Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 5–7, 2022

Too soon to create this

I kind of think it was WP:TOOSOON to create this article, since the outbreak is still ongoing and it's unclear how notable it's going to be. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Long-track killer tornado (possibly EF4) hitting suburbs of a major city? It’s notable. United States Man (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, it is the deadliest tornadic event of the year so far. I think it is notable as well. Noting that I linked it to the Portal:Current events as well. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I was just coming back on and I was focused in Winterset, so I missed other bits. My bad on that one. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

As the artcile advances in progression, and further tornadoes are reported (probably this afternoon, as a 10% hatched risk has been positioned over northern AR and southern MO), please feel free to edit the article title. After tornadoes commence this afternoon, a further tornado table may be needed). Mjeims (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Sequence

The outbreak is not from the same system, which is part of the definition for a tornado outbreak. I attempted to change the article to say "Tornado outbreak sequence of March 5–6, 2022", but it was reverted, so we need a discussion here. As it stands right now, this article should not include any tornadoes from March 6, 2022, as it was not part of the same tornado outbreak. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Moved to section below. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Closed per WP:SNOW United States Man (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Tornado outbreak of March 5–6, 2022 → Tornado outbreak sequence of March 5–6, 2022 – The outbreak is not from the same system, which is part of the definition for a tornado outbreak. I attempted to change the article to say "Tornado outbreak sequence of March 5–6, 2022", but it was reverted, so we need a discussion here. As it stands right now, this article should not include any tornadoes from March 6, 2022, as it was not part of the same tornado outbreak. So there are two titles I am proposing, either adding sequence to the title, allowing March 6th tornadoes, or only keep March 5 in the title. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – A tornado outbreak sequence is defined as "a period of continuous or nearly continuous high tornado activity consisting of a series of tornado outbreaks over multiple days with no or very few days lacking tornado outbreaks." This isn't a sequence. United States Man (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

What about the other proposal of having it be just Tornado outbreak of March 5, 2022? Elijahandskip (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - The general definition of an outbreak sequence would mean that multiple tornadoes, more than 6, occur in a chain of 3+ days. Such examples can be the Tornado outbreak sequence of May 2019, in which tornadoes occurred for a period of weeks straight. However, multiple tornado outbreaks, such as the 1979 Red River Valley tornado outbreak retain the "tornado outbreak" connotation, even after lasting for two days. As such, unless more tornadoes occur tomorrow, the title should remain in the "tornado outbreak" connotation. Of course, I may be wrong, so please object if necessary. However, I do not have recollection of different tornado outbreak articles created for outbreaks that occurred on consecutive days. Mjeims (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I would not be questioning it except it was two different systems and not the same system. For example, Tornado outbreak sequence of March 24–28, 2021 was two different storm systems. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – See reasoning from United States Man. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose – Outbreak sequence is usually used to refer to an event lasting longer than a typical outbreak, as well as involving multiple systems. This has just been a two-day event. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose- Even if consisting of multiple systems, a two or 3 day event does not constitute a sequence. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Comment: Per WP:NCEVENTS it should be "when", "where" and "what" so "<date> tornado outbreak". Gonnym (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006 and Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 14–16, 2011. United States Man (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The naming format currently used for this article is also established at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Tornadoes and tornado outbreaks. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The tornado outbreak is too short to be considered a sequence. iBlazeCat (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Do we really need to include the 9th?

I think extending to the 9th was a rash decision based mostly on the severity of the tornado warning issued. First off, there were no tornadoes on the 7th, making today's Mobile tornado event separate, as all other outbreak articles do not have day long gaps in them. Also, if I compiled a list of every PDS tornado warning that only spawned a weak tornado, I'd have very long list. People put waaaay to much weight on PDS wording tornado warnings, sometime using as a poorly-informed basis to start or extend an article before we have any info regarding the significance of the event. The bottom line is that no significant tornado has been confirmed, reports of significant damage have not been received, and there was a full day-long gap between the last tornado on the 7th and today's event. I think I'm justified in reverting back to 5th to 7th. Thoughts? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

The question comes back to whether or not we want to make this an outbreak sequence article. This is now three separate tornadic systems in the span of 5 days. The requested move was shot down at 2 systems, but here we are at a third system. I would like to point out that the Tornado outbreak sequence of March 24–28, 2021 was two systems over the span of 5 days, so we are in the qualification range for an outbreak sequence article. Elijahandskip (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This article should stop at the 7th. These unnecessary page moves are getting disruptive. Editors that are not attuned to the process should not be moving pages. United States Man (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but I disagree with you on that it should stop at the seventh. I personally believe we have the criteria for a tornado outbreak sequence article, so in the future (probably tomorrow), I will start a new page renaming vote. Also, these “unnecessary page moves” are just WP:BOLD additions/moves, so they are not disruptive. Please don’t be a hypocrite, especially since you have also done a BOLD page move, after saying a tornado was confirmed in Arkansas on the 6th[1], but no confirmed tornado was added to the charts for hours[2]. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

First, we don’t vote. Second, your last page move request ended in an unanimous “oppose”. If you start another one, it will also be opposed. I knew what I was doing in moving the page. Not sure if that’s the case here. Pages moves are disruptive if they require others to constantly move the page back. Stop hiding behind BOLD. United States Man (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This is NOT a tornado outbreak sequence. Having a tornado or two every day for an extended period of time isn’t an outbreak sequence, it’s just called spring weather in the United States. If you want to see what actually qualifies as a sequence, take a look at the May 2019 and March 2021 events. True sequences produce massive amounts of tornadoes. This doesn’t even come close. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not a sequence. We're getting close to the regular tornado season and we can expect frequent days of tornado activity. We don't make a sequence article every time a couple outbreaks occur close to each other (e.g. 2012 Leap Day tornado outbreak, and Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2012). A "vote" is not necessary since a consensus already seems to be forming here. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

How to source no tornado warnings

United States Man, I am curious on how we should source the four tornadoes that did not have tornado warnings. If unsourced information like that should be removed, then the image for the page should be changed as well. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

If you can’t find a source, best not to include it. Simple. The image has nothing to do with it. United States Man (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge EF4 tornado section into the table for now

The Iowa NWS offices have TERRIBLE track records when it comes to issuing damage reports in a timely manner. Until we can get something concrete about it, the EF4 Winterset tornado should have its section merged with the table. The short little blurb we have for right now is taking up a ton of unnecessary space and looks ugly. Just a thought. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, especially since damage points will not be published in DAT. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. Only the Twitter image has the points. I thought about trying to make the section longer using that, but (a) I would only be making guesses and (b) that's A LOT of work that I don't feel like doing. LOL! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

at least it wasnt a ef5 Lolkikmoddi (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Pinging to so I can get some more opinions here: @TornadoLGS:, @TornadoInformation12:, @Severestorm28:. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree on merging it into the section. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should merge it until it can be expanded. We can use non-NWS sources too, though, like news reports. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Merge, per everyone. Severestorm28 12:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Give EF4 a section

The ef4 needs a section. There was 3kb of lost important information relating to the tornado, and the consensus was back when there was no info, we shouldn't be not making one now. See WP:CCC, it's time to make a section, now that we can there is no reason not to. We have concerted info on it now. Stop WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING. --69.116.96.17 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

General comment — I am also going to re-revert back to the old template, because creating the section is a WP:BOLD creation, which is being challenged, so creation should not occur until there is a consensus to do so. I support it, but I am going to make sure this is done the right way. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support Section — The tornado is notable enough for a section. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry I tagged you along in the stonewalling, I didn't know u were just doing that and I'll clarify now. --69.116.96.17 (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support – The agreement, back in March, was that we would have to wait for more detailed information to give this tornado a section, not that the tornado in and of itself did not warrant a section. The section that was removed could use some work, but it looks long enough. My only concern is that some of the "most X in [region] since [year]" type information might be trivia, but that's kind of just a quibble on my part. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

As it were, I don't think there was much stonewalling in this case. The initial addition of the section, before today, happened because information was moved from the table to a section without expanding on it. Later, it appears that ChessEric interpreted an edit summary as indicating that an IP editor had violated WP:NOR. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Support Thank you TornadoLGS. Mind you that it was ME that started the original discussion about merging the section and it should have been brought back here FIRST before any section was made. I have a SERIOUS problem with being blamed for stonewalling when all the members of this project know to go to the talk pages to discuss it rather than starting edit wars, which in my opinion, is childish. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the person who initially made the section that is under discussion (not the one who went to the ArbCom case page) is an IP editor with only 12 edits to their name and who may not be aware of a standing consensus or be familiar Wikipedia policy, so it is best to be patient with newcomers. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not my problem. If they were offended by it, then they should've been the ones to do something about it, not someone else. Also, that person's first edit was ON A TALK PAGE, so they had some knowledge of it. Also, the person who bought up this case needed to READ. The format of that section was not correct and the second paragraph had nothing to do with the tornado summary. Also, you might want to look into this IP who is making this case. They have done nothing, but put in controversial/unnecessary edits and reverts on MULTIPLE weather pages. Every single edit this person has made has been reverted for one reason or another. If anything, THEY need to be investigated, not me. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

(Reply to TornadoLGS): While I agree to be patient with newcomers, a newcomer knowing about the ArbCom case and trying to present evidence there, as their 11th edit on Wikipedia, was too odd. Also, mind that once talk page communication occurred, they saw their "evidence" was in fact just a misunderstanding and they recanted it. All that, in a way, let's me see ChessEric's POV from above. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I also found that a supposed newcomer having knowledge of the ArbCom case was odd. That indicates it’s either a registered user editing anonymously or possibly a sock. Or just someone who frequents reading talk pages and edit history. United States Man (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll say that the one who brought this to ArbCom (69.116.96.17) is not the one who initially created the new section (47.21.202.18). I agree that 69.116.96.17 probably isn't a newcomer, given the policies and guidelines they cited. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I’m gonna chime in here and say that 69.* is actually an ip-hopping user since they have even admitted in edit summaries to me on a different ip that it was them. Smells like WP:BADSOCK/WP:MEATPUPPET here.. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The thought did cross my mind, but I didn't want to say without more evidence. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I also want to note that the edit summary of the IP user who made the section said they were making a PROPER section. Despite how rapidly I became entrenched within the Wikipedia weather community after years of just watching on the sidelines, I didn't even know how to put a new tornado into a TABLE, let alone make a PROPER SECTION. It was thanks to other editors like you guys that I can now HELP make tornado section summaries, and even now, I don't claim to know everything about it. Thus my point is this: how would an IP user know how to make a PROPER SECTION, if they haven't made an edit bigger than 100 bytes yet and why would someone else then come in and revert an established editors edit with a baseless claim? This smells fishy to me. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone is going to have request an investigation because I don't know how to do it. LOL! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if there is socking involved, I'm not sure of which sockmaster to point to. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Its "funny" how that IP user abruptly came back and undid the removal edit of the section. I'm starting to think that IP addresses are the same person. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• I don’t care if it has a section if there is enough relevant information to fill one. I do however find it silly that an anon user is going to such extreme lengths as trying to report us to ArbCom over a non-issue. I removed the section once two weeks ago because the text was copied straight from the table and explained it in the edit summary. United States Man (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, I have looked at the section that was written and much of the non-relevant jargon needs to be cut out. If you want to have a section, I suggest asking TornadoInformation12 to work on it. United States Man (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. They are the best at it. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

So to bring this all to a conclusion, we all agree that (a) the Winterset tornado should now be given a section and (b) the IP user who came up with this bogus ArbCom claim needs to be investigated. Agreed? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Support - Tornado is certainly notable enough for a section in my opinion. Wikiwillz (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Yes, I support it as well. However, as we have had so many outbreaks since this one, I am unware of new information that has popped up since on the tornado. But I do believe the tornado does need a section, as it is the most notable tornado of the year thus far.

As for the ArbCom claim, we must proceed with caution. I agree with United States Man and Elijahandskip that a user with so little perceivable experience in Wikipedia having knowledge of how to make such a claim is very suspicious. Anywho, it is a situation I'm unfamiliar with, and do insist an investigation is carried out, if uncertainty remains. Mjeims (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I have some experience in filing SPI reports. While a new editor this familiar with policy is a might be suspicious, SPI reports are filed under a case page for the suspected sockmaster. If it is socking, we'd need to have an idea of who it is to compare behavior. At SPI, for instance, I'd usually provide diffs for the suspected sock and compare diffs from either the sockmaster or other known socks. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Pinging a sockmaster is not difficult, when we have the knowledge that it is a user with no known user page, and goes by the default user name given to each anonymous user. But we can see the apparent account on the article edit history. It might be a larger hassle to find the accounts that were invoked to avalanche the resolution on the outcome. Mjeims (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, now we’re back at the same stub of a section that we had before. United States Man (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

• I know this is long after the fact, but the IPs were socks of Andrew5.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)