Talk:2021 South Moravia tornado

June 2021

Sorry @Martin2035:, I was writing this article at the same time as you and went and created a duplicate, 2021 South Moravian tornado. We should merge one into the other. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I have merged bits of my article into this one, as this one was here first. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Photographs

Hey, I made some photos of the disaster aftermath yesterday (commons:Category:2021 South Moravia tornado. I'd be glad if someone managed to add them to the article, I can't really find any more energy to do it myself. Thanks --T.Bednarz (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Tornado rating

I've got new informations that's why I upgraded the rating. WTINFO Tornado Research Project says on Facebook that they found definitely at least F4 damage on some places with also a few trees debarked for me it was also pretty sure as I saw the first pictures of damage that it had to be an F4 idk of its still officially rated as an F3 by the weather service there but we'll see Janis Schwemm (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Janis Schwemm: A Facebook page is not a reliable source, and in the event of a disagreement over a rating, we go with the official source. Assessing the damage yourself is original research, which is not allowed. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Well even if the officials source may still say F3 for many that I asked it was definitely an F4 as more pictures of damage came in maybe there are updates by officials I will search for that. But from what I've heard we should see an upgrade coming Janis Schwemm (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Janis Schwemm: I'm not sure who you're asking, but I wouldn't be surprised by an upgrade. But we still have to wait until the upgrade actually comes. If not, we stick with the official rating. We can always mention the possibility of F4 intensity so long as reliable sources state it. That's how we handle disputed ratings. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS yes I've send "chmi" a mail. I think it's the official weatherservice in the Czech Republic, maybe we'll become an update soon that would be helpful. have a nice day or night Greetings from Germany Janis Schwemm (talk) 01:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The source material calls this an EF4, not an F4 tornado. I will begin making edits. Dcs002 (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I only changed references to the EF4 rating of this tornado because that is all I found in the source. The other tornadoes probably need to be changed too, but again, they were not mentioned in the source (ref 1). Note that ref 1 cites an official from the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute as their source.Dcs002 (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dcs002: I would hold on any other tornadoes unless we find sources claiming otherwise. We're dealing with an outbreak that affected several countries, so use of the Fujita, Enhanced Fujita, and TORRO scales may vary. The ESWD source still lists an F4 rating. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't intend to make any further edits. I'm not a very active editor on WP these days, and this sort of thing is part of the reason. Lately I've only edited the blatant stuff I see. I only changed the rating based on what was made explicit in the source cited for that rating, which is how this is supposed to work, but I see it's all been reverted. The rating once again conflicts with the source cited for the rating. We can call it F4 or EF4, but the article MUST match the source. We need to call it an EF4 or stop citing ref 1 for its severity rating and find a better RS that clearly shows this was an F4 tornado. Whoever is concerned enough to revert edits like that should find a RS to support the F4 rating. (I found the editor in the history page and left a detailed message on their talk page because they have not been part of the discussion here.) F4 or EF4, whatever, but the information has to match the source. Dcs002 (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dcs002: I'll cite the ESWD source, then, since it's official. I'm wary of news media sources on whether a tornado was rated on the F or EF scale, since such sources tend to erroneously use the scales interchangeably. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for taking care of that. Dcs002 (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Unclear text

A fundraising campaign was launched by the delegation to aid those affected. For who was launched the campain and who got the aid? Were these, who got help Vietnamese families only or all, who were struck by tornado? Thanks, A09090091 (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Tornado chart

Is there a reason why we are using the old chart format rather than the new one?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@ChessEric: yes because Europe has higher building standards. F3 damage in Germany could be EF4 to even EF5 damage in the US Janis Schwemm (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Janis Schwemm: I think he's referring to the format of the table, where tornadoes are grouped by country, (as we used to group tornadoes by state for U.S. tornadoes) not the use of the old F-scale over the new EF-scale.

@ChessEric: I wondered that myself. Probably because we're dealing with separate nations instead of states or provinces within a country. Though this could also be this first time we've made a new table for a multi-national tornado outbreak since before we adopted the new format. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Janis Schwemm and TornadoLGS: That's what I meant. Thanks LGS.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

2022 Joint Damage Survey report

A few days ago, ESSL published a joint damage survey report (with CHMI and others) on the tornado. The rating was officially stated as IF4 (International Fujita) and the total path length changed. Since CHMI helped with the new report, should it be considered the new stats for the tornado over the original 2021 CHMI 80+ page report? Elijahandskip (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

236 mph vs 240 mph

Every online source for converting 380 kilometers per hour into miles per hour says it is 236.1 miles per hour.(KMH to MPH). For 11 months (June 2022 to May 2023), this went unchanged ([1]) up until May 2, 2023 when the new infobox was added. No problems since it was a simple change that occurred in the new infobox switch. This was fix back to indicate the 236.1 mph since that is what 380 km/h accurately converts to. However, this change was revert back to a false wind speed of 240 mph later in the day. Can we have a discussion as to what 380 km/h accurately converts to in mph? A Google search of "380 km/h to mph" shows dozens of websites that indicate 236.1 mph, not 240. In fact, converting 240 mph to km/h gives 386 km/h, not 380.[2] I personally believe the change back to 240 mph conversion introduces false information into the article, but I want to hear other's opinions on this issue before I consider a WikiProject talk page discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: See MOS:CONVERT which states “Converted quantity values should use a level of precision similar to that of the source quantity value”. Please read the articles on significant figures and false precision. An estimate based on damage alone, as is the case here, is unlikely to be precise to a part in a hundred or less.—Jasper Deng (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Well that's dumb. Cool to note another fun instance of errors on Wikipedia due to technicalities. That honestly feels like a conversion template error since the rounding of the mph actually increases the km/h by over 6, which seems to mean an endless "loop" of increasing (since converting back to mph would be higher than the original one). I personally feel the significant figure "rule" could be overlooked due to multiple sources saying the rounding is going to give incorrect values, but that's just my opinion. I might want to do an FAQ on this since someone converting themselves will see the 236 rather than 240, which would be that "endless loop" of increasing values when converting back. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: Significant figures aren’t perfect as a system, as you can see, but there is real reason to do this so it’s not just a technicality.—Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: Also, the “conversion cycle” you speak of is finite: 380 km/h, 240 mph, 390 km/h, 240 mph.—Jasper Deng (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)