Talk:List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2022

Page protected

@United States Man and TropicalAnalystwx13: I have fully protected this page due to the edit summary bickering and edit warring between the two of you. Please have a reasonable discussion on the content being added/removed and the referencing issues being brought up. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Funny. United States Man (talk) 20:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I would bring it up on his user page like I have done past issues, but sadly concerns are removed as "spam," even across different users. Of course, there's not much to discuss here. Wikipedia guidelines are very clear that information added should be appropriately sourced. The SPC Storm Reports page, featuring exactly 0 tornado reports, cannot be used to cite a tornado. 'Damage confirmed by TDS' appears nowhere on that page. Luckily, a replacement source was finally found. There's still the issue of path length being added to a tornado that has no confirmed path length in DAT, IEM, SPC, or Twitter. It's completely false information, and I will remove that every time. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't allow people to preach to me on "content disputes" when I tirelessly edit week in and week out and have never blatantly added false information. If that was incorrect, I would not add it. The only reason I do it is to make it easier on everyone else down the line by just filling in the table, but you, for no reason, had to make to process so much harder and now an administrator has nosed in.United States Man (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You are not some messiah of the project, my guy. @TornadoLGS: works as hard as you do. @TornadoInformation12: works as hard as you do. I started editing this project in 2011, same as you. You know how this works. "I don't blindly do things like you seem to" in your edit summary is admission of WP:OR. There is literally not a single tornado on that reports page. It will almost certainly end up being true, but it's not supported now, and that's the issue. So yes, I will continue to preach on content disputes when it involves adding unsupported information. This is not difficult. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If you think I don't know any better, I do, but I never see any harm in a temporary edit that will always be fully sourced later. You should know from my years of content editing that I don't add and leave things unsourced for long. United States Man (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The harm is that it's against Wikipedia guidelines. There is no reason we can't wait for the path length to be released rather than trying to guess based on a completely arbitrary number. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned that some of the information that has been added to this list, albeit largely fixed by now, has been pretty clear violation of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. We can't be taking sources and assuming information not explicitly stated by the sources, and such synthesis should be rightly removed. We can wait for sources to explicitly state such things and it's better than having SYNTH or OR on the page, even if it turns out to have been correct all along. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:34, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Since I was pinged here, I figure I'll comment. I would say it is better to wait and see until we have definitive and verifiable information. United States Man, nobody here thinks you would deliberately add false information or is questioning your experience. The point is that the policies here apply to everyone, regardless of experience. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: You can do whatever you want, but you are free to un-protect the page. I will not be adding anything that doesn't come from the NWS, so there will be no more arguing. I also may not be editing much anyway today. I hate to have the table look like that for three days. United States Man (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Really guys? Just wow. I have no words.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add that I mentioned this issue on the talk page of the main article. I wished you had looked at it before starting this silly charade.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Tornado Names discussion

I would like to discuss about adding tornado names to the charts. The National Weather Service does name some tornadoes. I recently went though on a WP:BOLD edit to add such tornado names, as stated by the NWS surveys. United States Man removed my bold edit, so I want to discuss here. The names are real NWS, provided names, (Example: Sandtown Tornado [1]). Note that "tornado" is capitalized by the National Weather Service, meaning that is the name. Not all tornadoes receive a name from NWS either (Example is the tornado on Dog Island on January 16). That tornado was just titled "Dog Island"[2]. We have a brief edit summary paraphrasing NWS, and this is a chart style article, so I believe we should add the NWS tornado names whenever they do name a tornado. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Pings to editors that work on tornado articles: @ChessEric:, @TornadoLGS:, @TropicalAnalystwx13:, @TornadoInformation12:, @Severestorm28:. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Those aren’t names. They just describe the location of a tornado. We already have the location in the table, so it is useless to have it again. United States Man (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with United States Man. They're just descriptions of locations, which are already a part of the table. It's redundant to add them. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with United States Man and TornadoLGS, it's just the description and the location/track of the tornado. Severestorm28 12:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I need to add anymore to this conversation.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Damage figures

NCDC adds damage figures, and tornadoes with breakout sections get damage mentions, so I think we should go ahead and add damage figures to the tornadoes once NCDC releases them. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@United States Man:, @TropicalAnalystwx13, ChessEric, TornadoLGS, TornadoInformation12, Supportstorm, CycloneFootball71, Mmapgamerboy, Colin777724, MEweathergeorge, and Severestorm28:. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – Damage figures released in these reports may not be accurate, and many CWAs don’t always list damage figures. I think it adds unnecessary clutter to the table and should be avoided. United States Man (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You do know you just said NOAA is releasing reports that may not be accurate, yet we do use preliminary reports for tornado ratings from NWS. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If it is inaccurate, then every single damage total in breakout section infoboxes needs to be removed for inaccuracy. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Damage figures may not be accurate, but majority of breakout sections for tornadoes do use these numbers, with a recent example being the Newnan EF4 in 2021 or the Sligo–Haughton–Sibley–Hurricane, Louisiana EF2 in 2020, which combined 3 NCDC damage totals for the infobox's damage total. No reason not to include the damage figures on 'average' tornadoes if NCDC lists it. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Support I use the damage figures from the NCDC for the older outbreaks and I was wondering about this too, especially since there used to be a section in the tornado table that we put damage figures in. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion of all figures, Support Cyclonebiskit's proposal. After reconsideration, I believe that my mindset more aligns with TropicalAnalystwx13 and Cyclonebiskit's idea as it seems more logical. It is true that I use NCDC damage estimates for articles of older outbreaks and years, but that's because information on these tornadoes can be sparse if not totally unavailable. With the detailed damage info provided these days, however, adding damage estimates for every tornado is unnecessary. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support Damage costs are a pretty common figure to include for disasters. I see no reason not to include it where it is available. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Somewhat oppose – The vast majority of damage figures are meaningless to readers, but I believe once the total exceeds $1 million it's worth mentioning in prose. Definitely do not integrate this into table columns though. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of all figures, Support Cyclonebiskit's proposal. These figures are only rough estimates, which is why I do not support adding them all. However, I do agree there is notability in especially destructive tornadoes. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 03:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

January 16th, Lely, FL Tornado

Damage Assessment Toolkit has 3 homes damaged, the tornado description says 2 homes Arkansasperson124 (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)