Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of April 4–7, 2022

Johnson County tornado

The one source I could find for the Johnson County tornado gives the location relative to Egan, rather than Midlothian. What is the source for it being west of Midlothian? TornadoLGS (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

It is the same location. United States Man (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Premature?

Hey guys just wondering if we have enough this early on to justify an article? Clearly a tornado outbreak did occur today, but I am pouring through aftermath photos and am not finding much significant damage besides in Pembroke, GA. I'm under the impression that a lot of the cells had a bit more bark than bite, but its still pretty early. If the Pembroke tornado ends up being the only EF3+ of this outbreak, should we still have an article? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Certainly won't be the case. After witnessing multiple livestreams covering the event live, and hearing some of the recurring reports coming from them, more than likely 4 or more EF3 tornadoes have occurred. The number could go even further. Even if that wasn't the case, a tornado outbreak article does not need to have intense tornadoes as a pre-requirement for existing. See, for example, the January 2020 outbreak, or the recent December 2021 derecho and tornado outbreak articles. None feature intense tornadoes. Mjeims (talk 03:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd say there were more than enough tornadoes to justify an article. I originally wasn't going to create one, but someone else did anyway. However, I'd say by the time all the surveys are done it will be article-worthy. United States Man (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

In the end, this probably will be article worthy, but I'm stating this more based on principal. I've been doing this a while, and I have seen waaaay too many articles started by over-zealous editors based on early information that hasn't been verified. Too many people presumptively start articles based on PDS tornado warnings, dramatic radar signatures, and early unverified reports, only for it later to become apparent that the impact of the event was not as severe as initially reported. I just want to make sure you are basing the significance on reliable sources like SPC reports, damage photos, and fatality reports, and I hope you aren't just watching chaser streams or Ryan Hall and basing it off of that, as your statement that "likely 4 or more EF3 tornadoes have occurred" is highly presumptive, and reeks of group hype from tracking this event while immersed in the online severe weather community, and getting too exited over radar signatures and PDS warnings. You don't have enough info to make that call yet. Even if a bunch of debris balls pop up on radar like today, that isn't enough. Remember the violent-looking Perry County, AL supercell and tornado with the huge debris ball from the last outbreak? Only EF2 tree damage occurred. Perfect example.

Also, while some outbreak articles feature tornadoes no stronger than EF2, those are exceptions as there were other factors that made those events more notable than other low to moderate intensity outbreaks (January 2020 outbreak killed 7, and the December 15, 2022 outbreak was the largest ever to occur in the month of December, was highly anomalous, and accompanied by a major derecho). Bottom line, you need to make sure you are separating facts from assumptions and hype, and wait for verified info to come in.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I agree. I am usually pretty hesitant on creating articles myself, as I'm sure you know. Everyone wants to be the "one" who originally created the page, and I think that (and the hype) fuel these premature creations we often get. United States Man (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Believe me, I may appear as that over-zealous editor who has created articles way to early, as it happened with my first two articles that I created, both coming with the first two tornado outbreaks that occurred this last March. And in a way, you are right. I was way too eager and excited to create them, even with the lack of sufficient evidence at the time. And I was indeed watching Ryan Hall at the time of this outbreak, hence my belief that multiple intense tornadoes have occurred (for what I saw on his stream, and in my own paid radar subscription program). But Wikipedia isn't exactly a competition. I did not create those articles to be the first one to do it. I did so because I felt it was important to start compiling information for an article that I knew may interest people, as it was based on a weather event that affected many.

On the other hand, on today's stream, I turned off the comment section, precisely to avoid getting caught in the hype of pre-rating tornadoes before official NWS statements. I try to be as realistic as possible, as the point you make of being presumptuous is pretty reasonable. But the different geographic locations, the more substancial proximity to larger populations, and the different reports that have started to flood in from this supercell-swept areas, are the reason that one can clearly see that this was no ordinary or weak outbreak by any means. That is why I said what I said before. I of course hope that I am mistaken, as devastation and fatalities are things that one does not want to see. But the hints are there. I have similarly followed weather for long enough. I try my best to not be a 100% radar-based grader, that inmediately assumes a tornado was strong for the radar signature or CC drop present in it. I apologize if I tried to state as facts something that is not certain yet. We'll see how the article develops. Mjeims (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it's definitely some weird type of "I did it first!" phenomenon, along with people seeing whatever they want to see. I wish people would just objectively look at these events, rather than trying to justify an article every time a busy severe weather day occurs. This is a La Niña year, and it's likely going to get much worse than this as we continue deeper into tornado season. If we make an article for every rash of EF2+ tornadoes that occur this year, we'll end up making a new outbreak article every week until the end of June (obviously hyperbolizing, but you get my point).

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I agree. People like seeing their name first. But I created my first two articles with that ideal you name of being objective and just getting things going. In the initial edit of both articles, I tried to not say things that were not proven yet. I just felt that something was going on in Iowa and the Southern States right away, and knew it was important to get going with an article that may be of help to many people in the future. If I seemed like steaming off in my last reply, I apologize once again. For now, let's concentrate on making this article relevant and complete. Mjeims (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Well I'm eating crow now, because now we've got 4 EF3s lol.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I was still in the wrong for assuming something that we know now is true before getting the needed proof. Editing this article and getting to hear you guys has been important. Mjeims (talk) 03:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing as United States Man. I was even hesitant to even create a section for the outbreak yesterday morning and when I did add one, I hid at first. The article was created only shortly after United States Man unhid it. I made the mistake of prematurely creating an article last May and it barely made the cut as notable enough to stay. In the end, an article is needed, but we should have waited until yesterday evening to start it in my opinion. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else about not making hasty decisions, but I also don't think this outbreak will turn out unworthy of an article judging from the damage information already coming in. Wikiwillz (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Pebroke Radar Image

On topic of the Pembroke tornado, I was wondering if you would like a picture of how clear the tornado signature is on the radar right before it hits Pembroke. 2601:800:4000:A730:C493:31F9:9808:7BDA (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Usually when we create sections for individual tornadoes, the images that are placed in said sections are damage pictures, and in rare cases, pictures of the tornado itself. Of course, there are exceptions, like the radar image of the supercell during the 2011 Tuscaloosa tornado, which does show the intense radar signature caused by the tornado. For now, lets finish completing the table with the information available, and we can then see if an image like the one you are offering may add value later on.

Mjeims (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

ok, sounds good. Jalen bell (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

First April 6th tornado / Cordele

@United States Man: I saw you corrected the recent tornado because there's no evidence that it reached Cordele. I found this storm chaser video saying otherwise: here Wikiwillz (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

We generally don't go by personal Twitter accounts as they do not meet WP:RS. I take it the source you used was this warning, USM? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I was assuming it would possibly imply some evidence solely because its clearly visible that there is a tornado in a easily verifiable area, and its a unique video from today. My bad ;P Wikiwillz (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I somehow missed the roadsign, actually. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

April 6

I do not understand why April 6 is listed as part of this outbreak when it is clearly not. Those tornadoes came from an unrelated system and thus should be removed. I did so but @ChessEric: reverted without explanation despite me clearing stating the terms for removal in the edit summary. “They were closely related” doesn’t work here and is purely WP:SYNTH which is grounds for removal. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

My explanation came in the next edit. I hit enter before I could clarify why I did it. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:28, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

(ec)While maybe not the result of the exact same low pressure system, the outbreaks still occurred on back-to-back days, so they are perceived as one outbreak. It can be clearly noted in the synopsis section that two different weather systems caused the collective event. There are many other instances of this within these outbreak pages, so I don't know why you are choosing this one to be an issue. I would support it remaining as April 4–6. United States Man (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

It seems this is fairly common for outbreak articles. If we had to choose on the matter. It would be better to have an outbreak sequence article rather than exclude April 6. I'm not suggesting that we do, I'm just saying the continuity of activity supports retaining April 6. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I would say culturally, these systems should be in the same article, and it should be characterized with April 6th included. I think Meteorological synopsis should definitely be expanded to account for the separate systems clearer though. Wikiwillz (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Article Summary and event dates

I've noticed many people, including some ip addresses have been confused by the wording in the article summary because the event and name of the article don't match the opening line. Maybe this should be restructured to be clearer that April 4-5th was one storm of 2 from April 4-6th? --Wikiwillz (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It should. I had the same thought earlier. United States Man (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@United States Man: I really hate to ask you this question (I already annoy you enough as it is), but I really think we should include April 7 because it was still a part of the same system that produced the tornadoes on April 6. However, I want a second opinion on it. Thoughts? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably so. If we included the 6th it would also need the 7th. United States Man (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ulmer tornado section

What is the significance of the Ulmer tornado to have its own section especially after we've removed the Allendale tornado. There were no injuries or fatalities, and it only fully destroyed a single manufactured home. --Wikiwillz (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. The only thing is that it was rated at high-end EF3 (Allendale was low-end) and the path length was 35 miles (vs. 11 miles for Allendale). United States Man (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah for sure, though on the contrary Allendale had much more media attention because it was the first one and had a tornado emergency, which I think would make it more significant for a section than the length and speed. I personally don't like Ulmer as a section. Wikiwillz (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I honestly was surprised that this tornado got a section. The EF3 damage was only inflicted to trees and no causalities occurred. It wasn't even the strongest or biggest tornado of the outbreak. If the Allendale section got merge despite the tornado prompting a tornado emergency and doing the damage it did, then the Ulmer section one can be merged too. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Allendale

Why can’t we give Allendale it’s own section? @United States Man: claims that “everyone agreed” to remove it but all I’ve found is one user (Cyclonebiskit) removing it and no one else mentioning it. I tried to explain this but was reverted and accused of edit-warring whereas I was only saying what I’ve seen here on the talk page. The tornado itself was notable enough in all honesty, given its strength, the fact it prompted a tornado emergency and had notable media attention to it as well. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – This was a minimal EF3 in a rural area, with the only major damage occurring to 2 mobile homes. Can easily be summarized in the table. We shouldn’t just be “giving” out sections like candy. They should be reserved for when the damage can’t be adequately summarized in the table. United States Man (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

  why cant we have the allendale on here? like? the second tornado that hit bowling green on dec 10 was a ef2 but a ef3 cant be on here? explain that. Lolkikmoddi (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Rating holds no wait. It is the amount of damage caused and the amount of words required to accurately summarize the damage. You sound like you're begging for it to have a section without any reasoning behind it. United States Man (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Im not saying that we should add the section, but on the March 25, 2021 event, the West Blocton-Vandiver tornado got itself a section, and was a low-end EF3. Now maybe it's because it was a long tracked EF3, but if we're only including the most violent tornadoes or severe tornadoes that cause fatalities, then i dont see why we should have that section on that event either. Just keep it to Ohatchee, Brent/Centerville and Newnan, as those were the most memorable, maybe even get rid of the Brent/Centerville event. I do oppose the Allendale tornado being added as it's own section. TheVulkyrianEmpire (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The damage caused by those tornadoes cannot be accurately summarized in the table. Allendale can. United States Man (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support section - As mentioned by MarioProtIV, the Allendale tornado gained significant media attention due to the TOR-E. Searching "Allendale tornado" on Google shows news articles from dozens of RS. It is equal to the amount of coverage the Pembroke tornado received. No reason not to have a section for it. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  Plenty of reason to not have a section. As I stated above. United States Man (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose – Tornado emergencies do not make tornadoes inherently notable. The information can be easily contained within the table and major damage was very limited, with only two mobile homes destroyed. The remainder of damage was just trees and power lines. The number of sources available does not necessarily mean it has enough information to warrant a section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - if we're giving sections to tornadoes that only heavily damaged/destroyed three structures, we've got a whoooooooole lot of sections to make. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I know this discussion is long over, but I just wanted to point out that I was the one that made the original Allendale section and had no problems with it being merged. I oppose making it again. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Pembroke Phrase - Context needed for EF5

Which source confirms this?

"These homes were anchor-bolted to their foundations, though there was no contextual damage evidence to support a rating above EF4."

If this is unsourced, then it should be removed, but if it is sourced, then it should be added to the possible EF5s on List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Noting that I have removed the sentence until a source is located for that information. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I found the edit that added the statement, which indicated DAT as the source. Nothing there is mentioned about it being potentially higher than EF4. Regardless, any instance of slabbed homes raises the question of a possible EF5 rating until the survey is completed, and the statement we had said that evidence did not support an EF5 rating. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS and Elijahandskip: TornadoInformation12 put that in. He does that a lot and I trust that he knows what he's talking about in these cases. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:21, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus to merge. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

---

I propose merging 2022 Pembroke–Black Creek tornado into this article. The tornado article is 1215 words; this one is only 2350 words, though that probably doesn't include the tables. It would not expand this article much to take the text from the tornado article and use it here. I don't think this article is long enough to need splitting, and the tornado does not have sufficient sources to require a stand-alone article. See also this conversation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – That single tornado’s article is about 22,000 bytes in size while the outbreak article is 115,000 bytes. The outbreak article is for 89 tornadoes. The “small” (quotes for a reason) section in the outbreak article for that tornado is 5,700 bytes long. Roughly, if you subtract what is duplicate/near duplicate from the two articles, you are left with about 16,000 bytes worth of content. So that is about 16,000 bytes of content that would be merged…meaning the outbreak article would be 131,000 bytes. Out of that 131,000 bytes, over 16% of the article would be about this single tornado. Note, a merge would mean over 16% of an article related to four days worth of tornadoes…with 89 total tornadoes…would be about a single tornado. That is why it was split out. I have been creating GA-worthy articles for tornadoes when they start reaching 10+% of a large outbreak’s worth of content. One tornado should not be over 16% of an article which is about 89 tornadoes. Right now, due to it being split out, it is actually 5% of the total article. This tornado is also the strongest tornado of the year, with several RS news articles years later regarding the tornado, indicating is passes WP:LASTING. In short, this does not need to be moved. Even though it does not matter based on policies, but the split tornado article passed a Good Article Review and is one of the very few tornadic GA articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support We are focused on prose count, not wiki markup size. Wiki markup size in this case is a very misleading figure which is inflated by the coding used for the tornado tables. In terms of actual words that appear on the page for the reader, neither article is anywhere close to the minimum recommended word count of 6000 for a split, mentioned at WP:SIZERULE. Additionally, there is quite a bit of WP:OVERLAP. The tornado article would be significantly less original material if you wipe out the lead and the content overlap. We merged Meteorological history of Hurricane Michael nearly four years ago which was a decent bit larger than this one for a similar reason as is proposed here. Adding a few to several hundred words at most to the tornado outbreak article's section would not be WP:UNDUE given its importance within the outbreak. I strongly feel this is a case that can be described within the outbreak article.

Noah, BSBA^Talk 03:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of that User:Hurricane Noah what’s going on with Michael? I feel like the MH was merged so that the article could achieve a status it never wound up achieving. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 22:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That was only part of it. It's simply that nobody had the time to spend to work on getting Michael up to GA or FA. Noah, BSBA^Talk 23:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, there is only 600 or so words that is in the Pembroke article that isn't already in this article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose – The article is well written and goes into detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoguert (talk • contribs) 16:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support per above. The way it is written doesn't justify the small size of the article. _ZZ^Z'S 22:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Size doesn't matter per reasoning by DJ Cane below Hoguert (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per proposal reasoning. Sir MemeGod :D (talk - contribs - created articles) 17:24, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose: That individual tornado meets notability guidelines on its own. Despite being part of a larger outbreak, it is worthy for its own article. Per WP:Merge:

  If a page is very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences) and is, in your opinion as editor, unlikely to be expanded within a "reasonable" (unspecified) amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it into a page on a broader topic.

Additionally WP:SIZERULE doesn't recommend merging based on article size unless the length is under about 150 words.

As this article exceeds the one or two sentences as well as the 150 word recommended threshold I think it is more beneficial to readers to have specific details of it handled in its own article rather than merged into the larger outbreak one.DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 16:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This was an improper split to begin with since the sizerule does not recommend splitting unless an article is more than 6000 words. Noah, BSBA^Talk 19:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Notable on its own independent of the outbreak. A significant, but not controlling, amount of the coverage from the outbreak was on this tornado specifically as well. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per GeorgeMemulous comment Joner311 (talk) 19:22 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support as inappropriate split that should’ve never occurred seeing as splits are only justified above 8,000 words. DJ Cane’s reasoning only applies to independent topics. 96.57.18.90 (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC) Preceding vote left by likely sockpuppet; please disregard.

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.