Talk:Tornadoes of 2022/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Confirmed tornado

May I ask where you are finding this confirmed tornado? Also, the three tornadoes in the January list article came from "possible tornado" wind reports and should be removed until it is confirmed.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I just saw that under the January section it said there was one confirmed tornado in the United States in January without looking into it. I'll return everything back to when theres 0 tornadoes confirmed. JimmyTheMarble (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

section

Should we create a section for the 1/1 outbreak or combine it with the previous one, as 7 tornadoes including an EF2 touched down? If it isn't by itself we can combine with 12/29-12/31 which has a section in 2021, or combine it with the 2021 one. --160.72.80.50 (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, but it is still not notable enough.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd be for it. 10+ tornadoes including an EF2 is probably worth mentioning, especially if it was a continuation of a larger outbreak. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should have a section. United States Man (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Update template on Wikipedia Commons

How do you indicate that a picture needs to updated in the Wikipedia Commons? There are few pictures on tornado outbreak pages that need to be updated.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we please talk formatting and consistency?

Title says it all. I think one should be able to maintain consistent formatting styles without so much conflict. For example, section titles for long-trackers in the past have town names separated by dashes, and states separated by slash marks. Following the recent outbreak, I tried to maintain this consistency by doing this way, like it past articles. Every time I tried to fix, I was reverted and threatened with potential bans, all of which was supposedly justified by WP:OWN. I was tired and didn't want to continue a non-productive debate, but after days of thinking about it, it isn't sitting well with me. I was told by the other user that he was within his rights to revert my edits due to it being opinion-based and there not being a "right" or "wrong" way, but there's a major hypocrisy within that, and here's why. If no person's way of formatting is "right" or "wrong", what gives one user the right to deem his more valid than mine to the point where every edit I make is reverted, while his are there to stay? That is directly contradictory. If WP:OWN goes both ways, why are his edits taking precedence over mine? The user also reverted an edit of mine on the basis of me not using "the right dashes", then telling me there is no right or wrong way when I tried to change it back, while only allowing his own edits to remain. I think it's evident that this user is using WP:OWN to justify him steamrolling other user's attempts at contributing, simply because he doesn't like the way it reads or how the aesthetic looks, rather than any rules actually being broken. I almost feel like I am being gaslit into believing that I'M the one who is steamrolling and gate-keeping, when I am simply trying to maintain consistency among articles. At the end of it, all I want to do is use the long-tracked tornado title format from past articles. That's it. How can we resolve this? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

@TornadoInformation12: 1st off, who the hell is saying that what your doing is WP:OWN? Section titles have always been like that and that's the same model I've been using for the individual tornado outbreaks articles I am making for the older years, although sometimes I do go a little overboard with them. 2nd off, why are they threatening to ban you? I know that you've always been a fantastic editor, especially since you were one of the editors that helped and guided me when I first got Wikipedia in April 2020. 3rd off, if someone is trying to change how we format these articles, they need to bring to the talk page rather than pick a fight with you. That's not productive and is silly since it displays a lack of problem-solving skills on their part. I'm probably not the best person to answer your question because my reaction would probably be something like, "To hell with them," while continuing to do what I'm doing before bringing it to the talk page since I don't like dealing with other people's B.S. However, you did the right thing by putting this discussion out here. I don't mean to be noisy, but who is threating you like this?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It's USM. I can be stubborn, not the easiest guy to get along with, but I always work towards compromise, and the controlling "my way or the highway" behavior I have been dealing with lately is totally unacceptable. I want to go forward with fixing the titles, but I don't want an edit war and potential ban proceedings to move forward. I want to know if I can safely proceed without conflict, further issues, and potential retaliatory action from him, even if he has no basis for it. Are you all going to continue to wash your hands of it, or will I have the support of other users? I'm not trying to pressure anyone, but I want to be able to read the room and see where everything stands before I move forward.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)TornadiInformation12

Well, for one USM is not an admin. He can report you to ANI or AN3, but the decision to block or issue sanctions does not rest with him. That being said, I cannot say what the outcome of administrative decisions on this matter might be. While I'm inclined to agree with you on consistency in formatting, I think this matter is not worth this much trouble. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS and ChessEric: All I will say is that I never once threatened him, never said anything about some “ban”, and never tried to play administrator. All I said was his constant reverting was going to get sent to ANI. If you don’t believe that search the talk page history. Looks like I’m being portrayed as the bad guy in this one. United States Man (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You know exactly what getting sent to ANI implies, and you were being overtly obstructive, and abusing the WP: OWN to justify your behavior. You aren’t being portrayed as anything beyond what your actions show.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

As TornadoLGS said above, it isn't worth this much trouble to figure out formatting, and this back and forth feuding will not help to solve anything here, as it is, quite frankly, unnecessary and and mostly off-topic on this talk page. If need be, find another place where you two can settle your differences and come to some sort of resolution, regarding future and issues that may suddenly come up. Please maintain civility on these talk pages, and let's continue to discuss what should be done for formatting and keeping consistency. I mean no disrespect in any way, I just think that it would be best served if personal differences and disagreements are set aside here, and settled elsewhere.🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 05:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I want this to end peacefully so I'm just going to say this once and one time only; KNOCK. IT. OFF. We seem to be having more disputes lately and its getting on my nerves. We had the January 2021 tornado list page completely blocked for 3 hours because of nonsense like this. If we have a dispute, bring it to the talk page so we can all talk about and not have edit or insult wars. Can we at least agree on that?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

CycloneFootball71 Also, I disagree with you. We all need to be part of this discussion because we are all part of this project and we need to figure out what we are doing for the future. The best thing that could have happened was for him to bring this here, where we all discuss how to move forward from this.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that everyone needs to be part of the discussion, and that discussion is best to move forward so we all can figure out what will be done for the future, however in my original comment I meant to imply that any problems that they have with one-another need to be settled elsewhere, while discussion here can continue and even relate to the conflict, however focus mainly on the topic of the discussion, which is in fact about the consistency of format styles for things like section titles as was the example provided above. However, instead of the discussion being on that topic and how it can be settled/fixed and coming to an agreement, it has devolved into a argument on who is in the right and who is in the wrong. To me at least, the talk page of a weather article does not seem to be the appropriate venue for assigning blame and going back and forth. I just want there to be civility and normal discussion occurring, so we can get to an agreement. That's all. My apologies for the misunderstanding.🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 06:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@CycloneFootball71: Oh. I see what you mean now. Thanks for clarifying.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 07:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@ChessEric, No problem, and thank you for pointing that out to me in the first place, and I am sorry for any confusion it may have caused on my part. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 13:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Its alright. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

NWS HGX/Houston-Galveston CWA confirmed 5 weak tornadoes from January 8, not counted in total tor count.

The NWS office in Houston has confirmed 5 tornadoes within their coverage area on the 8th. These are not included in the total count for 2022, I feel these should be added to the total count for the year for consistent recordkeeping. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamWX (talk • contribs) 03:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@WilliamWX: I did see that your initial edit got reverted. Part of that was because those tornadoes, at the time had not been added yet at the monthly list. The total at the yearly article sometimes lags behind the total in the monthly charts a bit, especially if the difference is only of a few minor tornadoes. The onthly chart usualy gets updated first, however, since it's easier to keep track of which tornadoes have been counted in the yearly total and which haven't. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Section for Florine EF2?

Should we make a section for the Florien EF2, given that it caused 6 injuries, some critical? I’ve also seen quite a lot of coverage on this. 108.170.65.170 (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Its a little too borderline right now, but I can see it getting one if more tornadoes are confirmed.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Blizzard link?

Should we link the 1/1-1/3 outbreak to the blizzard as it was the same system? 69.118.232.58 (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Probably not, as the blizzard wasn't really that significant. Mmapgamerboy (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Really? It caused 3 deaths and 428,000 power outages. 69.118.232.58 (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards is the reason it won't be linked. As far as I know, we only do a link (to connect the same system across articles), if that system has its own article. Because that blizzard does not have its own article, we won't link it. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Section Pictures

I've noticed that some sections have attached radar, damage, or tornado photos while others don't, and I think it would be cool if all of the articles had one picture attached. This way, it would provide more of a visual to each article, and make the entire page look more complete. Need thoughts on this. Redfishtwofish — Preceding undated comment added 01:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It would probably get crowded, especially with short sections. It also depends on the availability of good-quality images that we can use without copyright violation. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah someone just tried adding images to the 2021 page and it was quickly found out that adding images to small sections creates too much crowding and lots of blank white space. Not every section needs a picture. It isn't necessary to convey information. United States Man (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Fatality confirmed in Ft. Myers, FL.

The NWS in Tampa, FL confirmed one fatality from the Ft. Myers/Iona tornado, This information can be found on the Damage Assessment Toolkit(DAT). This is not on the information page yet, I would advise adding this information to the article. [2] WilliamWX (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

As of this morning, NWS Tampa has not confirmed a fatality based on their latest PNS on the tornado. United States Man (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

User is continuing to revert my edits without proper reason

Discussion about older article but I am bringing the discussion here for visibility. I wrote a detailed tornado path summary, and wanted to mention that the final portion of the path was rated EF0. A user is reverting this and not letting me explain the EF scale intensity for that segment of the path. His reason is I quote "not every minor piece of damage needs to be discussed." I am breaking no rules, and I feel that detail is important, especially since this was the end point of the tornado path. Can I PLEASE edit in peace without this constant nit-picking and pettiness? I really don't want to keep having these discussions. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I gave a proper reason. Myself along with others believe that these summaries are getting excessively long and too detailed. I simply removed a line that was unnecessary in the grand scheme of the tornado track. The statement “Can I PLEASE edit in peace without this constant nit-picking” implies that the user feels no one should edit his work. United States Man (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Tagging @TropicalAnalystwx13: as he expressed the same thoughts on these summaries. United States Man (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

It also appears the user is telling me it isn’t within my rights to edit an article on Wikipedia [3]. United States Man (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You alone thinking it is a "proper reason" isn't enough. I need to see specific consensus from unbiased contributing editors that say I cannot do this. Until that happens, you cannot just revert my edits. This is down to personal opinion, one persons word against another's currently. Lets see what others say. Until the clear answer is "no", I have every right to continue to include that information. I do believe that my work should be edited in a constructive manner, but what you are doing is not constructive, so don't misinterpret and misconstrue my intentions. Removing relevant details that break no rules improves nothing. If somebody wants to add detail that I think is superficial, but still arguably relevant, I usually try to find a way to include it, because I respect their wishes to add that information as long at it isn't unreasonably off topic of lengthy, or breaking any rules. I would expect the same courtesy from others, and that applies to this situation.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I will say that that article is far too long and needs to be substantially rewritten to remove unnecessary detail. I think others will agree to that. I felt I was helping the article by removing a bit of that detail, but I was reverted and sent another lengthy message (linked above). United States Man (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

That's just your opinion alone right now. What I do is a sourced conglomerate of information that isn't all available in one place. Compiling it would take hours if not days, and intense searching through many sources to find it all. I provide it all in one spot. After doing this for years, I can say with confidence that many NWS survey text summaries provide only a small portion of the incredible phenomenon and incidents of damage that may occur. You can't find that level of detail with ease except for here, and it tends to get lost to time. I think being able to negate that loss of detail is a valuable asset. If I'm overwhelmed with opposition, then I will relent, but that hasn't happened yet.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

The edit in question is basically over nothing. In this case, I agree with both of you. I think the information should be added (without question), however, I do agree that the article needs a copy/edit to shorten it. But, in this specific case, the small amount of info should be added. Later, it might be removed, but in that later removal, the article can be rewritten and shrunk as a whole and not a small area. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S.Also, stop fighting over small edits and stop "blame shifting" (Bad choice of words, but you get it). If this was the first time of me seeing you guys, I probably would warn both of you for focusing on the other person and not the edit (since both of you did that at one point). Elijahandskip (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I'll tell you what. Tomorrow I will trim down the extensively detailed information about the damage in rural areas, and that will reduce the wall of text by a considerable amount. It does get a little tedious at points. I think the high level of detail regarding the damage in Mayfield, Dawson Springs, Princeton, and Bremen should remain though.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Doing it now and it will read easier, but it's not gonna be huge change size wise. This was an insanely long-tracked tornado that hit many communities. It's going to be a long summary by nature, but I'm doing my best to trim it down. Just for comparison, the Hackleburg tornado path was 132 miles, and that is a very long path summary. This one was 165 miles long. There's only so much you can do without sacrificing too much information, as I can't just ignore huge sections of the path.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Ok I trimmed it down. Let's move on from this now please.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

What is the consensus on formatting?

So the last time I brought this up, the only thing decided is that there should be no more arguing, and that we should be civil. I agree. But, we still haven't resolved the issue. I'm gonna keep things simple. For long-tracked tornadoes that cross lines, would you rather have Option A:

Town and city names separated by dash (-) marks, state lines separated by slash (/) marks. Example section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_outbreak_of_March_3,_2019#Beauregard%E2%80%93Smiths_Station,_Alabama/Talbotton,_Georgia

Or would we prefer Option B, in which town names and states lines are BOTH separated by dash (-) marks, with slash (/) marks only being used to separate multiple town names within one state. Example section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_outbreak_of_December_10%E2%80%9311,_2021#Monette,_Arkansas_%E2%80%93_Braggadocio,_Missouri_%E2%80%93_Reelfoot_Lake/Samburg,_Tennessee

Lets make a decision. Option A or Option B? What format will we use from now on? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 09:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I think these are fine as is, so we should move on from this. United States Man (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"These" as in both are acceptable? If that is the consensus, I need to hear it from more than just one person, and from someone who isn't directly involved in the controversy due to implicit bias.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Why does there have to be one specific way to do everything? Wouldn't it work better if every article followed a general template but had a little character to fit the situation? And if I have any bias in this situation, then so do you and everyone else in the project who might comment here. You consistently argue that my opinion is invalid by stating you "need to hear it from others". My opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. United States Man (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you see what a vast majority of Wiki guidelines suggest for resolving conflict? Consensus. I did a lot of reading on this subject today, so don't try to paint that as unreasonable or invalid. Also, if the formatting doesn't have to be "one specific way", then that means you should have just let it slide in the first place, but instead you repeatedly reverted my work, so here we are. EF scale explanation and summarizing long-tracked tornadoes is my main skillset here. I am not a well-rounded editor, but that is where I do my best work. I am asking you to let me do the things that I do best (detailed summaries) in my preferred way, and you do things that you do best (bigger picture stuff) in your preferred way. It's convoluted way of saying, "Please just stay in your lane, and I'll stay in mine." If we can agree to that, then lets drop this and move on. If you can't agree to that, then consensus is obviously needed. Unfortunately, this is how conflict is resolved on the site, and you don't have to like it, but it is necessary.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Are you trying to say that I can't edit something you write without getting your permission? That isn't how Wikipedia works. United States Man (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

What? No, don't twist my words. I'm saying when it comes to personal opinion, it is within both of our best interests to establish compromise to keep reversions to a minimum going both ways, as a means of reducing conflict. Did I want to downsize that summary last night? No, I didn't. But I did anyway, because I still am willing to compromise. I want to see the same courtesy from you, and less staunch, inflexible stances. I'm not saying you "can't" do anything, but I am asking you to be considerate and try to go for middle ground when there is disagreement. Huge ask apparently.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

If I was being inconsiderate than I could revert all of what you wrote back to my original summary. But, yours is better, so I didn't do that. However, if I make a minor wording change that I expect would improve the article and I get reverted and scolded, that means the reverting editor has a problem with someone changing their content. United States Man (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There's an important distinction though. You are calling it a wording change, when in reality, it was omission of information. Wording change means that all the previous information is still there, but reworded. That's not what happened though. You just removed it and never replaced it with an alternate way of conveying that piece of info. I'm fine with wording changes, as long as the initial information is still there, albeit in a different way. But I do have a problem with edits that just remove information, but don't replace it with an equivalency or compromise, which is something you do a lot. When I see wording I don't like, I always find a way to keep it present in a different way, rather than just getting rid of it completely. I would like you to do the same. That is completely fair and reasonable.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Both are acceptable. I have a slight preference for Option A out of precedence, but I'll say again that this matter is too trivial to spend this much time on, and avoidance of edit wars is more important than any particular style choice. If keeping things open is the best way to do that, then that's the option I'll go for. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Define "keeping things open" though, because to me, that is the root of the problem. How is one supposed to avoid an edit war if everything keeps getting reverted? That fixes nothing, and seems to insinuate that a user can change the format of anything they want, and nobody can do anything about it, as it would start an edit war. Who's version gets to stay? The original contributor? The reverting editor? What if both parties can't reach an agreement? What do we do when this specific thing happens? Your proposed "open" solution basically states "Neither of you are wrong, but don't fight about it." We are trying that and it isn't working, so more procedural external guidance is needed, even if you aren't personally invested in this conflict. If you want less edit wars, then we are going to need to figure out how to avoid them, as they are a direct result of the "open-ness" that you are advocating for.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I think he means what I said above. These can be handled on an article by article basis, without having strict "rules" that may not fit every situation. United States Man (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

99% of the time, I'm using dashes. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Tornadoes outside of the US

I have noticed that several global tornadoes have been added and later deleted this year including a F1 tornado in Benkovac, Croatia.https://www.24sata.hr/news/kontejner-nam-je-doletio-u-fasadu-popadali-su-crijepovi-sretni-smo-sto-smo-ostali-zivi-813950 A high end F0 tornado struck Ballyduff, Ireland and a tornado in Guatemala on the 13 February. Please explain how these do not count as tornadoes, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:52fe:3f00:2c72:ec41:868b:8d98 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Adding all Tornadoes which happen worldwide will be impossible. Like for the US, where only destructive Tornadoes or Outbreaks get listed in this Article, it should be done for outside the US too. There have been 976 Tornadoes in Europe in 2021. Adding them all would blow the Article. Meaning that a single one in Guatemala or Croatia isn´t important enough when it doesn´t cause severe damage. So far i added only international Tornadoes which caused injuries or Deaths. Greeting from Germany. --2A02:810B:1040:5230:99A2:8313:25F:50B4 (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Single tornadoes outside the U.S. do not deserve inclusion no more than single tornadoes inside the U.S. Simple reasoning for removing one-line sections. United States Man (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding rating color table change?

Just noticed the color table for tornado ratings has been changed. I'm ok with it, but I just want to make sure it was discussed and that there's a good reason for it? I missed whatever discussion lead up to this decision and I just want a little more information. Thanks! TornadoInformation12 (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

@TornadoInformation12: The discussion took place (and debate in the aftermath is ongoing) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#RfC: Changing the color scheme for storm colors to make it more accessible, but to summarize there was a request for commment to tweak the color scale to make it accessible for readers and editors with color blindness, and after discussion an admin closed the RfC as supporting the change. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@TornadoInformation12: Actually my bad, the new RfC was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Redux: New RfC (February 2022). Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

US Tornadoes of 2022

The map needs to be updated, especially before the next outbreak in the coming week DensmithCo (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The only person who can update the map is the one who owns it. I'm pretty sure Supportstorm owns it, so they're the person you're going to need to talk to. Mmapgamerboy (talk) 07:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm in the process of working through the December storm data for 2021. Afterwards I can update the 2022 map. Shouldn't take that long. Perhaps even today I can get it done. Supportstorm (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we make a bot to stop vandals and put the winter set tornado back as the only ef4

This 2600:8800:608C:CA00:7583:1EFF:5F9C:20A (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Tornadoes portal

I'm sure some of you are aware, but there is a tornadoes portal. I just updated the recent outbreaks page for the portal. Overall, it's pretty low maintenance, but I want it to be on other people's radar since I don't want to be the only one updating it, mostly since I might not always be available for updates. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Reminder not to get carried away with detailed full summaries

Title says at all. Had to revert some sections in other older articles where a tornado with only enough info for one small paragraph was given it's own full "See section below" despite being totally unnecessary. The Winterset full section was a stretch given NWS Des Moines' vague and brief summary, and I'm starting to see to much of this popping up. I need to remind you that a full writeup is not needed unless a tornado is very significant, deadly, or long-tracked. The main purpose of these full writeups is to allow for full detail in situations where all the information can't be fit into one paragraph or less in the main table, usually in cases of long trackers. If there's not a ton of info or exceptional significance (very deadly, major metro area, EF4 or EF5, ect), a full writeup is not needed. Removing the Allendale and Ulmer writeups is a step in the right direction. Please, keep things simple, and don't try to force a full-writeup for a tornado that doesn't need one. Some articles don't produce any tornadoes that meet the full writeup criteria, so again, don't force it. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 10:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

April 15 vandalized?

Well, April 15's tornadoes are gone, and I'm fine with that if it was just 1 or 2 tornadoes, but I'm making sure it's not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:681:25A0:0:0:0:45D8 (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It's not vandalism. It was removed at least until some survey information comes out. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

NWS Little Rock just released a statement noting that no tornadoes occurred last night. As I suspected, these were false reports caused by low hanging clouds that were mistaken for a wedge tornado, prompting a false alarm tornado emergency. The reported damage occurred from hail, straight line winds, and traffic accidents, not a tornado. This is a perfect example of why tornado emergencies don't mean much, and why we need to wait for confirmed reports.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

And I hope many people have learned a valuable lesson. United States Man (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

It was a weird incident, though. The damage reports coupled with the tornado emergency seemed pretty convincing. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I know after this event, I am going to be strict to make sure only surveyed tornadoes are added to lists. I learned that lesson from this event. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree, but I think we should make an exception if a clear-cut case of a tornado with major damage and extensive media coverage. I'm talking cases like the 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado or the 2013 Moore tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

WOW!!!! With how many tornado emergencies, were issued, I thought for sure something happened. I've never heard of something so bizarre. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm going to make an article on this. However, that will be on my page, not out here. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Probably the most insane case of a tornado emergency being issued for a non-existent tornado. Similar to what happened in Atlanta in 2008, no tornado occurred, despite the supposed validity of reports. SPC currently lists 9 tornado reports for Arkansas on April 15, so there is still a chance that despite the lack of a damaging tornado, a few brief spin-ups could have occurred. Mjeims (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Discontinuing Tornado Trend and Percentile Ranks image

I've been thinking of proposing this for years, but I believe it's about time we stop using the tornado trend and percentile ranks graphic: File:2022 United States tornado count.png. The statistics have not been updated at least 12 years, leaving the percentiles and min/max values woefully outdated. It gives a misleading representation of the activity these days, especially when comparing it to record values. 2011 should have dramatically changed the max value line (File:2011 United States tornado count graph.png) but it remains unchanged 11 years later. A graph of activity is still useful, so a simple one we can put together just using confirmed tornadoes and filtered reports would still be worthwhile. Creating percentile ranks and min/max values of our own would be an immense undertaking and not worth the time... ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

You bring up a valid point there. The chart has been bothering me essentially since I got on Wikipedia. It worked well for years like 2011 and 2013, but I no longer believe that is helpful since we had an above average year last year, but the chart shows the year being average. Not too long ago, I expressed my dissatisfaction with the preliminary filtered tornado reports being in the individual months since I believed it was just confusing the readers AND the editors. As a result, that practice was eliminated and I will eventually be going back to previous years to remove the reports from individual months as well. I didn't really know if I could be the one to start the discussion since we've been doing this for over a decade now, but your inquiry seals it for me. The chart was great to have at the time when it was first implemented, but it's time for it to go. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

ChessEric and Cyclonebiskit I have a question, do you guys want to discontinue it now (stop updating it now and take off the article page) or when the 2023 article comes out (continuing updating it and keep it up on the article page, and 2022 will be the last year using it), because yes you guys do make a valid point about that image. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I would say discontinue it if there's agreement on doing so and remove it for all years starting with 2012 since we know the graphic is definitively outdated by that point. Pinging other WP:SEVERE editors for their thoughts: @TropicalAnalystwx13, United States Man, TornadoLGS, TornadoInformation12, Supportstorm, Elijahandskip, CycloneFootball71, Mmapgamerboy, Colin777724, MEweathergeorge, and Severestorm28: ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I support discontinuing it on those grounds and removing the charts, but not before suitable replacements are ready. Most likely maps. Actually, looking back before 2011, it looks like it was normal to replace the chart with a map after the end of the year, but the SPC stopped making those maps in 2011 too. It shouldn't be hard to make our own, though, since complete CSV files are available through 2020. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with removing it starting with 2012 and leaving 2011 and earlier. Per LGS, we should not remove until a suitable replacement is ready. United States Man (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with TornadoLGS. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 17:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreeing per above. Severestorm28 18:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I support its discontinuation per above. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 18:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What Cyclonebiskit said. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I highly agree. Old graphics are inappropriate for the Wikipedia; those were then, this is now. Angela Kate Maureen Pears 18:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with TornadoLGS. Mmapgamerboy (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I'm late to the fray, but I similarly agree with the retirement of the table. Unless we can actually procure a new one with the updated values from this past years, it does no have the necessary relevance or validity anymore. Mjeims (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Suggestion - The SPC has a modern version of this chart available. It includes the LSR traces of years going back to 2005 and updated mean values. It may be more cluttered than the current chart but does not contain the misleading percentiles. Link here https://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/newimgs/torn-counts.png. Supportstorm (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@TropicalAnalystwx13, United States Man, TornadoLGS, TornadoInformation12, Supportstorm, Elijahandskip, CycloneFootball71, Mmapgamerboy, Colin777724, MEweathergeorge, and Severestorm28: I literally had that same exact thought as I was working on an outbreak from 1954 and came across this map. That one doesn't use averages from previous years. It instead compares the Local Storm Reports for all the years prior and makes a mean average of them. That might work. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The southeast United States definitely needs an update on the severe weather activity for the trend map Colin777724 (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

April 29 "Tornado Outbreak"

Can we put this out early or no? Lolkikmoddi (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It hasn't happened yet, so no. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 17:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

My God. Every little outbreak does not need an article, give it a break. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

why so rude? @ChessEric ~~ Lolkikmoddi (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry. I let my emotions get the better of me yesterday. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

"Tornado outbreak of mostly weak tornadoes" overuse

Many times when we have this minor or moderate outbreaks with only one or two strong tornadoes, we say in the section that "an outbreak of mostly weak tornadoes" took place. While I've been on board with that, this has been a repetitive thing that is getting old and dull. Most of these weak outbreaks are going to have mostly weak tornadoes, so to say it every time is unnecessary in my opinion. I think we should either not use this phrase all the time or change the wording so that it doesn't say the same thing for each section. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I've been kind if iffy on the phrasing myself, since even in a major outbreak, most of the tornadoes receive weak ratings. But I'd still like some wording to indicate an outbreak with only one or two significant tornadoes. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@United States Man, TornadoInformation12, 453Brax, TropicalAnalystwx13, CrazyC83, and Mmapgamerboy: Pinging for further comments. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@United States Man, TornadoInformation12, 453Brax, TropicalAnalystwx13, CrazyC83, Mmapgamerboy, and TornadoLGS: I'm reinitiating this conversation because I did not get enough feedback on what we should do. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I know I'm not one of the pinged users, but I have seen this tendency before, and have similarly felt uneasy about such wording spread throughout so many articles. But I ask you, what new wording would you have in mind to replace the existing one? Could we just say that a "small outbreak" occurred, without mentioning the terms "weak" and "mostly"? Mjeims (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll be in favor of dropping that wording per the reasoning I gave above. While it would be nice to have some way of referring to events that only produce one or two significant tornadoes, my support of the decision is in no way contingent upon such a replacement. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

If there are one or two significant tornadoes, it doesn't normally warrant an article but it should get brief mention in one or two paragraphs on this page. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@CrazyC83: I think we're generally referring to its use in sections on yearly article rather than in outbreak articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. In the previous years article, there were 10 sections that referred to outbreaks as having mostly weak tornadoes, tornadoes that remained in open fields, or several/scattered weak tornadoes. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Where appropriate we might say something like "An EF2 tornado damaged homes in X... Another EF2 tornado damaged a farm near Y... all other tornadoes in this outbreak were weak." TornadoLGS (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

That wording is more preferable in my opinion. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:34, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Twisters on the 1st and the 2nd

There are tornadoes yesterday and today, may you put these in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.91.178 (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

We have reports of tornadoes, but they are only added to the monthly list when they are confirmed and rated. We have done this with two tornadoes from May 1. We will add any tornadoes from today to the monthly list when we get some survey information from the NWS, but probably won't add a section to the yearly article unless there is significant damage. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Environment Canada sources

I think there has been occasional talk of improving coverage of tornadoes outside the U.S. We have ESWD for tornadoes in Europe, and Environment Canada for Canadian tornadoes, but I don't know where EC keeps its records/surveys for tornadoes. Does anyone know where where those would be? TornadoLGS (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

New surveys for Environment Canada I believe are done by Western University in London, Ontario and they announce them on their Twitter account and usually create their own news article on it. For tornadoes in the past I have no clue where to find those. JimmyTheMarble (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

There are two open datasets that I know of. NTP (2017-present) https://www.uwo.ca/ntp/. ECCC 1980-2009: https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/65658050-7a80-4da3-9a09-da137c203a34. ECCC I believe is working on data from 1990-2020 which could be released sometime this year. Reports older than 1980 are going to be harder to come by but certainly out there. Supportstorm (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. I know that from working on the articles for past tornado years. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

May 12, 2022 Coon Rapids, MN Tornado

A tornado touched down in Coon Rapids on May 12, 2022 and tracked for three miles, as reported by the Star-Tribune:

Tornadoes move across Minnesota over two nights

Does this twister rate a mention in the May 12 section? TH1980 (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

The Coon Rapids tornado was actually on May 11. It was an EF0 but there seems to be little information on it, so I wouldn't include it without some more details. We might consider expanding the May 12 section to cover May 11-13, but I'm heading off for the night in a moment. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I really think we should keep the section as May 12 only. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Confining the section to May 12 probably would be for the best, since that saw more tornadoes than May 11.TH1980 (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Derecho draft

For folks on this page who don't know, there is a draft for the May 12 derecho at Draft:May 2022 Midwest derecho. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I saw. Thanks. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

NCDC Damage Figures Discussion

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2022 about whether to include NCDC damage figures for tornadoes. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Complete Sentences

"Tornado with roof destroyed and minor damage to a few homes and businesses" Seeing more tornado summaries like this. This is just a reminder to use encylopedic tone and type in complete sentences. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Are you talking about the list summary page? I agree with you btw, but I'm just making sure. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Transclusion errors

We are converting many duplicate tables on list pages and outbreak article tables to just one table on the article page while transcluding that table into list pages so that we don't have to do double work. Most times, it works just times, but at random times, like right now, they appear to not convert over to other page properly, which is problematic because the tables come out ugly with all sorts of errors. I would suggest just removing the tables from the list page and linking them to the article, but some outbreak articles only include certain regions on days when other tornadoes touch down, so that is not feasible. I was just wondering what we should do. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS, United States Man, TornadoInformation12, TropicalAnalystwx13, and Mjeims: Further comments please. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest copy-pasting the tables from the outbreak pages if templates are going to malfunction with transclusion. That requires attribution at the talk page with Template:Copied and attribution in the edit summary. The main reason we've been transcluding anyway was because it was troublesome to keep both outbreak pages and monthly lists updated when survey information was coming in rapidly. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with TornadoLGS. It may not be all wrong to have the same tornado table present in multiple articles, as long as it is viewable in a proper format. ChessEric, we have the example of the List of United States tornadoes in March 2007 article. When we transclude the tables from the two outbreak articles from that month, they come out in a weird black color, and listing all sorts of errors. Of course, we have to keep working to reformat all the outbreak articles to meet with the current standards, but I believe we must refrain from transcluding sections of articles for now, until we can be sure that the errors that keep happening are fixed. Mjeims (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

That’s strange. That template is useful but finicky. Aggravating... United States Man (talk) 01:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd now its back to normal. I swear... XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

SPC Severe Weather Report Summary has stopped updating

The source we use for tracking the total number of preliminary tornado reports has stopped updating. No tornado reports have been added for May, and counting appears to have stopped on April 28. I have hidden the statement about preliminary reports for now, since the count is incorrect. Should we just discontinue using preliminary reports (as we've already done for monthly sections) or is the some alternative? TornadoLGS (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

There were a TON of severe weather reports last month so the SPC may be waiting for a break from the active severe weather pattern before entering all the reports. I don't think we need to remove it. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 11:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

All right. We should still keep it hidden in the interim and hope this isn't the SPC just dropping the ball as they have on some of their other pages. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Its been updated now. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Tornadoes crossing international borders

Random question: If a tornado crosses from Canada/Mexico into the United States, do we count that toward the total of U.S. tornadoes even though we would technically being counting one tornado twice? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:31, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we would count it. I don't see how we would be counting it twice since, at present, we only keep tally of U.S. tornadoes. Even then, we would count it. Databases that keep track of state tornado statistics (e.g. the now defunct Tornado History Project) will count state-line-crossing tornadoes toward each state's total, but still only count them once if doing a national total. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; I figured, but I was just wondering. I know this is off-topic, but I REALLY miss the THP. It made my life a whole lot easier. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

CyanideCN on Twitter

For the June 16th China EF2, the damage survey seems to have been created by a user on Twitter (@CyanideCN_). The website cited actually links to their survey, but their bio says nothing about CMA. Do we assume they are publishing CMA accurate surveys and information? Elijahandskip (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. Twitter can be a little finicky when it comes to being a source for information. I would use Twitter as a source for the NWS and interesting, proven weather facts for example, but it can't be used for everything. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Total Count of Tornadoes of 2022

The number need to be counted and updated. DensmithCo (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2022 (UTC)