Talk:Tornadoes of 2023/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

June 17 derecho

A derecho event is unfolding, with winds over 80 miles an hour in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. This may be included in a separate page from the June 14-16 tornado outbreak Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Has it been confirmed as a derecho event by an official meteorological source? We can't make the call of derecho ourselves. It has to be confirmed by the NWS. If it is though, I'd be ok with adding it as part of the upcoming article, as there were some additional tornadoes today anyway, and plus I believe all this severe weather is associated with the same upper level trough that produced all the other recent tornadoes.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

It only started a few hours ago, but the structure and information based on radar suggests a derecho, with the system stretching from central Oklahoma ro central Kansas, and 80 to 90 mph velocities were observed in multiple areas. 2603:80A0:1100:1380:D82C:8ED0:A538:F73D (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I have created a draft for this event. Please contribute as I believe it is a high priority manner. Draft:2023 Tulsa, Oklahoma derecho VisiblityGale (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Guys...without NWS confirmation, we don't have a confirmed derecho, no matter what the radar shows. We don't have the facts yet, so that would be presumptive. Also VisibilityGale you need to be more careful with jumping the gun. You're a bit trigger happy with the drafts and should probably reel it in a bit. Again, this is NOT yet a confirmed derecho, and adding a tone of urgency (ie "high priority manner") speeds up the process towards unnecessary article creation, rather than cautious and deliberate consideration of official NWS surveys and public information releases. Also, if this ends up being considered a continuation of the June 14-16 event, we won't need a separate article. I'm wavering from the extra caution approach, so please, slow down and wait until more information is verified.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

From what I've seen, this MCS has been producing wind for over 200 miles, and is expected to continue, hence why I've called it a "derecho", but I do agree with you that we need official confirmation. :) VisiblityGale (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a Severe thunderstorm warning in Tulsa, OK for 100 Mph winds, although no directly confirmed derecho was confirmed by the NWS, it has a high chance because of the structure Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm with TI12 with this. At the moment, the NWS has not confirmed a derecho, I think the NWS will confirm it was, but let's not jump the gun just yet into declaring that it was. If it is also a continuation of June 14-16, then another article isn't needed. As far as I know, there were a couple SVR-Ds, a CEM, and a bow echo along the MCS, but a derecho is unconfirmed at this time. There's also numerous damage reports coming in as well, that can be added to the draft, but it's not ready for article-space. Tails Wx 14:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Many people are saying the NWS will likely classify it a derecho, but I haven't seen official confirmation yet. 2600:1014:B1E0:48EA:0:2E:CE16:D501 (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

By actual meteorological classification, this was a significant and historic derecho event. But as Tails said, we should wait before jumping the gun. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak of June 14-16

I have created a draft; Draft: Tornado outbreak of June 14–16, 2023 for a derecho along with a tornado outbreak ongoing. Feel free to contribute.

VisiblityGale (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, but don't send it to the mainspace too early. Poodle23 (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This really should have an article. It has attracted a lot of media coverage, caused 3 fatalities due to tornadoes and another fatality due to wind, lead to record flooding in Pensacola and caused over 600,000 customers to lose power. It’s a shame april 5 never got an article but that’s not a reason to not make an article for this event. Clearly meets WP:GNG. 75.99.68.66 (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That is a great idea, but a derecho was not confirmed, but there were over 20 tornadoes from the 14 to the 16. Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

We need lots of help on this article. If you can, please help make the article better and more in-depth so we can submit it. Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I never thought this would become such a big thing. Thanks for your help everyone. Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah the derecho didn't verify so we can't include that, but if the tornado count goes above thirty, I think an article should at least be considered. This was also a highly anomalous event because it produced supercells and tornadoes in the Deep South in June, which is essentially unheard of. I've talked with a few meteorologists, and they've told me they haven't ever seen anything like it before. Also, the strong tornadoes in Ohio were completely unexpected and occurred in a 0% risk area. Maybe not the most impactful outbreak, but definitely one of the more unusual, and I think that makes if fairly noteable.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I counted the tornadoes from the 14-16, and counted 31. I think that it deserves a page, but it will likely be shorter, because only 1 EF3 or higher tornado has been confirmed Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 02:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It'll likely grow to above 31 tornadoes as surveys continue, but it's already good for an article as is imo. Like I said, while it wasn't the most notable tornado outbreak in terms of numbers or human impact, it was very notable in terms of being an unusual meteorological event (Dixie tornadoes in June and 0% day surprise sigtors in Ohio).

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

The article is gonna need a ton of work, we’ll need help in order to be able to get it into main space. 71.125.36.50 (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Should someone go ahead and make it public? I'm ok with publishing the article as long as everyone else is.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Yeah it can be published, but references are still going to be added, but it’s not a big issue. Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Well it still can't be published yet. We don't have a good meteorological synopsis yet, and we don't have a description either, although I expect those both will be fixed soon. Poodle23 (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

@TornadoInformation12: Mind writing the meteorological description and lead? It can be published once that occurs. 104.246.113.199 (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I wrote the original Meteorological synopsis, which was 1 paragraph. The page still needs a lot of work though Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It will likely take at least 5 more days to get it partially ready. Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It shouldn’t take five days if we work efficiently. However that’s why TI12 helping would be nice. 104.246.113.199 (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

There will likely be a confirmed tornado count over 45, and we don’t even have a proper meteorological synopsis. Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you new to editing weather articles? Just asking. Poodle23 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

No, I’ve just never worked in the creation of pages. This is the first time I’ve worked on a draft. Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright. Poodle23 (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey just go ahead and publish it honestly, even if it still needs work. We typically don't wait until everything is done before we go ahead and publish. I'll put in a lot of work and help out with it too.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12!

Outbreak Sequence?

Feel free to shoot it down, but should we consider maybe an outbreak sequence article? While maybe not the most prolific or impactful outbreak sequence, it is highly unusual and there have been daily tornadoes ever since June 14th as we continue to be in one of the strangest June patterns I've ever seen. We just had the Tulsa straight-line wind embedded tornado event, and tonight I think we just had another bizarre strong Dixie tornado in June near Louin, MS. If there end up being additional EF2 or stronger tornadoes after June 16th (I suspect Louin will be), I think we should expand the proposed article into an outbreak sequence article. What do you guys think? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Possibly, considering there have been lots of tornadoes, flash flooding, and a possible derecho. But there is no information on the 17 or 18 that I could find, so if it is created, some information will have to wait. Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

There is already a draft page on the tornadoes of June 14-16, link on the top topic, and we can add stuff to there. Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Not to pre-rate, but I believe Louin will be high end EF3 to low-end EF4 considering a couple DI's. I believe we should merge everything and make an outbreak sequence. Too many significant events to not do one. Wikiwillz (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Another destructive tornado hit Moss Point, MS today. I think we’re comfortably within outbreak sequence criteria by now.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I agree Wikiwillz (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

June 14-19 Outbreak Page Issues

Hey we have two problems with the new article for June 14-19. The first problem is that it was a sequence but isn't titled as such. That's an easy fix though and I will move it tonight. The main problem though is that the tornado tables in the article differ from the monthly tornado tables separate from the article. These two are supposed to be directly linked to avoid inconsistency, but they aren't with this page, and I don't know how to fix it. For example, the article has a June 19 table, when the monthly table doesn't yet. That shouldn't happen. Could some more skilled editors help me out with this? Consistency is important.TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure who fixed it but it's good now. Thanks!

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Draft for Matador, TX tornado.

Very violent tornado struck Matador, TX. I've created a draft for this event. Draft:2023 Matador, TX tornado. Feel free to improve, and please let me know if i'm being trigger happy again ;) VisiblityGale (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

You're being very trigger-happy, which you obviously already know because of your comment. No reason to start a draft with literally no information. Another case of hat collecting. United States Man (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Literally no reason to work on this article. The tornado destroyed like 10 buildings. Wikiwillz (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to have something about it, add it to the June 14-19 tornado outbreak page. Catusfatusoldus (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No no no no not another draft it’s literally just 1 tornado Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Would you please stop with the drafts already? It's getting out of hand and we've already discussed this.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 09:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I'm sorry for the drafts, I all thought these were notable events for inclusion, but I guess not. I'll try to discuss drafts with professional editors, so you can expect a lot less drafts from me. I'll try my best to improve. I'll propose the draft for deletion. However, since this was a significant event, I will be adding it to the June 14-21 outbreak page. Everybody, have a great day or night :) VisiblityGale (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

And for the hat collecting allegation, I don't know where you got that from. All I wanted to do was try to expand Wikipedia. That's it. I'm not looking for any awards, not even a "thank you". VisiblityGale (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

VisiblityGale, I’ve declined it as per WP:PROD, a draft can’t be PRODed. I’ve replaced it as a redirect to Tornadoes of 2023#June 21. However, you are welcome to CSD-tag it with WP:G7 if you wish to delete it. Hey, it’s okay—not everything can have a draft/article, and, you’re always welcome to discuss the warrant of drafts and articles with professional editors! Tails Wx 19:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add it to the existing outbreak sequence article. There was a gap in tornado activity on June 20. It is a separate event, and the article only goes until June 19.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Four deaths is not automatically notable enough for an article, believe it or not. It’s true we have some articles for outbreaks with few fatalities, but several articles with many fatalities were merged. This was on prominent display during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Smithfield, New York tornado, which despite having 4 fatalities and being the second deadliest tornado in New York history, was merged into Tornadoes of 2014 to create a more comprehensive section. The April 4-5 outbreak that caused 5 fatalities also lacks an article. The amount of impact and information is what determines an article, and a high amount of fatalities doesn’t guarantee impact: several winter storms that cause even as many as 12 fatalities had articles merged (Talk:February 2021 North American ice storm#Option Four: Alternative merge option is a good example of such a discussion). In conclusion, the Matador tornado, despite 4 fatalities, had a relatively small impact, and there wasn’t that big of a tornado outbreak to make an outbreak article worth it. If, however, enough significant sources can be found for it to pass WP:GNG, and it incorporates significant information that wouldn’t fit in a section, it can have a Wikipedia article. 12.124.198.54 (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop Pre-Rating

Please stop changing the rating of the Matador tornado to EF4/5, it has not been officially rated. Arkansasperson124 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I said it might be (key word: might) an EF3/4, but it has not been officially rated (key word: officially), so do not change the rating. Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It is a prelim. EF3 Tornadoesarecool13(2) (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

June 21-23

I think we should create a page for the tornadoes. There are 2 confirmed EF3 tornadoes, and a TORNADO EMERGENCY was issued for Scottsbluff and Gering in Nebraska (I went to Scottbluff about a year ago). Anyways, I think a page should be created for this event. Tornadoesarecool13(2) (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of these tornadoes are EFU/occurred over open country. A subsection on this page should suffice. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 04:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

going back to this whole thing, especially after today, think another sequence page should be considered. https://twitter.com/LiveStormsMedia/status/1673181832785936386 Another fatal tornado was reported in southern Indiana today as well and southern Indy suburbs got hit by a strong tornado, with other tornado reports during that hour. MariosWX (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

With additional strong tornadoes, this time in more populated areas, I won't oppose an article for this outbreak at this point. A draft is being worked on by Cyclonebiskit, and I'll probably contribute to it tomorrow. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 04:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

June 21-25

Can someone create a page for the event? 2 EF3 tornadoes have been confirmed, the world’s largest coal mine was struck by an EF2, and an EF0 multi-vortex tornado resulted in a tornado emergency for Scottsbluff and Gering. Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

EF0 Tornado in Ridley park Pa 2601:41:C880:82E0:B0B9:1831:1DFB:2B78 (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Didsbury tornado

Should the be an article on the tornado? It was the third tornado that was rated F/EF4 in Alberta history. It was also caused significant ground scouring. Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Please stop asking if we need an article for every tornado. United States Man (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with USM. It's a footnote in the grand scheme of things. It warrants the small section it has now, but nothing more. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

June 29 derecho

Should a new page be created for the derecho? Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

No. Its not needed. ChessEric 01:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

June 29 Vietnam Tornado

I could not find any source supporting that a tornado happened in Vietnam on 29 June 2023 when looking online for English sources. Is this possibly a hoax or non-notable? ✶Mitch199811✶ 16:20, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The only thing that I found about this event was this, but there seems to be some confusion about the actual date of this event and what the tornado did. June 29 apparently also had a deadly landslide, but that occurred in Dalat City, which was nowhere close to where the tornado event, if it did happen, took place. I don't normally mess with foreign events because I don't look them up (other people do), but I'm leaning towards deleting this based on the lack of info about this. ChessEric 16:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me do a few checks around to see if I can find something about it on some level of a usable source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok. So I just removed it. Basically a bad landslide occurred on the 29th (ECHO report), but the tornado occurred on July 7 according to this news article. The tornado only damaged 4 homes, so it isn’t notable for the article at all. Anyway, mystery solved! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Great job! They would've gotten away with it if it weren't for us meddling editors! XD ChessEric 02:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Illinois Indiana Ohio Michigan July 12 tornado outbreak

Does this outbreak deserve a page? It resulted in a tornado hitting Chicago, multiple other confirmed tornadoes/waterspouts in Illinois, Indiana, and Lake Michigan, and as of the time I am making this, likely tornadoes in Ohio and Michigan. Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a section on the main page for now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks! Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m going to create a draft for the event, but not send it out too early to be punished on Wikipedia. Here is the link to edit: Tornado outbreak of July 12, 2023 Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Here’s the new link: Draft:Tornado outbreak of July 12, 2023 Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This falls WAY short of article criteria. It can go bye-bye now. ChessEric 17:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

July 12-16 outbreak page?

Should a draft be created for the outbreak? Reply with your opinion on this topic. Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 01:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

No. You’ve been asked multiple times before to stop starting new talk page threads for each tornado event. United States Man (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I put in my old draft that I want it to be deleted Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Will there or won't there be a drug shortage?

Earlier I added the information in the July 19 section that it seems likely damage to the Pfizer plant will cause supply chain problems. However, I've seen a couple of articles including this one that say there won't be a shortage. I'm wondering if that's too much detail for the section.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. An AP article with FDA and pfizer sourcing seems about as authoritative as we'll find, so I would use it - we can have a sentence that puts the importance of the facility in context and notes that no shortages were expected to result. A sentence or two is totally fine, given that this was probably the biggest single impact of the NC surprise tornado. Penitentes (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Use it in addition to the statement that shortages might happen?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Penitentes I see you agreed that wasn't too much detail. I was certain the FDA commissioner did not say what you said he said, so I fixed it. You might like to reword, but that more accurately reflects the source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Penitentes (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Merge Proposal — One large outbreak sequence article?

So NOAA released an update to the Billion-Dollar disasters list this morning. The storm system of June 11–14 caused $2.6 billion. The two storms systems of June 15–18 and June 21–22 both made the list as well, but NCEI noted their damage totals hadn’t been calculated yet. Currently, we have Tornado outbreak sequence of June 14–19, 2023 & Tornado outbreak sequence of June 20–26, 2023 as articles. June 11–14 doesn’t even have a section on the main page yet, however June 14 was lumped together into the first outbreak sequence article. Back in 2019, we made the Tornado outbreak sequence of May 2019, which was from May 17–30 (14 days). At this point, should we just make one large outbreak sequence article (using the 2019 one as a template) for June 11–26, 2023 (i.e. Tornado outbreak sequence of June 11–26, 2023)?

It is probably worth it given the prolonged tornadic period, which had several significant tornadoes, a NWS regional historic outbreak, and 3 separate billion-dollar outbreaks. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree here. There might have been few-day breaks of no significant tornadoes but there were still tornadoes every single day ranging from June 11th to June 26th. I'd combine the two. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that they should be merged.Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I created the page. Here is the link to it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_outbreak_sequence_of_June_11%E2%80%9326,_2023Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn’t create the article until this proposal is done. That is the point of doing a proposal; to see what the community thinks. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but I don’t know how to delete a page. Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think that the article for the 14-19 should be changed to the 11-19, but I think that the articles should be merged because they end and start on the 19 and 20. Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm legitimately baffled by this. June 11-13 was, in my opinion (I'm excluding June 14 on purpose), nothing but typical Summer severe weather events, but, for some reason, NOAA shoved it all together. The reason why we made the June 14-19 sequence an article was due to the fatalities as well as the rarity of having tornado outbreaks in the Southeast during the Summer. June 20-26 may have been off a whim, but I trust the judgement of Cyclonebiskit and in the end, the fatalities in the outbreak sequence as well as the sheer volume in the amount of tornadoes justifies the article. I honestly don't know what to do here; on one hand, it would be weird to not include June 11-13 based on the NCEI report; but on the other hand, I did not see any casualties between June 11-13 and most of the severe weather was damaging winds and hail. However, I will say this; the two articles cover different parts of the country. Most of the June 14-19 events were in the southeast while the majority of the June 20-26 events were in the Northern Plains. The atmospheric pattern shift from abnormal to normal is well documented and keeping the two articles separate would allow it to remain that way. Thus, I'm neutral about adding June 11-13 to the June 14-19 outbreak sequence article, but oppose merging the June 14-19 and June 20-26 articles. ChessEric 15:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I remember June 11-13 and even the 10th being apart of a series of days with significantly enhanced flow across the southeast/southern Plains, well modelled in advance. Several of the days had 2% and 5% tornado risks, and there was a clear distinction between those widespread severe weather days and the less severe activity on the high plains of days before. I would consider it apart of the outbreak sequence. Redfishtwofish (talk) 21:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Support expanding the 14-19 article to 11-13, oppose merging 14-19 with 20-26 Mainly per Chess’s arguments and NCEI putting 11-14 in one event. If 11-13 can’t be added, the 14-19 article should be modified to 15-19. 216.165.125.249 (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC) (Striked — Blocked WP:SOCK)

At most the 13th can be included but the 11th and 12th don't warrant inclusion. You could argue merging this into one long sequence but it doesn't serve any benefit. The 13/14th to 19th and 20th to 26th are distinct enough to keep separated. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Cyclonebiskit, I have a question for you based on your proposal. If the 13th was merged into the 14–19 article, but not the 11-12th, how would we calculate the damage total for that outbreak sequence, given that NCEI would have given us damage totals for the 11–14 & 15–18 respectively? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't say my conviction feels very strong on this, but I lean oppose on adding the 20-26 tornados to any other article. I also don't see enough action to justify the 11th being added into the 14-19 page because of the lack of action overall the following two days. DarkSide830 (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

In agreement with Cyclonebiskit, these pages should remain effectively “as is” with no mergers necessary. We aren’t bound by the page that is referenced in the proposal and I would oppose any changes. United States Man (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

User:WeatherWriter/Tornado outbreak sequence of August 4–8, 2023 started

Since we now have a surveyed and confirmed unwarned EF3 tornado, plus several EF2s and other tornadoes between the 5 days, I went ahead and created a draft outbreak sequence article User:WeatherWriter/Tornado outbreak sequence of August 4–8, 2023. Still a lot of work to do to get it ready for mainspace, but multiple severe weather days, including a very large moderate risk on the 7th, seems good enough for an outbreak sequence article. I also saw something of nearly a million power outages yesterday and 2 non-tornadic deaths occurred as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

May 10-13 outbreak

I have a feeling the May 10-13 outbreak should have an article. It caused nearly 100 tornadoes and also resulted in a fatality. There is a draft for it but it is woefully outdated. 173.23.45.183 (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

indeed it did almost have 100 tornadoes within 3 days but most if not all the tornadoes was weak besides 5 tornadoes that got ef2 rating. most of the tornadoes that was confirmed got a ef-u rating Lolkikmoddi (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft

I created a draft for August 24, here is the link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Tornado_outbreak_of_August_24-25,_2023 2600:1014:B1A9:355:0:18:8F71:F001 (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Storm Ciarán

Can someone check if there have been anymore tornadoes confirmed from the storm? Emersyniscool (talk) 21:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

International Fujita Scale Templates

Now that the ESSL rates all the tornadoes in their database via the IF scale, shouldn't all the tables for European tornado events use the IF scale template? Just wondering because it looks like only the Storm Ciaran tornadoes have the official IF scale template. I have no problem converting the other previous European tornado listings from this year to that template if that's what we want to do. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

The ratings on the 9-step scale started formally in August 2023. I think anything prior to that (excluding the 12-step IF scale ratings like the 2021 South Moravia tornado) should just keep the F scale templates. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 08:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok sounds good. I'll make sure everything from August 2023 forward has the IF scale, while anything before that has the regular Fujita scale.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

International Fujita Scale Template Isn't Working Right

I'm confused with the IF template in the recent Storm Ciaran section. Why is it that when I put in a "1" for IF1.5 it shows up as "3"? It only displays "1" if I enter "1" in the adjacent IF1 column. One entry shouldn't affect entries in the other columns. We can't use these if they are glitchy and display incorrect information. Who here knows about templates and how to fix this? I'm tempted to use the regular Fujita scale template until this is dealt with. I don't want inaccurate data to be displayed. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Never mind, I got it working thankfully.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I'm back

Hello just letting everyone know that I'm still alive. I moved and took a long break from editing tornado articles but I'm ready to return to it. I'm more of a "details" guy who goes through the surveys, DAT, and media reports to find all the relevant damage information I can and make sure it's published and sourced here. I stopped toward the end of April, so I have May through October I need to catch up on (yikes). I figured I'd let everyone know before you start seeing a bunch of new edits and details being added under my username. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

THANK GOD!!!! XD ChessEric 19:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

August 24 tornado fatality

NCDC has 2 but it could be an error, should we update the fatalities? 107.123.49.68 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Will update Tenleycat123 (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

November 1-4

Should there be a tornado table there? I converted all tornadoes to Fujita scale, would be F1, F2, and F3. Emersyniscool (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It should be the Enhanced-Fujita scale, as that's the current scale being used. However, using the original fujita scale isn't entirely wrong. Sort of... The enhacned scale was made after much research into the damage a tornado causes and the required winds to cause such damage to certain buildings and objects. It doesn't account for the wind speeds themselves as part of the rating. El Reno 05/31/2013 is a good example. The winds in that tornado could've easily made it an F5. But on the enhanced scale, becuase the tornado didn't cause any EF5 damage anywhere, it only got an EF3. There is a lot of discussion amongst meteorologists, storm chasers and weather enthusists whether the scale should be changed to include radar indicated wind speeds. But, for now, the Enhnaced-Fujita scale is what we role with. Putting what the tornado would be on the old scale though, as a comparison and to show just how powerful said tornadoes were, isn't entirely a bad idea. But we'd want to put that forth with something like an astertisk, as using the old scale is technically not what is being done in the field. And we'd want to make sure not to confuse readers by using both scales without any kind of explination or something. It's the EF scale that's "more accurate" in a sense. That's debateable, and is why Im not entirely against using both. But if you're only going to use one of the fujita scale, the old or the new one, I'd say use just the EF scale. That's what the scientists and chasers use more. The old scale is more used as a reference to the new one. Sorry for this long winded reply and explination.

And, yes, I'd say each article pertaining to tornadoes per year should have tables on them for easier reference.

I hope this was helpful? I storm chase, so I know some of this. Whether we use one scale or both is up to consensus. I'd like to hear other editors thoughts on this too. :) SageSolomon (talk) 20:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, the European tornadoes between November 1-4 were rated on the new International Fujita scale, not the Fujita scale or EF-scale. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

oh, very noted... I just discovered the IF scale a few minutes ago... I want to facedesk my face... I almost want to use that one instead. It takes into acount the wind speeds measured by radar, not just the damage caused. Thats so much more accurate. Maybe ignore everything I just said as an error? I dont know if the US is using this. And for the readers, maybe we should include that scale as well along side the EF scale? But now I'm just juggling ideas. What's everyone else's two cents? SageSolomon (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Hurricane idalia

Should there be a section for the tornadoes? Also, the july-august tornado article does not iclude august 29th. Chesneycat789 (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes there should, both here because the tornadoes happened in 2023, and in the article for Hurricane Idalia. At least that's my two cents on that. SageSolomon (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

January 24-25

If anyone wants to help me work on my draft, click here. Tenleycat123 (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Can someone make my draft a redirect, I don't know how to do it Tenleycat123 (talk) 13:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

November 20-21

If today has some more tornadoes, I will consider an article when the ratings come out. Tenleycat123 (talk) 13:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

An article might also be justified if the blizzard is significant. 12.74.238.54 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is the draft: Draft:Tornado outbreak of November 20, 2023 Tenleycat123 (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't. Yesterday was not significant at all; the tornadic event as a whole underperformed. If the article you start is merely to cover the tornadoes that occurred, it will be subject to being rapidly buried. I would consider doing one for the blizzard (if significant), but the tornadic part of yesterday's severe weather was not significant at all. Mjeims (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

November 20–21 outbreak

Should the tornadoes on November 20-21 have a section on the article? I thought that this article only included significant tornadic events but the November 20-21 outbreak's strongest tornadoes were rated EF1 and therefore not significant. EuropeanXTwisters (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Hurricane Idalia's tornadoes got removed for the same reason Futuremeterologist (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC) (Blocked as a WP:SOCK) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I find it odd that a supposedly “new” user is already aware of this conversation and decided to remove the content. At any rate, I support the content remaining. There is no hard criteria on inclusion, and this is the only significant event of the entire month. United States Man (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

• I am neutral (slight lean toward delete) on the section. It was only EF0/EF1s, the only two sources currently there are the SPC sources, and per those sources, it appears there were 0 injuries. The reason I am neutral is because it is the only tornadic event in the U.S. (what United States Man alluded to). It wasn’t the only significant event during the entire month as Europe had an outbreak which included an IF3, but it was the only U.S. event for the month. So, I will remain neutral, but I am not the top fan of the section right now, especially in the condition it is in at the time of this comment. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

If, as USM says, there is no hard criteria for inclusion, I support keeping the mention. It could probably do with another news source or two to establish coverage. Penitentes (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

April 4-5 2023 tornado outbreak

I think there should be an April 4-5 2023 tornado outbreak article because 5 people were killed, it might be connected to a fatal blizzard in the upper plains (Vanessa), and 7 deaths is grounds for an article.160.72.80.50 (talk) 20:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

There was only 1 EF3, and the deaths were from an EF2 in Missouri. The EF2 was the deadliest Missouri tornado since the Joplin tornado. I think an article is not needed, but I guess I will see what others think about this. Tenleycat123 (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

This is unnecessary. The section is good enough on its own. ChessEric 14:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

This article is 71 kB of readable prose. While SIZERULE says an article should be split at 60 kB for the most part it allows for exceptions. Would this article qualify? I also wonder how much the material could be condensed if a split occurs. Nonetheless, I would support an article for a storm complex if it could be proven it was connected to the blizzard, otherwise I’m neutral. 166.198.251.69 (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

December 9

An outbreak appears to be ongoing along the Southern United States, with multiple damaging tornadoes reported. As such, I have created a draft for a possible article, in accordance to procedure. It may not be needed, but its good to have it if more tornadoes continue spawning. Draft here: Draft:Tornado outbreak of December 9, 2023

Mjeims (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• As death information comes out, feel free to update User:WeatherWriter/List of deadly tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so this is the 3rd consecutive year with fatal December tornadoes! In any case, I think this is going to be article worthy especially as this is just the beginning. Also, a blizzard occurred in North Dakota and NYC got their first high wind warning since 2020 as well, so it’s bound to be significant. 166.198.251.71 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course it just had to be a day, where I couldn’t monitor the weather. Why???? Also, six dead? Wow. ChessEric 17:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Added globalization tag

The following discussion 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.

---

Hello all,

I added the globalization tag to the top of the page because significant portions of the article are dedicated to U.S. based statistics despite the presence of approptiate list articles for U.S. tornadoes. Issues include the infobox only including images relevant to the United States and specifically separating U.S. data out. Additionally, the first paragraph of each month section specifically notes the number of U.S. tornadoes that month. I recongnize that U.S.-centric data from NOAA and others is easy to come by relative to some other tornado-prone countries, but signficant portions of this article could be improved possibly with some content being moved to relevant U.S. specific lists. DJ Cane (talk) 06:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This issue was brought up previously in the past, but was dismissed, given the US sees 10-12 times the amount of tornadoes than any other country on Earth. In reality, it isn't much of a concern or issue per past discussions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Because of tornado climatology the article will naturally cover the United States more extensively. I don't think this means having only U.S.-related images and data like "Fatalities (U.S.)" and "Fatalities (worldwide)" in the infobox are appropriate for an article aiming for global coverage. This is just one example of many of U.S. centricism in the article that can't be reasonably justified by climatology. The problem here is how it is covered, it being covered in general isn't an issue. Perhaps one solution is to find sourced info describing why data is more complete in the United States in the introduction.

In the case of the fatalities in the infobox, this is also problematic because it is not clear at a glance whether the worldwide value includes U.S. figures or not. DJ Cane (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll let other chime in, but I can at least answer why basically only U.S. images are on the page. Almost every image is from the NWS, which is automatically public domain images. Most European countries or even Canada don't release many public domain photos related with tornadoes, so those rely on what is uploaded to the commons. Sometimes we get some, other times we don't. There isn't a way to fix that problem due to copyright laws. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Note for @WeatherWriter, @ChessEric (bringing in because they reverted the globalization tag), and others, if there are relevant discussions or a MOS from WP:Weather you know of please link them. This talk page (plus archives) do not include such a discussion and one should not be expected to parouse the entire catalogue of "tornadoes by year" talk pages to find it when bringing up this problem. If it's something the community has come to a consensus on perhaps a relevant MOS page should be written. DJ Cane (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@DJ Cane: As this would affect virtually all annual tornado compilation articles, not just this one, this talk page is not the venue to have that conversation. Please instead start a thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:15, 11 December 2023 (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.

Dec 9-10 Outbreak Deserves Full Article + Concerns about unwarranted stand-alone tornado article

Somebody jumped the gun and made an article for just the Clarksville EF3 and there are multiple problems with that. Mainly, a random mid range EF3 that destroyed some homes in a populated area and caused three fatalities is not enough for a stand alone article. Stand alone articles are for tornadoes that are devastating, particularly deadly, or historic (See Rolling Fork, MS and the Houston Metro EF3 from this year). It was a bad tornado, but not remarkable in any way. Second of all, this stand alone article was made without any discussion or consensus, which isn't against the rules, but it is inconsiderate and trigger-happy. Third, this was part of a larger outbreak, including one of the more significant Nashville metro tornadoes in that area's history. The one that destroyed homes near Ashland City, TN and the one that destroyed building in Springfield, TN haven't even been surveyed yet, and both will likely be EF2 or EF3. While the total looks small now, just wait until the weak tornadoes are surveyed, along with the ones in very rural areas. Once all is said and done, the tornado total will be 20 or higher. So in a nutshell, the best course of action would be to switch to a full article, and put a full detailed summary of the Clarksville EF3 within the article. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

As the article creator, I think it has a shot a GAN. There is no issue with creating stand-alone articles. At the present moment, the Clarksville tornado article is over 14,000 bytes and obviously has tons of RS sources backing it up. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Earlier this year, I tried a new format/layout for articles; i.e. no direct section, but just the link to the split article in the table. That way, it isn't content-forking and allows both the outbreak article and the stand-alone tornado article to grow. Actually that method is in use right now on the draft outbreak article. If a 14,000 byte article was able to be created on a single tornado, then the outbreak article shouldn't have an issue in terms of notability. That said, merging doesn't have to occur. Both articles can co-exist. Prior to a series of edit wars in November, the 2002 Van Wert–Roselms tornado and the 2002 Veterans Day weekend tornado outbreak were originally set up this way (just the link, no direct section). After a third-opinion, the stand-alone article was deemed ok and the outbreak article was deemed ok. Basically, the articles can co-exist and a true section isn't necessary, since it is linked well in the table of tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

We need a full article because the current one fails to include the equally significant Nashville metro tornado, and numerous other tornadoes that will be rated EF2+ that the survey teams haven't gotten to yet. This was an outbreak. The total is NOT going to stay as low as it is now, and I can say that with 100% certainty. We'll likely have 20+ tornadoes including multiple sigtors when all is said and done. Stand alone article is fine, but it shouldn't be at the expense of an article that lists every single tornado. We should have both. Do you intend on doing that? If so, we can compromise but if not, we have an issue that needs to be worked out.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I agree. If you look at the table here: [1], that follows all Wikipedia rules & considers the whole outbreak. If the Nashville tornado has a large edit summary, it too could get a stand-alone article (at least 10k+ bytes in size). For reference, the 2022 Winterset section, including the mini-infobox is just over 6,000 bytes in size. Basically, once the outbreak article is moved to mainspace, both articles exist and are linked up. The exact difference from previous ones is there isn't a direct stand-alone section (like Tornado outbreak of March 5–7, 2022#Macksburg–Winterset–Norwalk–Newton, Iowa) for the tornado in the outbreak article. That is what I mean. The Clarksville tornado is still in the tornado chart and is linked up saying "see article" in the chart. There shouldn't be any issues. In plain words, I am wanting to remove the stand-alone sections and replace them with stand-alone articles IF the tornado deserves an article and that article could qualify for GAN/GA. I hope that compromise works, because that is the only thing I was trying to do, since we have practically no GA tornado articles and several tornadoes could easily qualify for GA if worked on properly. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok that's all fine and good with me. My only concern was I didn't want things to imply that Clarksville was the only significant tornado of the outbreak, and was worried that no full article would be made. That happened with the Houston metro EF3 earlier this year and it doesn't really set well with me. That was part of an outbreak, albeit small, but with other sigtors that directly hit towns. Anyway that's a separate discussion, but yeah, as long as we have an outbreak article, I'm fine with a stand alone.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Yeah, the outbreak article is in progress (draft-space). I just had two hours to kill and decided to try writing the summary. After I had nearly 8,000 bytes in size without hitting the first EF3 damage point, I knew it needed a stand-alone article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

We've been having this problem a lot lately. I'm not trying to make anyone look bad, but I honestly believe that these articles are being made because an outbreak article can't be made (which I don't believe is the case with this outbreak). I'm growing increasingly concerned that this will become a habit and we really should watch this.

To TI12 point, this is why I rewrote the 2017 New Orleans tornado article and made it the Tornado outbreak of February 7, 2017 article. We have more than one significant tornado and two tornadoes caused three deaths. ChessEric 15:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, make sure to get route numbers correct. ChessEric 15:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)