Talk:Tornadoes of 2024

Archives (Index)

1 2 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

January 8-9

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)

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

PDS tornado warnings

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

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

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)

April 16-18

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

September 7, 2009

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

European tornado events

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)

@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)

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)

RFC for Additional Proposed Criteria for WP:TornadoCriteria

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)

Reminder: Multiple troughs and long-duration event = Outbreak Sequence

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

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

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)

Alaska tornado section

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)

Please shelve the preliminary April 26th-? tornado outbreak article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

April 26th Tornado Outbreak Discussion

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)

Tornado Emergency

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)

@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)

Can We Not Make Individual Articles For Tornadoes Unless There's A Reason To?

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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. ChessEric 06:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

April 30 tornadoes

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)

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

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

Expand Outbreak Sequence Article To April 30th?

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

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)

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)

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

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks_(since_2001)#cite_note-475 216.24.109.110 (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

Ethan Moriarty — Engineering subject-matter expert?

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)

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)

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)

Quality Issues

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: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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

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)

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

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)

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

Don't Remove DAT References When NCDC Data Is Released

Hey this is really important in terms of sourcing. Please don't get rid of any of the DAT refs in the tables this year, even when NCDC releases their event summaries later on. Many of the NCDC summaries are incredibly minimalistic and lacking in detailed information, and a lot of the times, many of the details you can find by clicking on those little triangles on the DAT never make it into the NCDC event writeups. Somebody removed a bunch of the DAT refs from last year's tables, and left behind table information that had to be re-sourced because the NCDC entries didn't cover all the info/claims in the tables. That creates unsourced info and an editing headache. So in a nutshell, only a portion of the DAT information actually makes it into the yearly NCDC writeups, and the DAT refs are there for a reason, so please leave them alone this year. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Alaska tornado

I’m not sure how the Alaska tornado meets WP:TornadoCriteria, unless we modify it so the criteria only applies to the Lower 48. 134.6.205.51 (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

It passes the “rare oddity” criteria of WP:TornadoCriteria. The fifth-ever tornado in Alaskan history (first one since 2005) seems pretty rare. If you do not think so, then we can have a formal community discussion to determine if the Alaskan tornado does indeed pass that part of the criteria or if it should be removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a rare oddity (5th tornado ever recorded in Alaska), so it meets criteria. Not sure what you mean to modify the criteria for the Lower 48. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Revert the change in layout

This is a pain to navigate now because things aren't broken up into months. It also hurts record keeping since now the page isn't tracking monthly counts like it objectively should. If you don't think this matters, you have no business managing these pages. 184.20.31.47 (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, the new layout makes the page less-U.S. centric, which is important. Secondly, U.S. monthly counts are still being done. See List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2024, List of United States tornadoes in April 2024, and List of United States tornadoes in May 2024. Just to note, the page layout was changed as a result of the pages being U.S.-centric. If that seems to be an issue or annyoing, then realize you are wanting Wikipedia to focus on the U.S. more than other countries. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You could simply just do the same for everywhere else. Just copy what I did for those regions. I relied on these articles because the NCEI and NOAA can't be bothered to keep track of counts accurately to save their lives, and burying them somewhere else is not helpful. It also makes navigation a mess since 90% of the page will always be the United States regardless of what changes you make. There was a better solution here, and making the pages worse was not it. 184.20.31.47 (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Splitting North America Up By Month?

I have reverted it for now because there was no conversation or consensus about this idea, but an IP editor split up North America up by month. I am not comfortable with this until we have input from all the active editors here. I don't think one editor should be able to make a major formatting change entirely on their own volition without any community input or discussion. If we decide it's a good idea, I'll put it back. Until then, we stick with what we decided on earlier as a community about the page being too US centric. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I agree with currently leaving out each monthly total (for now), but should each individual US event be treated as sub-heading 1 or sub-heading 2? Just need further information to apply any necessary heading changes to 2020–2023

I recognize that going ahead with the IP editor's format change was wrong of me. 2601:2C1:8B80:349F:4A93:1681:C693:D291 (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Support splitting all continent sections by month

I like the idea of splitting each continent section by month, I think it would be good if we had a page navigation outline to go along with them. If anyone here is concerned about the North American-centric nature of this, you could simply just do the same for every other continent as well.

There is one concern I have with this idea though. If we split up all continent sections by month, it might create information gaps in the page format. After all, North America is the only continent on Earth with consistent tornado activity throughout the year. Compared to South America or Eurasia, where notable tornado outbreaks could occur months apart from each other, leaving little information in some monthly sections compared to others. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Revert the layout to the previous US-centric one (pre-2023).

Several editors, including I, strongly dislike the whole anti-US centric page layout.

Sure, there may have been merit to bringing attention to tornadic events in places outside the US, but the current layout format is abysmal for page navigation. This is a real quality issue, and cannot simply be dismissed by "oh, so you want Wikipedia to focus on the U.S. more than other countries". Over 90% of all significant tornado events will take place in the United States, regardless of any additions made to accommodate European and Asian tornado editors.

Some editors here might disagree with my sentiments. They may say that this page still provides U.S. monthly counts through the lists linked at the beginning of the North American tornado section (e.g. List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2024). The major concerns that aren't addressed with the redirecting links to the monthly US tornado lists is that often times, the lists themselves are too specific. Readers don't want the specific information of every tornado event that month. They want a nice, clean, summary that is easy to navigate to and read. Additionally, the NCEI and NOAA do a good, but not perfect job to keep precise monthly counts throughout the year. See the debacle of List of United States tornadoes in March 2023 from last year. They often have to reevaluate the tornado counts for previous months at the end of the year and adjust tornado counts. It is much easier to edit such information on this main page than in every individual list.

The old layout with global events interwoven in the main US information section worked well for general quality purposes. I think this issue can be put into one question. Why change a working system for worse? HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 02:28, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

‘’’Support’’’ You know what? I agree and I’m all for it. I’m only going along with the new format because everyone else is and I don’t want to rock the boat. This new format has created more issues than it has fixed. It’s also less reader friendly. To the people who say the old version is too US centric, I say “ok so what”, and also want to point out that the US has the most amount of yearly significant tornadoes, and is the most thorough when it comes to documenting them. Most countries don’t even have an official tornado database. That isn’t US centric bias, it’s just climatology and reality. I’m feeling stronger and stronger that we were pushed into fixing something that wasn’t broken to start with. If we’re in the minority here, this format stays. But if a majority of users dislike it as much as we do, we should obviously go back to the old format. Let’s discuss further and see what people say.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I think we should start a discussion page for reverting the layout format to the pre-2023 one. Hopefully, other editors can come to a reasonable consensus on reverting the low-quality format we have worked with since January.

@WeatherWriter@DJ Cane@ChessEric@ChrisWx@MemeGod27 Opinions on this? HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. ChessEric 19:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Currently on a multi-week break, I won't be able to give a good concensus MemeGod ._. (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I am not too familiar with the previous format but I like the general idea. But there should still perhaps be some kind of list of non-US tornadoes. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong disagree the only real issue anyone has been able to point to is that they can't be bothered to scroll to the US section to see US information. The article will be 90% US data because of climatology, that doesn't mean it has to be overtly American. Global pages should have global coverage, including globally themed intros and info boxes. If it's really that big of a hardship for people to click or scroll a little more, then maybe a "Tornadoes of xxxx in the United States" page should be created.

I'm happy to see a discussion page made, but if it's the same old arguments rehashed over and over again it will go nowhere. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 19:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why you seem to be the only one against reverting to the previous working format. Could you elaborate further on your statement that readers should have to spend more effort navigating our page, and for what purpose? Also, what do you mean by same old arguments rehashed over and over again? I am mostly concerned with the navigation quality and the problem of no one ever updating the European/Asian sections consistently. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Please review previous discussions here and here for a primer on why I originally recommended we change to this model and what steps and compromises occurred to get here.

I fail to see how splitting by region first then date makes it clunky. I would argue that not doing so is worse from a readability standpoint. The target audience of Wikipedia is not weather nerds or experts in the field, but everyone. Jumping around from continent to continent mixes vastly different events and climatological regimes unnecessarily and waters down the differences between different events/outbreaks.

What exactly about splitting by region makes it more clunky and decreases navigation quality? What specifically are you looking for that isn’t presented? You mention a nice summary of events. That’s here, and not only is it here but it is presented in a more intelligent form by grouping by region. The original system wasn’t working well for international coverage, and nothing in this or other discussions points toward the page having been made worse.

Finally, not only are US tornadoes given appropriate coverage here relative to global frequency (the amount of coverage hasn’t changed), they are at the top of the page and are not mixed in with foreign events. It’s surprising to me that editors find this to be undesirable. This is, notably, against Wikipedia precedent for other global lists which are typically sorted alphabetically. I don’t think it’s wrong to put North America and the United States at the top (due to climatology and data availability), but it is worth noting. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 06:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Support – Agree with others. The previous format worked much better. This is much more clunky and segmented. United States Man (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• The formal proposal to change the Tornadoes of YYYY article layout was started. You can visit this proposal here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles. Please move the discussion to the new proposal, as this discussion was simultaneously ongoing with a duplicate discussion on this exact same topic on WikiProject Weather talk page. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Whatever floats your boat in my opinion. I haven’t been paying attention to the format. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:D81D:A7C7:7489:7A9E (talk) 23:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

High Risk for today

This editing community has had sufficient quarreling over the last few months over when it is appropiate to fire away drafts and articles ahead of time. While a major tornado outbreak is very well possible starting from today and extending possibly into Wednesday, this entry has the intention of reminding everybody to be patient and wait for the confirmation of tornadoes, damage, and official information in order to engage in article creation, if it becomes necessary. This becomes especially critical in a day like today, so lets try to avoid unnecessary speculation, "jumping the gun", and fighting amongst ourselves. Mjeims (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. We came to an agreement with on how to handle this, so we have to stick to it. I don’t care even if it’s something insane 80% hatched TOR risk with the SPC calling for EF4+ long trackers in the OKC metro; article creation does not start until damage surveying begins. Any gun-jumping today will be promptly reverted, period, so all hype needs to be ignored.

13:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation11 TornadoInformation12 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Welp, assuming one of the tornadoes doesn't kill me today, I'll be ready to help. ChessEric 16:20, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

1000% agreed on that one. There doesn’t need to be (as you all said) “gun jumping”. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter if the SPC calls for a 100% chance of EF5 tornadoes; there shouldn’t be any “jumping the gun” until most of all of the tornadoes have been surveyed. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Eh—I'm not sure we need to be *that* restrictive. If, and only if, there's a lot of destruction and/or casualties it will quickly become obviously newsworthy regardless of the surveys or ratings afterward. Penitentes (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Nope, that alone should not mean a draft should start. Legit, any draft started before WP:TornadoCriteria even passes would be speedy deleted instantly as, at that point, there is 0 hope for an article per community consensus. Even then, the overall consensus is to wait to even think about a draft until after surveys start coming out. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Exceptions exist for every set of Wikipedia community guidelines for notability. I just hope tonight doesn't bear any out. Penitentes (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Well yeah we do need to be that restrictive because there are a lot of people who either don’t know or (in more extreme cases) don’t care about the notability guidelines and they (as other people on here have said) jump the gun and prematurely make an article without any consensus. So yes, even if the SPC is forecasting a 100% chance of EF5 tornadoes; there shouldn’t even be a draft of such article until the outbreak is COMPLETELY OVER and damage surveys are coming in. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I will further add that today’s high risk doesn’t appear like it’s going to verify unless something changes dramatically. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

On second thought… I believe I just jinxed that because there is currently a Tornado Emergency out for parts of Oklahoma north of Tulsa. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

And to add to the madness, fatalities are already being reported in Bartlesville... Mathguy Michael (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, regenerative supercells are developing in southwest Oklahoma, and are entering a pristine environment for more intense tornadoes. However, as bad as the situation already is and could become, lets hold off for now. Mjeims (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. Even if criteria are being met for an article, starting one now would just open the floodgates for arguments, especially with tons of new and rapidly changing information. Mathguy Michael (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The correct move would be expansion of the section of this article first. I think even if this event is a dud, we've had a few reports of tornadoes on the ground, including the Barnsdall one, which looks quite bad from the stormchaser imagery so far. A lot that can be said about the overall environment for storms. As is always the case, we should let the length of the parent section dictate of an article is spun off. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I may not be the seasoned editor like some of these people. But I still support the idea of NO ONE drafting a single word of an article related to today’s “wannabe tornado outbreak” until it is COMPLETELY OVER and not a second before. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don’t even think there should be a section in this article about it until the outbreak is over. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Because even that would open up a can of worms when it comes to “gun jumpers” making premature articles. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaand? Only one single violent tornado and one fatality last night. High risk did not verify. This is why we wait and don't go based on hype. Perfect, perfect example.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

It's only been like five hours, how do you already know the exact fatality and tornado amount? Perfect example of why we don't prematurely determine damages. MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

And to answer your question. You don’t know. Often times we don’t know the fatality count for several days (and sometimes it can keep going up for weeks and in extreme cases months afterwards). We also usually don’t know the damage tally for quite a while. NOAA doesn’t publish damage estimates until about three months after the event happens. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

See what everyone has been saying? If someone had of ignored us and created an article while it was occurring. They would have had to delete it because there wasn’t anything really to put in it. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing happened. They would have created an article about nothing. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

And last I checked, Wikipedia is not a place for “empty articles”. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

And it isn’t a place for non-notable and non-encyclopedic articles either. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s the exact point everyone had been making. I’ve seen some cases where a slight or enhanced risk has produced more severe weather than a moderate or a high risk. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Are we sure we even need an entry (on this article) yet for the May 6-? tornado outbreak? Because it’s still ongoing; and I would think that it would be temptation for “gun jumpers”, just saying. Maybe I’m wrong and there might very well be a reason to justify that entry, but do we really need said entry yet? Because it’s still ongoing and we don’t have any ratings on any tornadoes yet. We don’t even have a count yet. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Follow up: they created a standalone article for the outbreak. A little bit too fast in my opinion. But again, I’m not an experienced editor like some of these people. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:5054:A7C6:AA2D:9AE2 (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

PDS watches list?

Why don’t we have a list of PDS tornado/severe thunderstorm watches article? The SPC doesn’t issue very many of them each year. We already have a list of tornado emergencies (which in some cases are issued more frequently than PDS watches). I’m sure the data prior to the mid-2000s might have a few holes in it but I think it would be doable. Any thoughts on that? 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I like the idea, although I'm curious as to what others (especially those who contribute significantly) have to say. Also, would a list like this just include the watches, or would it also list impacts (number of tornadoes/ratings, max wind, max hail size)? Mathguy Michael (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It could list whatever you want it to list. I was thinking the number of tornadoes, maximum rating, maximum (non-tornadic) wind gust (when applicable), max hail size (when applicable), probably the number of deaths/injuries. Of course the date the watch was issued. But it would also include the type of watch (as the SPC issues both tornado and severe thunderstorm watches with PDS wording, both types would be included under my proposal, but whether or not they are in the same article/list or two separate lists should be discussed) 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 04:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I would probably also think the watch number that the SPC assigns should also be mentioned somewhere. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

And as a side note. The SPC archive of watches goes back to January 1, 2004. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

This link aught to help. https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/nws/pds_watches.php 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:B0CF:B19:B7BB:4811 (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Still requesting comment on my proposal for a PDS watches list. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:5054:A7C6:AA2D:9AE2 (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Tornado Emergency (again)

Before anyone gun jumps… there is a Tornado Emergency out for Union City, MI right now. Please no one do any writing until everything is done and over with and notability is assessed. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 22:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no intention of gun-jumping, but as a native of the state (and, in fact, someone who lived in that part of the state for half my life!), I'd like to toss out a couple of reasons why I think the outbreak might meet WP:TornadoCriteria for both retention here and for a standalone article--both based on the "Rare Oddities" clause. First off, it was the first time a tornado emergency was ever issued in the state of Michigan, which qualifies as rare enough in my book. Secondly, however, there's the fact that two separate tornadoes hit Portage, Michigan within about one hour of each other--two in a day is hardly a common occurrence, much less two in an hour. Just thought I'd throw that out there. rdfox 76 (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It will also probably meet the soon-to-be high impact events criteria. Because I imagine a large part of the town was significantly damaged. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:B0CF:B19:B7BB:4811 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Just a note Rdfox 76, WP:TornadoCriteria is only the criteria an event has to pass to be mentioned on this article, rather than the criteria for a stand-alone article. That criteria is the notability for events criteria. The hardest part for an event to pass for a stand-alone article is the WP:LASTING criteria. Typically, larger-scale outbreaks can be presumed to pass it (once surveys come out and there are tons of significant tornadoes). But yeah, this event passes even the first point of WP:TornadoCriteria with a death and dozens of injuries reported + an EF4 which passes the 2nd point of TornadoCriteria. Because it passes a criteria point, there is a section for May 6-8 on the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. That was the criteria I was referring to (an entry here). You’re exactly right about the WP:LASTING criteria. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:B0CF:B19:B7BB:4811 (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

But Rdfox is right about retention here. It’ll almost certainly be retained here. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:B0CF:B19:B7BB:4811 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Also as a side note. Against my advice (see article’s talk page for more information), a standalone article was created about the outbreak. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:2CD6:A354:6174:5087 (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)