Talk:Tornadoes of 2024/Archive 2

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

European Tornado Total Doesn’t Match Table

Can somebody please explain to me why the number of confirmed tornadoes listed at the top of the Europe section is 32, while only 13 are listed in the tables?? Something is very off. Guys, if we can’t keep an accurate table for Europe, then let’s not do it at all. I’m concerned about starting something we can’t maintain and keep accurate. We’ve already got a lot to deal with given the monthly US tables. Do it correctly and accurately, or don’t do it at all. That’s the bottom line. Unless someone can explain the massive discrepancies, I’m going to revert the European total to 13.

Also, we haven’t had a single significant tornado in Europe this year, and yet we have four sections. I’m strongly considering reverting each one besides the Cyprus IF1.5, because it was in a populated area and fairly damaging. I’ll let other people share their ideas before I make a final decision though.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I started the article but got really busy this past week. I’ll be less-busy this coming week and I plan to get it up to date then. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok but that illustrates my point perfectly. Can we accurately maintain monthly tornado tables for both the US and Europe simultaneously? We're already behind.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformatino12

If we can’t, and WP:TornadoCriteria passes the RfC successfully, then it will just have to be that non-US tornadoes aren’t documented on Wikipedia unless they are in a tornado outbreak or F2+/IF2+, since that is what would let them be here on this article. I’m ok with that if we want to get rid of it, just something to document down for future editors if and/or when questions would come about why there wouldn’t be yearly non-US tornado lists.
That said, maybe once it is up-to-date, others will help keep it updated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Made a new page pertaining to today's outlook and extreme storms

While this storm has not yet impacted the U.S., many weather agencies (including the NWS) have predicted an extremely large tornado outbreak for this evening (April 1) all the way to tomorrow (April 2) or April 3. I have made a new draft pertaining to this, and any help documenting it as it unfolds is appreciated. Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 1-2, 2024 ᵀʰᵃᵗ ᵒⁿᵉ ᵈᵘᵈᵉ ʷʰᵒ ᵐᵃᵈᵉ ᵃˡˡ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵖᵃᶜᵉ ᵃʳᵗᶦᶜˡᵉˢ (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Was about to say that it was way too premature, but the sudden change in tomorrow's models showing many discrete supercells across northeastern US and the according correction to a Moderate risk by the SPC for intense tornadoes, i'll let this slide. We might indeed see a large, significant tornado outbreak, specially tomorrow. Pretty unfortunate that it is over many of the affected areas in Ohio from a couple weeks ago. Mjeims (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Seeing as practically the entire Northeastern U.S. is under a hazardous weather outlook (including me, I'm near Columbus), this is either going to be extremely big and deadly, or big but not deadly. Something is going to happen, I sincerely hope this does not turn into what happened last year. April Fools Day.mp3 (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Given the general lack of information as of writing this, any information we do have is speculation, predictions, or reports which usually aren't accurate in situations like these. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm still working on the article, there have already been multiple confirmed and damaging tornades (specifically Iowa and Kentucky) MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
It's already started to unfold, severe thunderstorm warnings are being issued, Oklahoma is on a watch. MemeGod ._. (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
We didn’t get a significant outbreak today, and you broke the rules by steamrolling this pointless article into existence. You COMPLETELY jumped the gun and ignored the rules established by editors much more experienced than you. You CANNOT just start an article based on hype, well before we have confirmed EF3+ tornadoes, major damage, or deaths. We have NONE of those things, and you made one anyway, ignoring all the guidelines in the process. You also based it all on early, usually inaccurate information prior to the event even being over. Someone warned you and you ignored them. I am going to mark this for deletion.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
ok MemeGod ._. (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I have move the article into draft space due to notability concerns. The event is not even mentioned on the parent article, Tornadoes of 2024, due to a failure of passing WP:TornadoCriteria. Basically, the event has not qualified for a section on Wikipedia, let alone a stand-alone article. Please do not move this into mainspace until all tornadoes have been rated and notability can truly be assessed. If it does not pass WP:TornadoCriteria, there is no hope for an article as it would become an orphan article (aka not linked on Tornadoes of 2024). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed New Rule: No More Preliminary Article Drafts

I think it’s time to do away with creating tornado outbreak drafts that are put together before a significant outbreak has been confirmed. All it does is make completely unwarranted articles a click away from being published, and someone ALWAYS jumps the gun and hits publish with zero community support or consensus. All it takes is one person, and it always ends with us needing to delete articles and give the same lectures about not jumping the gun. It’s clear that Hat Collecting is at least a secondary motive for people doing this. It’s also become apparent that nobody is learning from this mistake that gets made over and over again, year after year, and I am completely 100% sick and tired of dealing with it. My proposal is ZERO DRAFTS, and that any discussion regarding article creation should not begin until the outbreak is COMPLETELY over, and NWS damage surveys are coming in. Nobody should draft or publish a single thing until we have consensus among users that it meets article criteria. Is consensus a rule for article creation? No, but we deal with this problem every year, and I can tell a more conservative, cautious, consensus-based approach is the most viable solution. I am beyond tired of the unregulated free-for-all of drafting and publishing any time a hyped-up weather system affects the US. April 2 is a perfect example, and it’s time to end this foolishness for good. Enough beating around the bush. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I did get a community consensus (although not big). And I don't know why you keep rambling on and on about the article which multiple people have supported. And sorry if the weather event didn't turn out EXACTLY as predicted. You don't have to make 2-3 new topics on an article talk page just because you have a grudge against 1 article. And I get your points, mind that. Maybe we can just move it to the DRAFTSPACE? It's not a big deal, and as you said, it takes a button to publish, but it also takes one button to move to draftspace. As quoted by you "All it takes is one person." MemeGod ._. (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
And also, HOW MANY talk pages did you go to asking for "desperate backup"? I'm usually one to accept criticisms, even if it is borderline targeted harassment. But you (in my opinion) completely over-exaggerated the ENTIRE thing. And it's not "hype". Again, because I know you'll yell some more, I understand your points completely. I get that at this time, it probably doesn't deserve an article. If you just told me, I would have moved it to draftspace and worked on it there. No need for the attention. MemeGod ._. (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
You just don’t understand. I’ve been doing this for over a decade, and you are clearly a young person who’s new to this, and who’s passion for weather currently exceeds your ability to make meaningful contributions to this site (no offense, that was me 12 years ago and I used to get yelled at for the same thing, so I get it). While I’m not targeting you specifically, you are a perfect example of the type of wiki user I am constantly having to clean up after. You don’t know how much of a headache this creates for experienced editors who strive for well-put-together, accurate, sourced, and encyclopedic weather articles. No offense, but since a lot of these young and overzealous users aren’t able to do that, I have to clean up mess after mess after mess. It gets exhausting, and when you see the quality of articles plunging from how they used to be, it’s both alarming and depressing. It’s clear things are being written by well, kids essentially. You haven’t been around here long enough to see the decline in quality, and if you were, you would understand my deep frustration.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
Thanks for the insults, but maybe you could sincerely inform me on what i did wrong? I'm not mad, but since you now seem to be basing an entire argument off of my personal account age, I'm going to take this as a violation of WP:NPA. I get things like this all the time, and this is the exact reason why people are reluctant to edit on Wikipedia. Constructive criticism is usually preferrable to blatant harrasment. Thanks :D MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I AM telling you what you did wrong. You made an article way way way to early before we had any info to suggest an article-worthy event had occurred. I’m not trying to insult you. I’m trying to make you understand what the problem is so you don’t do it again. It IS constructive criticism, even if I’m not the most tactful about it. I’m doing this to keep the quality of tornado articles of what they’ve always been, and because I’m frustrated with new users not following the guidelines. It’s not because I just want to insult you.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
Also yes it is “hype” because you made an article based on predictions, not results. It was established LONG ago that you can’t make an article just because of an SPC outbreak prediction. I’ve seen High Risk days produce nothing significant, and I’ve seen wiki editors get burned because they assumed a big outbreak was a sure thing, even though the event hadn’t happened yet. Like I said, It’s a lesson we learned long ago and I shouldn’t have to explain it.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
One talk page, that’s it, so I’m not sure what you mean by that. Also I looked at the draft discussion, and what you are calling consensus is NOT consensus. You ignored users who tried to make the exact points I am making now.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
🤓☝️ PeaceLover23 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I didn't ignore them. Also, I get your points (as I said 3 times, since I knew you'd try to get on me about it.) MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I took into consideration what they said, and decided that it would be better to make an article (I will admit it may have not been the best of decisions) but I did get a consensus, whether it was on this page or the KiwiIRC #wiki-en-help channel. MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah that wasn’t enough consensus. Somebody pointed out that it was early and we didn’t have any reliable, accurate info yet. Then you made the article anyway. How is that not ignoring other users? You can’t just publish because a few random, inexperienced editors say “yeah seems fine to me”. Wait for input from people who have been doing this for years and have the context and understanding of when it’s time to publish an article.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
I’m looking closer at the discussion, and the “consensus” you got was from users encouraging you to make an article based on predictions and an ominous setup/forecast. The outbreak hadn’t even happened yet. Even if there was more consensus, you can’t make an outbreak article before the outbreak has even happened. It’s a basic guideline that was established long ago (2011 if I remember correctly).

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Okay. I haven't been around since 2011 (as you clearly seem to emphasize, which again you completely ignored the personal attack I brought up). Maybe educate me (as I've said multiple times). You've been on top of me the entire conversation for not listening and ignoring, but the second I bring up WP:NPA, you completely ignore it. Come on. MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I’ve said my piece and I do apologize if I took it too far. My exasperation from having to repeatedly educate people year after year about not making tornado articles until after a major event has been confirmed reached an absolute peak last night. It’s about four years of accumulated frustration from dealing with the same issues each year, and unfortunately the April 2 article was the straw that broke the camels back. That frustration is directed at anyone who makes unwarranted articles way too early, not just you. Sorry if you got the brunt of it.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
Thanks for that. I'm glad we could close this argument on a somewhat civilized note. I just want you to know that I do get your points, and next time I create a draft, I will take what you say into consideration. Thanks :P MemeGod ._. (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I overall do support the idea of not creating draft articles for every event. Now that WP:TornadoCriteria is out there, we have at least the base for inclusion on this article. Here is how Wikipedia is suppose to work per the rules and guidelines. We have inclusion criteria for this article. Once the event is fully assessed, notability can actually be determined. If and only if notability (specifically WP:LASTING) is satisfied, should an article be created. At the very minimum, a draft article should not be created until the event is fully assessed or unless we have the rare exception of like December 10-11, 2021 that occurred and notability is pretty much already clear for the start. That is how Wikipedia is suppose to work. The page for base inclusion has criteria now. Anything can be mentioned here (if it passes the criteria) before an article even needs to be thought about. Once everything is assessed (via the National Weather Service) and over, then the LASTING impacts needs to be assessed. If it passes LASTING after the event is over and everything is assessed, then chances are high that it needs an article. If it doesn’t pass LASTING at that stage, then it is clear the event was a basic news-cycle event and no article is warranted. That is the process based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    Honestly, everything you just said is totally reasonable and I agree with it 100%. The issue of unnecessary articles being made leads to bickering and stress every single year, and a system and set of official, objective guidelines to solve this problem has been overdue for years. Drafts or no drafts, the only thing I really care about is implementing a more conservative, cautious approach to article creation some way or another.
    TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
    @TornadoInformation12: Just a weird suggestion/thing I noticed while creating stuff for the Outbreak Intensity Score. We as Wikipedians in the past have actually a weird non-guidelines process to only create articles for “Major Outbreaks”. Just about every outbreak article created at least was a “Major Outbreak” on the Outbreak Intensity Score. Honestly, that may be a decent criteria for what constitutes an article: at least classification of “Major Outbreak” on the Outbreak Intensity Score. Grazulis went through in his new book and listed every “Major” outbreak (or stronger) from 1974 to 2022. We have actually unintentionally been following that “guidelines” through outbreak article creation without actually realizing it. Not sure, but that might be a good “bottom line” for outbreak articles, since that requires 30 points of significant tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I also agree with the fact that every weather event does not need an article. We don't need an article for a tornado in Fort Lauderdale or a long-lived supercell. The weather events would need to satisfy notability guidelines for events to be notable, like WeatherWriter stated above. This includes:
WP:LASTING – weather events can be notable if they have a lasting effect; for example, August 2020 Midwest derecho.
WP:GEOSCOPE – we can't have events that are only notable in a local area. A big hailstorm producing baseball sized hail over a city most likely won't receive national coverage.
WP:SUSTAINED – a weather event should attract attention for a sufficient period of time after the event; a burst of coverage during the event isn't notable if there is no coverage of it afterward.
WP:INDEPTH – a weather event should receive in-depth coverage of the event, during and after it.
WP:DELAY – don't rush to create an article for a weather event. As WeatherWriter states above, the event can be fully assessed and then, an article can be created.
While an event can satisfy the general notability guideline, I think the event should satisfy above guidelines as well, and a draft can be created if it satisfies above guidelines (specifically GEOSCOPE, GNG, INDEPTH, and LASTING). Also worth mentioning here that breaking news reports about confirmed tornadoes or tornado damage and casualties are not always reliable – an assessment days after the event and sustained, lasting coverage are much more reliable. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 15:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Over 3 million people were affected across the Central and NE United States(satisfying WP:GEOSCOPE), and there is still major flooding in my hometown, and across the entire Central U.S. at that. Someone also has been confirmed dead, making this even more important. While I will admit I was expecting something much bigger when I made the article, there seems to be enough to warrant an article (but it is open for discussion) MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@MemeGod27: Well you and others are still free to create the article. Since there are currently other users who disagree with you that the topic is not notable, the article should be improved fully in draftspace and only moved into mainspace once all aspects of WP:NEVENT as satisfied. In this circumstance, following WP:BRD, the original creation of the draft and subsequent move into mainspace was the “Bold” edits. These were challenged/reverted (moved back into draftspace after speedy deletion attempt), and this is the discussion part. Editors do not have to agree. But, now per Wikipedia’s WP:ONUS guidelines, the responsibility of proving the notability (through article creating and improvement) is on those who wish it to be an article. Proving the WP:LASTING impacts are the hardest thing to prove. While the next thing I mention falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it helps prove the point about LASTING. The 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado did not have a stand-alone article for over 3 months after the tornado. Just note, I am not upset or anything (I cannot speak for others here obviously), but following Wikipedia guidelines, the article should not be moved into mainspace until those who are improve it feel it fully satisfies all notability guidelines. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Yea, you're right. Sorry if I've been annoying or fighting for a pointless cause today, it's been a really stressful few days. Thanks :) (I'll still work on the page, but I 100% agree with your points, and I do understand that I have others that oppose the creation of the article, hence why I am gonna work on it in the shadows... ...and then I'll bring it back up once I and others feel it is fit to be brought back up) MemeGod ._. (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Feb 27-28 repeated, March-Apr 1 deleted

Someone really needs to fix this. TidalTreka (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Jesus christ, what is this ToT MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
As of this message, all the vandalism has been corrected. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much lmfao MemeGod ._. (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Please be respectful. Thank you. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
What? How am I not being respectful this time? MemeGod ._. (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

European Tornado Notability Criteria

Ok guys this is the third time I’ve brought this up, and I need us to actually talk about it so we can resolve this issue. Why are we including sections for European tornado events that only produced IF1.5 or weaker tornadoes? Shouldn’t we only be listing significant tornadoes (IF2 or stronger)? The exceptions would be if they’re highly anomalous like a weak tornado in Iceland, notable due to location such as if an IF1 went through downtown London, Berlin, or Paris, or if they’re weak but still cause a fatality. I need to know what you guys think, and if you all are ok with that system, should I go ahead and pull all the events from the Europe section besides that recent one that produced an IF2 in France? One could argue that the IF1.5 in Cyprus could stay as well due to the densely populated area it impacted. PLEASE let me know what you guys think so we can make a decision. Also I still need to know if we’re going to maintain European tornado tables or not. We’re pretty behind already. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

In theory, Europe and all countries will follow WP:TornadoCriteria for inclusion. That criteria isn’t “formal” guidelines yet. The the RfC to “ratify” the guidelines is still ongoing and ends April 13. Just wanting to ask, should we go ahead and remove the non-inclusion entries before the ratification ends, or should we wait until it ends in 10 days? Either way, in 10-ish days, there will be formal criteria for the article, which would automatically mean removal of events that don’t pass the criteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I seriously think we should revert to the original pre-2022 page format. While I appreciate the efforts of @ChessEric and @WeatherWriter to integrate this new page model centered more on global events, I don't think it is practical in the long run due to the lack of information on European events and editors willing to update European and Asian tornado charts. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I’d say let’s wait 10 days and go from there.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I think so too and I've been meaning to bring it up for a while now. The date organization is what is bothering me since I like putting things in chronological order. Splitting it by continent is too much and hard to follow at this point. ChessEric 03:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete April 2 Article

This needs to be deleted asap. Someone has once again completely jumped the gun and broke the rules we established years ago by making an article before we even had a significant event underway. And guess what?? Today underperformed. No devastating damage, no long trackers, no deaths, no tornado emergencies, but someone had to “let it slide” because you all got excited over a moderate risk and strong wording, again. We have been over this SO MANY TIMES and I am beyond exasperated. How many times have we said to not make an article until it is abundantly clear we’ve had a major event??? We jump the gun with articles year after year and it’s like you guys never learn. You CANNOT publish article unless numerous strong tornadoes or multiple deaths have been confirmed. We have neither here, and it’s not up for debate. Mark this for deletion immediately. Btw, the reason nobody was helping you with this article is because one wasn’t needed at all. You pushed it into existence with zero consensus or collaboration with other users.

Decided to go ahead and mark for speedy deletion myself. I’m beyond tired of dealing with this.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The speedy deletion was removed by another user (I endorsed your speedy deletion though), so I immediately moved the article into draft space due to notability concerns. It will most likely be stale-deleted in draft space. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It's in draftspace, information is still coming in MemeGod ._. (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I am under the impression that it should be put back up! It had a similar number of tornadoes, if not more, to the March 13 to 14 outbreak and happened over a similar area. Also the fact that strong tornadoes happened outside the moderate risk area Jhardaway1115 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jhardaway1115: — The event has not actually passed WP:TornadoCriteria, which is what is required for a section on this article even, let alone a stand-alone tornado outbreak article. Until WP:TornadoCriteria is passed, there is no use in trying to even think about an outbreak article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It’s been a week since April 2nd. I think the article should be recreated (there is definitely enough verifiable information about it now compared to a week ago). 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:4DAE:1717:3C0D:C2B9 (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I will also add that it does meet the WP:TornadoCriteria because (at least) three people were injured in Kentucky and West Virginia. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:4DAE:1717:3C0D:C2B9 (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
The criteria specifically says that if a tornado in the outbreak caused at least one death or INJURY that it meets the criteria. This outbreak caused multiple injuries directly. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:4DAE:1717:3C0D:C2B9 (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Just to note, WP:TornadoCriteria is for this specific article, not if the outbreak gets an article. For a separate outbreak article, it needs to pass the WP:NEVENT criteria. For a section in this article, it has to pass WP:TornadoCriteria. Two different criteria’s. It does pass TornadoCriteria, which is why Tornadoes of 2024#April 1–3 (United States) exists. Hope that helps! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

April 1-3

It was a very notable event. 8 significant tornadoes, although no tornadic fatalities. It had 50 tornaoes in total, making it the largest outbreak so far this year. Also, it had more tornadoes in 3 days than any other month this year in total. This should have an article or should be published if one already exsits. Catsarecool558 (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It has not met WP:TornadoCriteria as of the latest report. There is a draft by user:MemeGod27 for the April 1-3 outbreak that you could work on and expand, if you are passionate about putting this event on the wikipage. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
It almost passes Catsarecool558 (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Just checked your account and found it to be a sockpuppet for a blocked vandal. Such a shame. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Uhh yes it has met the criteria. It specifically states that if people were injured that it met the criteria. Multiple people were injured and even hospitalized. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:4DAE:1717:3C0D:C2B9 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
That does not constitute the criteria for article creation at all. If you are talking about a section dedicated to this event on the Tornadoes of 2024 page, it has passed WP:TornadoCriteria as of April 10th and is published on the page. However, I was talking about the eligibility for the April 2nd outbreak to have its own article, which fails to meet WPN:LASTING and WP:NEVENT due to the minimal damage caused and only injuries reported. Guarenteed no long lasting impacts from that event.
While I am aware several Wikipedians have been cooking up an article for the April 2nd outbreak, it is very certain that it will never be published outright for the reasons above. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
It was a very notable event in that more tornadoes were confirmed by the Charleston weather service office in this single event than in any whole year before then (15 tornadoes were confirmed so far; and the previous record for an entire year was 11). 108.147.10.55 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • It technically passes WP:TornadoCriteria as two people were injured by the Conyers EF2. However, TornadoCriteria only applies to Tornadoes of XXXX articles, i.e. this article. Since it passes TornadoCriteria, it has a section (Tornadoes of 2024#April 1–3 (United States)). For it to have an article, it must pass WP:NEVENT, which requires passing WP:LASTING. The event has yet to prove it will have a lasting impact (like the 1 year or 10 year rule). Will this event or a tornado/tornadoes from this event have news articles in a month? 6 months? A year? 10 years? Will there be academic articles? If the answer is most likely no (which I think it may be in this case), then it doesn’t pass Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    I think it was notable enough. There was a Facebook post from the National Weather Service office in Charleston, WV that said that this was the most tornadoes that the office had confirmed from a single event on record (it even beat the record set during the 1974 super outbreak; at least in West Virginia and surrounding areas). 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:4DAE:1717:3C0D:C2B9 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
    How does a social media post confirming an obscure record for one location in West Virginia constitute the eligibility for article creation? Very absurd. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    Not only that. But all of the news outlets (at least in the Huntington-Charleston area) as well as the National Weather Service are calling this thing historic. It wouldn’t surprise me to see it mentioned a year later or two years later on account of that. 108.147.10.55 (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    Can you link the source where the National Weather Service stated this was “historic”? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    https://www.weather.gov/rlx/2024-April-2-Severe 108.147.10.55 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    The Charleston weather service office has also confirmed nearly 100 reports of straight line wind damage (and that doesn’t include reports from outside of their coverage area!). 108.147.10.55 (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
As a P.S. note, the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado did not have a stand-alone article for over 3 months after the tornado as WP:LASTING impacts had to be shown. Wikipedia has no deadlines, so since there is a question from editors (myself along with others) about the outbreak’s notability, for once, we need to wait before making an article. I would honestly probably nominate any article for this outbreak for deletion if it is put into mainspace within a week of the outbreak. If by say Tuesday next week (which is 1 week after the outbreak), there is more than say 2 news articles about any tornadoes from this outbreak, then it might pass LASTING. If not, then I would say there is no hope for the outbreak to receive an article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
There are still news articles on this outbreak and it’s been over a week. See WSAZ and WOWK. 108.147.10.55 (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
There were also several news articles early on that were from national sources such as the Associated Press and FOX Weather. 108.147.10.55 (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
WSAZ said that the damage to the billboards (both in Cabell and in Putnam Counties in WV) was the worst damage they had seen in the area since the 2012 derecho. Even if the tornado part of the article doesn’t pass LASTING (which I think it probably does because West Virginia doesn’t see tornado outbreaks like this); the derecho part probably does. This thing traveled for over 500 miles. Had Tornado Warnings and Severe Thunderstorm Warnings from West Virginia (and Severe Thunderstorm Warnings into Virginia) all the way back into Missouri and if it wasn’t continuous on the Severe Thunderstorm Warnings; it was at least very close to it. So even if the tornadoes don’t meet WP:LASTING; I would think a derecho traveling over 500 miles would. 108.147.10.55 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
See Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 2, 2024. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I could live with the general headline; it was just as much a derecho as it was a tornado outbreak. But it needs to be updated substantially before anyone even attempts to publish that. It’s still saying things in present tense that should be in past tense. 108.147.10.55 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
There are a lot of changes that should be made before ANYONE clicks “publish”; but I do think there should be an article on at least the derecho part of the storm with the tornadoes mentioned. I think both sides together do meet notably criteria. 108.147.10.55 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Derecho article now in mainspace

Since there has been so many comments regarding the April 1–3 event, I went ahead and did the very simplistic copy/paste of tornado charts, article renaming, and very slight lead-rewriting and got the April 2024 Pre-Dawn derecho into mainspace. I do not have any time to care about its format right now, but it is over 100,000 bytes currently. I shall let others fix it up. Enjoy y’all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Addition For U.S. Includsion Criteria: Multiple or damaging EF2 tornadoes

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

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)
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
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)
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)
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)

WP:TornadoCriteria is formally the criteria now

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)

April 9-11 Shouldn't Have Been Removed

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

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

March 31

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

April 15-16

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)

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. ChessEric 04:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)

Updates to article

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)

Breaking news

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornadoes_of_2024/Archive_2&oldid=1222988178"