Talk:2021 Western Kentucky tornado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the tornadoes ARE connected...[edit]

If the survey finds this tornado was indeed the same tornado that went AR-MO-TN with a continuous damage track (that is uncertain at this point), the article name would change to 2021 Quad-State tornado? CrazyC83 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think just Quad-state tornado would be sufficient, as there are no others. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that was my thinking as well. United States Man (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also didn't name it "Mayfield, Kentucky tornado" because obviously that wouldn't be representative of the entire track. United States Man (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, though that could be a redirect. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are other significant tornadoes that have hit Mayfield in the past. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected 2021 Mayfield, Kentucky tornado already. I think an EF3 hit there a few years ago. United States Man (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tornado outbreak of May 7–10, 2016 Yep. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of "Quad-state tornado"[edit]

While a quad-state tornado has not been confirmed, I think there should be a mention of the possibility of it and a record-breaking path length until we have confirmation otherwise. Reliable news outlets are discussing the possibility. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This tornado potentially was only in one state (or slightly in a second), so I don't think mention of it is warranted. United States Man (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It is still uncertain. But I'm fine either way. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting, NWS Paducah did use the "Quad State Tornado" hashtag in a tweet earlier today Link. The term has gained reasonable circulation recently and may ultimately be worth revisiting at some point. Even if it ends up being a tornado family, this article may end up covering the lifespan of the cell, which would keep it relevant. Just my 2 cents. - Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 02:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC) (mostly retired from Wiki, but I check in every now and again ;) )[reply]

We also do not know if the tornado is NOT connected[edit]

Either way this article is premature. The analysis needs to be conducted first, and when conclusions have been made by reliable sources, then we should decide if this is one article or two. I tend to believe this article should remain merged with Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021 until we know one way or another. 2001:558:6017:107:8D43:BEE6:70A4:BA3C (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We will expand this page to include other areas affected if they are confirmed. It was indeed part of the outbreak, but it is notable enough for a standalone article. We have split individual tornadoes from outbreaks before (e.g. the 2013 Moore tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article will stay and be expanded. If this article was premature, so was the outbreak article when it was created. United States Man (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The immediate deletion of my edit[edit]

Hi User:United_States_Man I see that you immediately deleted my edit and described it as "irrelevant" and "unnecessary"". I think that a factory owner telling factory workers they cannot leave, prior to their deaths from the Tornado, is relevant on an article about the Tornado. The Tornado is not simply a weather or meteorological event, its impact was fatal for multiple people and that consequence is notable, and my edits were sourced. Before writing this comment, I checked WP:Relevance and I think it supported my stance. I'm not sure who you are saying I should not have named, was it the deceased (he was named in the article) or the factory owner (it's widely reported as the Amazon factory). I'm somewhat new, so maybe I'm missing something, but please say why you think this is not relevant to the article. And please consider letting my edit stand CT55555 (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose mentioning it for the candle factory, but it doesn't warrant a section all to itself. The note about the Amazon warehouse is not relevant, since that was from a different tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The application of that to the article was less than desirable, so it was reverted. That should definitely not have its own section, and I would not mention anyone by name in the article that doesn't meet the notability guidelines. If anything is included, it should be in the aftermath section. United States Man (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think "desirable" is a matter of opinion and perspective, so I'll avoid commenting on that. I think we at least have consensus that the candle factory management owners actions should be included and as the naming appears to be associate with the wrong tornado, it's a moot point. I'll start over with the candle factory and trust that you support that. CT55555 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add current template?[edit]

Do we add the {{current}} template to the article? It just happened a few days ago and there is still a lot of changes. --The Tips of Apmh 00:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The event is no longer current, so I removed the template. United States Man (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The {{current disaster}} template has a "recent" parameter that would fit. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2021[edit]

Storm Updates (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I want to edit I’ve been a weather fan for a long time I study storms and try to give out the public the latest information and as of now on the Kentucky Violent tornado it has a estimated 15k buildings are destroyed and with a 3.5 billion in damages this could be the most expensive tornado since Joplin, Mo 2011 source: 60 min and cbs news

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. —Sirdog (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado formation?[edit]

Hello, I captured a GIF marking the possible formation of this tornado. Is this Ok to add? Image: Severestorm28 15:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Paper - Extended Edit Summary[edit]

Writing this as an extended edit summary to this edit where I did a good faith revert of United States Man. So we should have a discussion about this. I personally am neutral on the need a separate section for the EF5 intensity (leaning more toward not needing it), however, I think the information should be included. Many articles have information about discrepancies with NWS ratings, hence why the list of possible F5/EF5 tornadoes exist on List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. Just to name one example like of this notability would be the 2014 Mayflower—Vilonia EF4. The Wikipedia section on that includes information from Timothy P. Marshall about rating differences from NWS. Dozens of other tornadoes have this as well in their respective Wikipedia sections. It isn’t “NWS bashing”. And yes, any scientist can write a paper, but Wikipedia generally accepts two types of academic papers as reliable sources. Peer Reviewed & Expert opinions. Timothy Marshall is considered a tornado damage expert (former QRT for NOAA) and the other two authors of the paper were in fact NWS meteorologists, so they can be considered experts as well. I think having a mindset of “NWS bashing” doesn’t really work here since two authors are NWS. Either way, that’s my super extended edit summary. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly useful research paper that could be used[edit]

Just dropping a link to a somewhat newer research paper MESS0019: Electrometeorology 2.1 -The 2021 Mayfield, Kentucky Tornado Track and the New Madrid gravity & magnetic anomalies which was posted on Academia.edu. I do not have time to read it now and I probably will just end up forgetting about it. If anyone takes the time to read it, check to see if anything in it might be useful for the article. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming the author's papers and the rest of his internet presence he appears to be a bit of a crank (lots of 'dark matter anomaly' vibes); I'd recommend forgetting about this one. Anyone can upload their own papers to Academic.edu, it's not like submitting to a journal or anything. Penitentes (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Yeah, I know anyone can submit their own things to Academia.edu, but sometimes, valuable papers can be found there (Like the Tim Marshall/NWS paper for the EF5 intensity). I’ve come across at least 7 papers (some peer reviewed others not) about this tornado, but the Tim Marshall/NWS paper is the only one that had valuable stuff for the article. I just posted it since I didn’t have time to read it and as the day went on, I probably would have (and did) forget about it. Your reply here is the only reason I even remembered it. Lol. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly known as[edit]

There is a disagreement between editors as to whether or not the phrase commonly known as the Mayfield tornado is appropriate for the lead of the article.

Actually, this tornado does have a special case, since the title of the article is Western Kentucky tornado, not Mayfield tornado, due to how long tracked it was. Most tornadoes on here are titled by the well-known town/towns hit (2013 Moore tornado, 2011 Smithville tornado, 2011 Joplin tornado, 1974 Xenia tornado as examples). I think this is a special case, given that several reliable sources call it the "Mayfield tornado" and we call it the "Western Kentucky tornado". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – If we weren't moving away from doing stuff like this for tornadoes, I would support it. However, I'm one of the editors who are removing such titles from the lead, so I have to say no. ChessEric 17:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture scheduled for POTD[edit]

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Mayfield KY State Farm CRU -23.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 10, 2025. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2025-12-10. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 03:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Western Kentucky tornado

On the evening of December 10, 2021, a tornado struck Western Kentucky, killing 57 people, and injuring more than 500. Mayfield, Kentucky was one of the hardest hit, with 22 deaths. The town was also mostly leveled and most of the infrastructure was destroyed. Today marks 4 years since the disaster.

Photograph credit: State Farm

Recently featured:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Western_Kentucky_tornado&oldid=1214627053"