number of tornadoes and an additional rule for cities over X population may be good additions once the base criteria is established. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 23:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Support: I would support that. There were a slew of EF2 tornadoes from this event. Including one in Fayette County, WV that was on the high end of that category, if it had been 10 mph stronger, it would have been an EF3. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:4DAE:1717:3C0D:C2B9 ( talk) 17:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

According to this page. There were at least 14 EF2 tornadoes on April 2nd by the way. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:4DAE:1717:3C0D:C2B9 ( talk) 17:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ TornadoInformation12: — WP:TornadoCriteria was just ratified. Feel free to open a talk page discussion here to discuss the proposed amendments! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 13:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Just alerting for editors that the Request for Comment (RfC) for WP:TornadoCriteria has concluded and with a clear consensus, was ratified as the current criteria for Tornadoes of XXXX (i.e. Tornadoes of 2024) articles. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 13:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I put it back because not only did it indeed cause injuries (NWS New Orleans lists "several injuries" in their entry for the Slidell EF2), but also because this perfectly highlights why I proposed the addition of "multiple or damaging EF2 tornadoes" to the criteria, and why we should weigh major structural damage in populated areas just as heavily as we do injuries. The Port Arthur and Lake Charles EF2s are exactly what I'm talking about when I mentioned that strong tornadoes can sometimes cause major damage in populated areas, but still not hurt anyone. Those two EF2 tornadoes were absolutely significant events, and a lack of injuries does not undo that. I have started a new talk section on the criteria talk page suggesting we add this as an amendment. TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 02:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 reply

I think it should be deleted. It was much less notable than the April 1-3 outbreak, and does not deserve a section as long as it is. Also, I could not find the sourcing for "several injuries" on any of NWS New Orleans platforms, so if you can link that I am willing to change my sentiment. HamiltonthesixXmusic ( talk) 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The NWS damage survey for the Slidell EF2 notes multiple injuries, so it passes WP:TornadoCriteria. Also, the proposed new criteria discussion that TornadoInformation12 referred to can be found here. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 17:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks! HamiltonthesixXmusic ( talk) 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Are the March 31 India and China tornadoes spawned by the same storm system? Meatballrunfatcat ( talk) 12:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey ChessEric, April 15-16 actually already passes WP:TornadoCriteria as one of the EF1s injured two people. ( NWS Survey) The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 04:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I know, but I really don't think that it should be there right now because the outbreak wasn't that big for April standards, and it's currently just one weak tornado that caused injuries. It can go there later if it's substantial enough. Chess Eric 04:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Theres a major problem with the current criteria regarding injuries. Hypothetically, if an EF0 simply knocks a tree branch onto someone's head, does it make it more notable than an EF3 that doesn't injure anyone but causes $5 million in damage? Point is, injuries should not be used as WP:TornadoCriteria. HamiltonthesixXmusic ( talk) 00:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Just to note, an EF3 would automatically be included per the criteria. The current criteria was looked at and commented on by a solid amount of editors, who commented either on the first draft, second draft, or the RFC to ratify it. Someone else did mention a possible problem down the road using a single injury as a criteria point. But in reality, yes, an EF1 or EF2 that caused $5 million in damage but no injuries would be less notable than an EF0 that actually injured someone. That said, the current proposed additional criteria (in discussion right now) would add inclusion for 4-5+ EF2 tornadoes (even if no injuries) or if a tornado caused severe damage to a specific town (case-by-case discussion). Remember, this list is suppose to be about global tornadoes, not every tornado. Damage total means nothing for notability. A good example is the North Carolina EF1 on January 3, 2022 which caused $1.5 million in damage. It hit 2 structures. That is a solid reason why damage totals aren't mentioned in the criteria list, but injuries are. A tornado with a high damage total almost always did one of two things: Significant tornado (chances are high for it to be EF3+ or be in an outbreak) or it went through and hit most of a town/city, which would be covered under the new proposed criteria. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 01:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Should the outbreak have a separate article? It had 35 tornadoes and 7 significant tornadoes. 2 people were killed by the tornadoes. Meatballrunfatcat ( talk) 11:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

No. Its already part of another article, so it's fine. Chess Eric 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Should there be a page called, "List of PDS tornado warnings"? Meatballrunfatcat ( talk) 12:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

No. We have probably at least 100 of them per year, so there's no notability in such a list. Chess Eric 23:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Maybe not PDS Tornado Warnings but I do think a list of PDS Tornado Watches might be a good idea because they aren’t very common. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:3C6E:B155:D63A:8E84 ( talk) 21:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I copied this page to my sandbox and made some edits to it. You can view the edits i made here: User:Meatballrunfatcat/sandbox. Meatballrunfatcat ( talk) 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There are currently 75 miles of active tornado warnings. This event is currently overperforming. Seek shelter for every tornado warning in your area. Meatballrunfatcat ( talk) 23:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Should a draft be made? Meatballrunfatcat ( talk) 23:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

No (or not yet at least). It hasn't reached the level of notability or activity for an article to be needed. Chess Eric 23:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I will decide if an article is needed after the April 18th tornadoes are rated Meatballrunfatcat ( talk) 12:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The real question at hand is whether April 16-18 really meet WP:TornadoCriteria? I think we should delete this section, as no injuries or deaths have been confirmed as of April 22. Not sure about damage totals, I will try and source that later.

Also, User:Meatballrunfatcat is a confirmed sockpuppet of Lokicat3345, a blocked user who has vandalized the severe weather project in the past. Cheers! HamiltonthesixXmusic ( talk) 16:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Kansas EF1 on the 16th meets the criteria causing 2 injuries. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 16:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much! Please forgive my lack of knowledge and rash statements. The main news articles I read about don't mention injuries that occurred then which is unfortunate. If you don't mind, I might have to ask you for proper sourcing from now on! Thanks again, sorry for my mistake! :) HamiltonthesixXmusic ( talk) 01:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There was a tornado outbreak in South America on that day. It had 28 tornadoes, 12 of which were significant. I think an outbreak article should be made for this event. I posted here because i would probably not get a response on the Tornadoes of 2009 talk page. Meatballrunfatcat ( talk) 12:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This user is a suspected sockpuppet of LokiCat, who was blocked from editing wikipedia last October. Do not engage with this user and help report him. HamiltonthesixXmusic ( talk) 23:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Based on the above talk page entries; that isn’t the only sockpuppet of LokiCat. I would also add that Catsarecool558 is also a sockpuppet of the aforementioned LokiCat. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:437:C6AE:F163:B235 ( talk) 18:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ TheWeatherWriter Can you archive this conversation? @ Meatballrunfatcat has been banned as a result of his sockpuppet investigation. Thanks! HamiltonthesixXmusic ( talk) 19:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ WeatherWriter HamiltonthesixXmusic ( talk) 19:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Can we please stop including every tornado event with an IF1 tornado in Eurpoe on this page? It would make more since if we only included events with an IF2 tornado or a tornado that goes through a large city. Meatballrunfatcat ( talk) 12:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Meatballrunfatcat: I do not know what you mean, as of this message, every event (US or Europe or other places) meet WP:TornadoCriteria. So if you are complaining about one of the listed European events, (Jan 3, Feb 14, Mar 5, Mar 9, Mar 27), then know that the community has already decided those events are notable for inclusion. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 12:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hey, be aware of this user with a cat reference in his username. This user is a suspected sockpuppet of Lokicat going back as far as October 2023, vandalizing severe weather pages and glamorizing destructive events. He is also apparently a blocked user on HypotheticalTornadoesWiki as well. HamiltonthesixXmusic ( talk) 23:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I normally don't bring issues like this to here, but this may affect current tables, so I will. I was updating the progress of the monthly lists today and was quite alarmed because I had to downgrade the status alot of the lists to not done and half done, leaving only 2 lists as done. The main issue appears to be that there has been some sort of change to cite report refs; as a result, it requires an agency input. When it contradicts the way that a lot of the refs are put in, they display as errors. It may not seem like much of a problem, but there are some list pages with entire ref sections that show up with these errors. It's not a glitch either because there are other older list pages that don't have this sort of problem. This needs to be addressed because this problem is on pages as recent as last year and having that many errors in ref sections is not a good look. Chess Eric 04:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There is an RFC requested that editors choose whether or not two additional criteria should be formally added to WP:TornadoCriteria, the formal criteria for inclusion of articles such as Tornadoes of 2024. You can participate in the RFC here. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 19:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Just wanted to remind everyone and let new editors know that when we have a tornado event that goes on for days and days, and is caused by multiple troughs/storm systems, it isn't a tornado outbreak, but a tornado outbreak sequence. The reason I am bringing this up is because I've seen some people get confused about what the term "outbreak sequence" means, and there is a decent chance we are about to see one unfold. It could begin this afternoon, and will likely continue through the weekend and possibly into early next week. This potential upcoming event will involve multiple back-to-back troughs moving across the continental US, and therefore if it verifies and reaches its full potential, we will be dealing with an absolutely textbook outbreak sequence. However, if only a day or two verifies, or there is a 24-hour gap in tornado activity, it will either be considered a regular old tornado outbreak, or two back-to-back outbreaks. Does that make sense? I hope I explained it well. Just wanted to make sure we are all on the same page. TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 17:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 reply

Agreed. “Tornado outbreak sequence” 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:3C6E:B155:D63A:8E84 ( talk) 19:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Well said.

Another thing to note for this project, is while the current April 26th event may qualify for a preliminary section on this page, please do not create an independent article for this ongoing outbreak/outbreak sequence until the event is fully over and assessed. HamiltonthesixXmusic ( talk) 22:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

While the tornado in Alaska certainly is rare and fits the current criteria, can the current section be deleted for now until it is expanded upon and better sourced? HamiltonthesixXmusic ( talk) 20:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This is a clear case of someone "jumping the gun" and breaking the rules this community established years ago. How do we have an article for an hours-old tornado outbreak already, without much significant or credible sourcing for information!? Please, shelve this preliminary outbreak article into the draft space. We jump the gun with articles year after year, with many inexperienced editors creating article drafts just hours after the storms roll through.

Now I certainly understand that today was a significant weather event. We all have seen the many social media posts circulating around, the livestreamed images highlighting the devastating damage and rare tornado emergencies out of Nebraska and Iowa. However, this event is certainly not over as far as we know. This outbreak could turn into an outbreak sequence and I, for one, would rather not have the debate over whether this outbreak is or is not an outbreak sequence now.

In addition to recklessly speculating the unknown future continuation of this outbreak, we CANNOT publish article unless numerous strong tornadoes or multiple deaths have been confirmed. Damage/velocity reports are the not the same as a CONFIRMED damage assessment by the NWS. We have no damage ratings at the moment and we have a significant dearth of sourcing for timeline/location of all tornado paths. IF we are going to publish this outbreak article later this weekend, please ensure that it is aligned with WP:LASTING/ WP:Notable. Thanks if you have read this, and are helping to fix the quality of these sections/articles for the better. HamiltonthesixXmusic ( talk) 00:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Now, I do have to admit I rushed to create that article; but what "rule" did we establish "years ago"? I'm unaware of this; I'm not sure if we did have a "rule" that was established to prevent editors from "jumping the gun" or rushing to create an outbreak article. Also, strong tornadoes or multiple deaths isn't "notable" for creating an article; but rather, the lasting and significant coverage you later stated above. Now, if this is the case, then shouldn't we hold an actual consensus (if we haven't) about deciding the creation of outbreak articles? ~ Tails Wx ( 🐾, me!) 01:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

We already have, see the discussions pertaining to the Tornado outbreak and derecho of April 1–3, 2024 article (it was absolute chaos until we all figured something out). I had created the article prematurely, which led to revisions in the criteria for and discussion of outbreak articles. MemeGod ._. ( talk) 03:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I do see there was a discussion regarding that about prematurely creating tornado outbreak articles; though I don't see a "rule" or "guideline" or some sort established from that. ~ Tails Wx ( 🐾, me!) 11:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There definitely does NOT need to be such an article (or even a draft of such an article) until damage surveys from the weather service are coming in; and even then; we should wait at least until this time next week because as I learned from someone else on here (I think maybe that Tornado Information 12 guy) if news media are still mentioning it a week or two later, it might be notable enough for a standalone article.

But it can definitely go on the list of Tornado Emergencies article now (if it isn’t already) because at least one (probably more) was issued in Iowa today. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:D8BE:CE18:331:4E8C ( talk) 05:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Really happy to see everyone sticking with what we all agreed to. Now with that said, once the damage surveys start rolling out, I can guarantee you it will become immediately that this outbreak will need an article. Plus, SPC is calling for an outbreak of EF3+ tornadoes across Kansas and Oklahoma today, so we're not even done yet. This will very likely be an outbreak sequence article btw because we are dealing with two separate troughs.

Several tornadoes hit the ground around and southwest of Des Moines, Iowa. From the news coverage last night it appears they hit parts of Des Moines metro. I feel like this should be mentioned? Source: KCCI NOWCAST Coverage from last night.

I'm not really used to contributing to Wikipedia but I figured since I am from Iowa and have a close perspective to what happened, I could provide some constructive input. 142.147.101.82 ( talk) 17:45, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Currently the April 25-27 section says that a 2nd tornado emergency was issued in the Lincoln, Nebraska area. Wasn't the 2nd tornado emergency issued for the Minden, Iowa tornado and not the Lincoln, Nebraska tornado? JimmyTheMarble ( talk) 20:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ JimmyTheMarble: I have removed it ( diff). Yes, the second tornado emergency was for the Minden, IA tornado and not the Lincoln, NE tornado ( [1]). ChrisWx 🌀 ( talk - contribs) 23:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Title says it all, and the reason shouldn't be "Yeah but I want to there's no rule against it". I really dislike the recent trend of people trying to hat collect by making a bunch of unnecessary stand-alone tornado articles. It's not needed at all, and should only be done to truly serve a purpose not "just cause". Back when I started this, stand alone's were only created for the worst of the worst (Hackleburg-Phil Campbell, Moore, Joplin, Mayfield, Rolling Fork, ect), and now we have people making them for any tornado that is impactful. Most of the time, it's just the same writeup as the tornado summary embedded in the main page, plus some additional info and pics at the top and bottom of the page. What purpose does that serve? It just isn't needed, and it is a waste of time and energy. I feel like somebody is gonna try to do it for Elkhorn or Sulphur, and can we please not? Am I alone in this or do others agree? TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 14:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 reply

While I will agree that an individual article is not needed for Elkhorn, Sulphur is a little different, as it caused extreme destruction and destroyed an entire town at potential EF4+ damage (this is an estimate, note the word potential). The draft for the Sulphur tornado already has info not mentioned on the main section on the April 25-28 article. See the 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado for an example as to a GA that is an EF3 tornado with only 3 injuries. Sulphur is the only one, in my opinion, that honestly even remotely warrants an article, and the destruction there was absolutely insane. MemeGod ._. ( talk) 14:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado was not part of a notable outbreak though, but rather, a single notable tornado in a fairly weak tornadic event. See Tornadoes of 2023#January 24–25 (United States). That EF3 tornado also led to changes in the city of Deer Park as well as city government action, creating a lasting impact. In that very tiny tornado outbreak, the rest of the tornadoes were either non-significant or low-end and low-impact EF2s. That is comparing apples to oranges. Every notable tornado (Sulphur and Elkhorn included) in this outbreak is very similar to every notable tornado in the Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023, i.e. high-impact and higher-end ratings. Do I think some of the tornadoes in Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023 could get a stand-alone article? Yes. However, that is coming only after lasting impacts and lasting effects are clear over a year later. Everything damage-wise known about both the Elkhorn & Sulphur tornadoes are 100% preliminary. Nothing is finalized. The lasting effects are not known.

Now you may think "But a town was destroyed! That is a lasting impact and has lasting effects." But, that is not how Wikipedia works. Everything on Wikipedia has to have sources. What changes has the city government made following the tornado? How is rebuilding efforts going? How did the U.S. federal government respond? All of those are not answered, because they haven't happened yet. The final note of the WP:LASTING policy states "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." The first sentence of that is why it should not be a stand-alone article yet. Because, besides breaking-news and very recent news articles describing the very recent tornado, which occurred less than a week ago, there is no sources dedicated to the impacts/recovery/effects/academic analysis of that specific (specific being key) tornado. Is the outbreak widely covered and already considered notable? Yes. That is why we have an outbreak article and why the Sulphur tornado has an entire section in the outbreak article. The outbreak passes that 2nd sentence of WP:LASTING. The Sulphur tornado doesn't.

As a way to get started, can you link at least 2 non-Oklahoma news sources (or 5 Oklahoma ones) specifically dedicated to Sulphur tornado? Not the outbreak, but specifically about Sulphur. Other tornadoes can be mentioned, but the absolute main subject of the source (75% or more) must be about the Sulphur tornado or Sulphur itself. If you cannot find 2 non-local Oklahoma news sources (or 5 local-Oklahoma news sources), then it clearly is not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Even then, I still would not consider a stand-alone article for at least 1 year to see what lasting impacts and lasting effects it has.

-Rant/reasoning over. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 02:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

TL;DR: It won't be notable for a stand-alone article for at least a full year due to WP:LASTING. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 02:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

• Also a better point to make here:

1. 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado was created on September 11, 2023 - 230 days after the tornado.
2. 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado was created on July 11, 2023 - 109 days after the tornado.
3. 2021 Tri-State tornado was created on October 15, 2023 - 674 days after the tornado
4. 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado was created on March 18, 2024 - 713 days after the tornado.

If you notice, the stand-alone articles are created well after the tornado. This is because the lasting impacts of a tornado has to be known. The only exception in the last few years was the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, created two days after the tornado. However, at that time, it was considered the "Quad-State Tornado", which may have broken the 1925 Tri-State tornado's path length record, leading to a major lasting effect being established. However, even that creation was considered too fast by some editors. Key thing, patience. Wait until you have non-breaking-style news articles that are specific about the town(s) impacted or the tornado itself (academic probably). The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 02:28, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

There's that and then there's just making articles for everything, which is what I believe this is. This is excessive in my opinion; many of these damage summaries can fit into sections. Chess Eric 06:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Out of pure curiosity, would today (April 30) tornadoes be part of the April 25–28th outbreak. Although there was no tornadoes on the 29th, wouldn’t it continue the outbreak sequence as a day or two can have no tornadoes during an outbreak sequence? IrishSurfer21 ( talk) 01:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah dang it I didn’t see this sorry, I literally just asked the same question. Actually there was a single tornado in Kansas on April 29. So in theory, we could. I want to see what the community says first though.

TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 04:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 reply

Actually never mind. I think that 29th report is an error. Let’s not expand it.

TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 05:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 reply

I’m not set on this idea but figured I’d throw it out there. Given there was significant, fatal tornado activity on April 30, and since there was a single tornado near Grantsville, KS on April 29th to “bridge the gap” so to speak, should we expand the recent outbreak sequence article?? Just an idea, but what do you guys think? TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 04:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 reply

I support the idea of just expanding it to the sequence from April 25-30. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 04:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

One issue though. The Grantsville, KS tornado on the 29th is just an SPC report for now as far as I know. We may have to wait until April’s NCDC data is released to confirm it. Aren’t we unable to include it if it’s just a report?

TornadoInformation12

The two common definitions of a tornado outbreak sequence according to Schneider, Brooks, and Schaefer (2004) are the continuous and near-continuous thresholds. The continuous threshold says that a sequence is defined by consecutive days of 1+ significant tornadoes. Because the tornado on April 29 was not significant, it would not meet this definition. The near-continuous threshold says that a 1-day reprieve is allowed in a sequence but that the day must feature widespread, severe hail or damaging winds or weak tornadoes. Given that tornadoes in this definition is plural, April 29 probably does not fit, so I would not support extending the sequence. wxtrackercody ( talk · contributions) 05:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Good point. And you know what else? I think the Grantsville tornado report from the 29th is in error. There is a tornado report at that exact spot from TODAY. Sometimes duplicate reports end up on the page for the wrong day. I’m 90% sure that’s the case here. Let’s not expand it.

TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 05:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 reply

What about the EFO tornado in Alberta, Canada that also occurred on April 29 ? Should that be taken into consideration also what definition of "sigifiant tornado" is subjective plus most the non-tornadic effects are often treated as an afterthought in regards of the "widespread, severe hail or damaging winds" criteria. /info/en/?search=List_of_Canadian_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks_(since_2001)#cite_note-475 216.24.109.110 ( talk) 18:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Actually, "significant tornado" is objectively defined as a tornado rated (E)F2 or higher, sometimes also counting fatal tornadoes with lower ratings. TornadoLGS ( talk) 03:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Should Ethan Moriarty be considered a subject-matter expert, i.e., satisfying WP:EXPERTSPS, in regards to mechanical engineering discussions? He is currently cited on the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado, and was cited on this article until it was removed by an editor saying it was “not a reliable source”. If so, we should remove his cited info from the Rolling Fork article as well. Thoughts?

I think Ethan Moriarty should be considered a subject-matter expert with regards to mechanical engineering posts as he is a degreed mechanical engineer from Quinnipiac University’s School of Engineering and works in the field, as well as in the field of meteorology. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 15:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

The statement removed was that Moriarty "estimated that the tornado had winds up to 171 mph". This was sourced to a tweet in which Moriarty did some quick notepad calculations that were themselves based on Twitter pictures of a manhole. Regardless of Moriarty's reliability as a subject matter expert, it's not particularly encyclopedic to include statements based on such uncertain information. A journal article might find the same result, but would presumably not have to, e.g. guess the size and mass of the object in question based on off-angle photographs.

As to the overall question of Moriarty's status as a subject matter expert: that he is a competent and verified mechanical engineer I don't doubt at all, and his videos are interesting.. Whether being a degreed mechanical engineer qualifies as being a subject matter expert in tornado windspeed estimation is a different question. I also am not aware whether Moriarty qualifies as someone "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", as is further required by WP:EXPERTSPS for either mechanical engineering or tornado damage.

I also think it's an open question whether this as well as the Rolling Fork calculation would also fall under the umbrella of extraordinary claims ( WP:EXTRAORDINARY, see "Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources"), which are subject to more scrutiny, i.e. they require multiple reliable sources. Penitentes ( talk) 15:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Agree with Penitentes regarding this matter. Highly unreasonable and unencyclopedic to include such unofficial statements and calculations. United States Man ( talk) 18:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Long-time tornado editors, can we please have a look at the current state of things? Look at the quality of things we are now allowing to be published: /info/en/?search=2024_Sulphur_tornado

We have an article that consists almost entirely of unsourced claims, and none of the sources that are there are from the NWS or DAT. Not a single reliable source was used. Zero. It appears to be completely laden with original research, self-assigned EF scale ratings, and is not of encyclopedic quality. This is such a far step below the quality of tornado articles we used to make. Why are allowing the quality of work here to just plummet. I had a conversation with this user yesterday about how you have source things with NWS and DAT damage survey information, and that news articles can only be used as supplementary information. Apparently that all fell on deaf ears. I am exasperated, frustrated, and tired because I am just trying to keep the quality here at least somewhat similar to what it used to be, but it is starting to feel impossible if we don't collectively strive for better and hold new, young, overzealous editors accountable. I have to sleep now, so I can clean up this mess later. This just makes me sad.... TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 15:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 reply

Really? you critique EVERY single thing I do, jesus christ. How are 30+ citations not reliable? The NWS doesn't usually publish much on specific tornadoes besides fatalities and damage, and I swear to God you need to stop violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks with the "young" thing. And I'm still working on it, if you just looked at the gosh darn edit summaries.At WikiPedia, it isn't a matter of who's been here longer, a user can be on WikiPedia for 10 years and make extrmely unconstructive edits, and a user who's been on for 3 days can make entire articles. Experience does NOT constitute what is and is not allowed here. Thanks (i'm not even going to smile this time, I'm done with this) MemeGod ._. ( talk) 15:31, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

I specifically told you yesterday that we can only publish detailed info from the NWS and the DAT. It doesn't matter if it's 100 sources, if none of it comes from the NWS, it isn't good enough to base an entire tornado summary on. That is what the DAT is for, and NWS Norman takes months to add all the damage points. NWS Norman has not published enough info for us to make a full article, let alone a full table summary for the Sulphur tornado. You have completely jumped the gun again, and put out something that should have never been put out. This is not a personal attack, this is valid criticism that you are apparently taking as a personal attack for some reason. I don't care about experience as long as the content being published is good quality, properly sourced, accurate, and encyclopedic in nature. What you have created is none of those things. This is not really up for debate, at all.

TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 15:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 reply

I completely agree with you @ TornadoInformation12:. Same things I’ve been saying for years now. United States Man ( talk) 17:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I may have a more liberal idea of what kind of sourcing is acceptable than you do, but even I think this has gone way too far, and the quality level has plunged way too low. This user is essentially like me in 2010. Passionate eager and young, but lacking in know-how and understanding when it comes to what is acceptable in tornado articles. You were very hard on me back then, but it made me a better, more competent editor. I am simply trying to do the same for this new editor, but he doesn't want to hear it.

TornadoInformation12 ( talk) 17:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 reply