Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011

Jumping the gun?

It appears that the Missouri and Minnesota tornadoes have been given speculative ratings while the there is no official confirmation as such since they just occurred. Tornadoes should be rated only when official word from storm survey teams are made. Stormchaser89 (talk) 9:00pm, 22 May 2011 US central time

I reverted them and warned the user. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Twitter Pictures

Are we allowed to add the pictures of the walmart and the high school from twitter pics.24.235.72.105 (talk) 02:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No, Twitter Pics are copyrighted by the uploader unless otherwise specified. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 07:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Split Joplin, MO tornado to separate article

Especially with more tornadoes expected in the next two days, I think by the end of today we should have enough info from surveys for the Joplin tornado to have its own article. I know we always talk about this and never do it, but I think this is the historic tornado that we always hoped would remain hypothetical.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 12:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That is likely once more information is added, and also dependant on what happens today and tomorrow. Horrible, horrible tragedy. Today looks, at this point, a lot less menacing for tornadoes (moderate risks are for wind and hail), but tomorrow looks frightening. Hopefully no big tornadoes in major cities - some in line are Tulsa, Muskogee, Stillwater, Fort Smith and Fayetteville. CrazyC83 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it will probably warrant its own article eventually. But rather than split it now, it's probably better to develop it in situ and split it when ready. We don't have enough info yet. Plasticup ^T/C 14:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Strongly agreed. Hopefully it is the only highly notable tornado and we can spend all our time building that up (only worrying about smaller tornadoes elsewhere on the list), but tomorrow's parameters suggest otherwise. Now is not the time to split it. The Minneapolis tornado section could use expanding as well. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I added an explicit {{anchor}} called "Joplin" to the section about Joplin; I'm no doubt stating the obvious but if a separate article is split off, leave the anchor and the section in this article and follow the traditional WP:SS conventions involving the use of {{main}}, etc. 67.101.7.230 (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just going to start a section for discussing this myself. The Joplin tornado seems distinct enough, in the nature of coverage and in the sheer devastation that it caused, to warrant it's own article (it's speculation at this point, but... this had to have been an EF5, which hasn't happened in a few years). We should {{main}} link to it from here, though. I agree about leaving the anchor here, as well.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be significantly expanded though. It would help if we had Wikipedians here familiar with Joplin. Should we make a call to them here? Of course, today looks moderately active and tomorrow looks, well, frightening to say the least. Hopefully we don't see another major disaster like that tomorrow! CrazyC83 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this is front-page news on CNN's website should be enough to warrant its own article. I wouldn't worry too much about the size of the content at the moment - I've seen plenty of smaller articles on much less significant subjects. Given that this happened less than 24 hours ago, I think there will be more information available to expand the article with in the coming weeks/months. The main focus right now is on search and rescue efforts and the safety of Joplin residents. Once things settle down, I'm sure more people who are familiar with the subject will contribute. Oldiesmann (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The differences is that this would be essentially a sub-article, and without Joplin, this would (as of now) be borderline for whether an article is warranted (although the outbreak is certainly not over it appears), unlike April 27 where there were so many highly destructive tornadoes. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a persuasive reason to not split the Joplin info into its own article, though. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently it is now the ninth deadliest tornado in US history with 116 fatalities. I'm going to be bold and make it it's own article. Falconus^{p t c} 22:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done. I actually did not have to create a new article; I used an existing redirect link. Falconus^{p t c} 22:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary rating in for Joplin

http://wwwrh.noaa.gov/sgf/?n=event_2011may22_survey ... EF-4 TORNADO ...WIND SPEEDS WERE ESTIMATED AT 190 - 198 MPH. Angiest (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Flint, Michigan death toll

This will probably be a moot point when it's all said and done, as I'm sure this death toll will continue to climb, but I've never noticed before that there's a pretty even split on sources whether the Flint, Michigan tornado killed 115 or 116. Can anyone else shed any light on this, and should we note this uncertainty when making comparisons?-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe (but don't have the page at hand) that NWS Detroit/Pontiac's "50th anniversary" page on Flint-Beecher used the 116 figure, as do most other sources I've seen online. Moot anyway, as we're now up to 123 confirmed for Joplin... rdfox 76 (talk) 23:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

May 24 - Oklahoma event

SPC is predicting a violent day for Oklahoma. The first confirmed tornado that I am aware of is now in.»NMajdan·talk 21:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Deadliest tornado since when?

The death toll in Joplin has surpassed the Flint tornado, but which tornado is next in line that had more fatalities? The Wiki homepage says that the Joplin tornado was the deadliest since 1936, but the outbreak page says it was the deadliest since the 1947 Woodward tornado. Wouldn't the homepage be correct, because the Woodward tornado death toll was 107? A Wikipedia page states that two tornadoes killed 181 people on the day of the Woodward tornado, not one single tornado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.143.236.174 (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Chico Cali area tornadoes?

nobody has mentioned the 2-4 tornadoes that hit on the 25th in the chico california area yet? http://www.kionrightnow.com/story/14722974/possible 71.13.140.152 (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Not related to the outbreak. If they warrant mention, a new section at Tornadoes of 2011 is where they belong. CrazyC83 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

To be part of the same outbreak, the tornadoes have to be spawned by the same weather system. The Chico CA tornadoes came from isolated supercells in wind sheer conditions, which followed clear, warm skies several days after the outbreak-related front passed through on Tues/Wed. Now, if *that* system crosses the Sierra and starts interacting with Gulf air/dry line, we could be looking at yet another outbreak, and the Chico tornadoes might be the earliest part of that one. - Tenebris 14:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.102 (talk)

3 more possible EF5s

although not rated EF5 yet...3 of the Oklahoma tornadoes are now rated "At least EF4". With that do you think we should create a setion on significant tornadoes for those few and a few others? 24.235.72.105 (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the ratings, at least the El Reno/Piedmont storm should get its own section, due to the number of deaths it caused.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 22:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Death toll conflicts

During the storm many facts including the death toll will be changing constantly but after the storm the numbers should stabilize. Unfortunately the death toll in this article still reads like breaking news damaging the credibility of a well written encyclopedic document. The death count in section one lists 139+ dead from fox news, followed by 156 dead, apparently in "other tornadoes" and without citation. The Synopsis claims 340 total deaths without a source reference. Those numbers that do have a citation differ as does my own count from the tables given, 361. Pendare (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The 340 appears to be the death toll for the outbreak at the end of April rather than this one. There does still seem to be to be some conflict, however. This page lists the death toll for the Joplin tornado as 156 in the introduction, but as 155 in the list of tornadoes. The main article also says lists the death toll at 155 plus an additional death from lightning. The article cited for this figure, however states that this total includes the one person who was killed by lightning, which would make the death toll for the tornado 154. Given that the dead from this event have been accounted for this should not be an issue. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed damage totals

I'm putting together a list of known damage totals/estimates stemming from this outbreak. I'll be updating this over time to include other areas. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Overall

ESTIMATE: $4 – 7 billion
TOTAL: $1,698.55 – 3,876.55 million (from values listed below)

Kansas

Town of Reading: $1.15 million

Minnesota

City of Minneapolis: $166 million

Missouri

City of Joplin: $1 – 3 billion (estimate)

Ohio

Statewide total: $322 – 400 million

Oklahoma

Statewide total: $200 – 300 million

Wisconsin

City of La Crosse: $9.4 million

Additional tornadoes

Several tornadoes occured in south-central Oklahoma near Ada on May 21 as documented by storm chasers. These have not been added to the list yet.

174.102.209.228 (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed Tornadoes

There are tornadoes that have been confirmed that are on List of U.S. tornadoes in May 2011 that are not on the outbreak page. I would like to ask if you would help in adding the tornadoes to the outbreak page. Thanks. United States Man (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There may have to be a seperate page added for the tornadoes like the late april outbreak, since there are so many tornadoes. United States Man (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding previously unlisted tornadoes

I am currently adding some previously unlisted tornadoes from this outbreak to the list by using the NCDC database. If worked quite hard on this last night only to have them deleted. Please refrain from doing this. I you had done a little research, you would find my information credible.

EDIT: Somebody put them back, thank you.

I added a seperate page for the tornadoes called List of tornadoes in the May 21-26, 2011 tornado outbreak. It would be better to add tornadoes to that page. United States Man (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Once again, somebody has deleted them. I will add them to that page, but first I need somebody to put them back so I can transfer them over without having to start over. Please put back as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.26.140 (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

They are back, please keep them there until I go through each date of the outbreak and add additional unlisted tornadoes. When I am finished they will be transferred. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.26.140 (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523233728/http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/Tornado_Hit_Small_Town_Of_Reading_122401859.html to http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/Tornado_Hit_Small_Town_Of_Reading_122401859.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Source for 280 mph wind speed?

In three places this article claims the El Reno tornado had wind speeds of 280 miles per hour. The only source I've seen which claims this figure is the ExtremePlanet blog. Do we have a more reliable source for this figure? If not, I'm inclined to change it to >210 mph provided by the NCDC. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

"EF5 damage to St. John's medical center

The hospital itself only got EF3-4 damage, mainly due to because it was such a tall building; Most of the damage got concecrated on top of the building, but the damage lower was only EF3-4. I suggest changing it Velzzyo (talk) 11:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Per the National Weather Service damage survey, the hospital sustained EF5 damage: "The EF-5 rating (greater than 200 mph wind speeds) was mainly arrived at by the total destruction of vehicles of various sizes and weight. Some vehicles were tossed several blocks, and owners were never able to locate their vehicles. Also, parking stops weighing over 300 pounds and re-barred into asphalt were tossed from 20 to 60 yards. Other factors included was the deflection, deformed and tossing of reinforced concrete porches and slabs, and the fact the St. John’s hospital building structure and foundation were compromised and will need to be torn down, were probably caused by winds speed at or exceeding 200 mph." I bolded the part regarding the hospital. So yes, the statement "EF5 damage to St. John's medical center" in the article is accurate. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)