Talk:Tornado outbreak of November 4–5, 2022

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

Good job[edit]

This looks like it could be a good article! Keep up the good work! :) Poodle23 (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the debris...[edit]

no way there was 30,000ft od debris that was from the tornado Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, this seems like a devastating event unfolding. Probably a significant event, and even potentially historic. Too soon to tell, however. Praying for all those involved. Sarrail (talk) 01:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!![edit]

I was watching Ryan Hall, and one of the people he talked with said there could be an EF4+ tornado. Eh, we just have to wait and see. Poodle23 (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching Reed Timmer, but we'll have to wait until the NWS surveys the damage. Sarrail (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hoping it won't be a ef5 Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreak was just November 4[edit]

Since Tornado outbreak of November 4, 2022 already exists, this page cannot be moved yet. I held off on logging that for CSD because I'm not sure if anything will be confirmed after midnight. Most likely, however, this will need to be moved to Tornado outbreak of November 4, 2022. United States Man (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main tornado outbreak was on November 4, no need to expand it to the 5th. Looking at today's reports, there is no tornadoes reported. Sarrail (talk) 13:30, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tornadoes confirmed between 5z and 12z will be listed on November 4 at SPC, despite being on November 5, so that logic isn't sound (neither is the fact you linked to October 29 reports). However, like I said, I don't know for sure that nothing will be confirmed after midnight at this time, especially since warnings in Arkansas continued until very late. United States Man (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that link to October 29? We'll have to wait, due to the uncertainty of timing of these tornadoes. Sarrail (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Current owner of that version of the article. @ChessEric, is the one I believe can execute the redirect to this one. I similarly agree that no tornadoes occurred within the November 5 timeframe, so outbreak article title should be corrected. Mjeims (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved the article. When I made the draft, it looked like something would continue just barely into the 5th, but luckily, the event stopped barely before the 5th. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh shoot, I hope I just didn’t delete the information. I’ll get an admin to help figure this out… Elijahandskip (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You only moved the talk page and caused more confusion. I requested CSD at Tornado outbreak of November 4, 2022 to try to fix that. United States Man (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the page's history is deleted.Yeah, an admin is needed. Sarrail (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? What was that? XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I knew all that would end up being unnecessary so I should've just stayed quiet. lol United States Man (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i couldn't help more[edit]

What the title says. I mainly just got into Wikipedia about a month ago, but you guys are harder-working than me. So again, sorry. Poodle23 (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ratings[edit]

Someone put the long track tornado as a ef4+, we don't know if it is a ef4 anyway im pretty sure the surveys started a few hours ag, but all of the tornados would be likely be ef1+ because thats the the simplest way of prerating it, Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and if t was a mid to high end ef4 that still will slab houses and its still very rare to see a ef4, and in fall too. i wish yesterday's event busted :( Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
me too, i hope the rating for the idabel tornado is at least ef3. i mean honestly, look at those damage photos. Poodle23 (talk) 16:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and looking back, we got 2 EF4 tornadoes! quite the event. Poodle23 (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Name[edit]

Abpu847 The name should remain Tornado outbreak of November 4, 2022. I have requested a speedy deletion on the redirect to move it back. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we gotta stop him from doing things like this. Poodle23 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abpu847 From now on, if you don't know what you are doing, please refrain from performing page moves. Thank you. United States Man (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerest apologies, I had no ill intentions. The name is being used and I only wished to establish consistency. If that was the wrong call, please revert my edit. Abpu847 (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We got a problem[edit]

Abpu847 is unnecessarily renaming things here. We need to stop him. Poodle23 (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was suggested the edit due to the name circulating. No need to stop me, you can change it back. No malicious intent. Abpu847 (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. It's ok. Sounds like a good name anyway, but we gotta keep the original name. Anyways, thanks for replying. Poodle23 (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i don't know whats the red river means and idk why its in the name, it looks horrible as in the name for the outbreak, not to be mean but why can't we have the date as the name? Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with having the name as the date. In fact, i want the name to be the date. Poodle23 (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D The Red River serves as the border between Oklahoma and Texas, it's not just a random name.Abpu847 (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
well i didn't know, now i know Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks Abpu847 (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change name to avoid confusion[edit]

So the name of this is Currently: Red River Outbreak, but there was already an outbreak with the same name from 1979. I suggest we change the name to something more towards "Texarkana Outbreak" instead, just to avoid confusion Flameguard (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, we're just gonna keep it at "Tornado outbreak of November 4, 2022". Poodle23 (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we are required to use just the date. I made a mistake by changing the name. It should be reverted shortly. Abpu847 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

extra source[edit]

this source from the washington post has some info about the outbreak. thought it would be useful incase some editors wanted to add. also, it says that 17 tornadoes were reported - not sure on the validity of that. greyzxq talk 01:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NCEI[edit]

It’s honestly sad how some Wikipedians think leaving a value as unknown for 3.5 months is productive to the encyclopedia. Honestly this is the worst WikiProject ever. 172.85.236.14 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

then don't reply? Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 20:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Idabel Tornado[edit]

NWS says that Idabel was 2000 yards wide. Check the damage assessment tool kit. 2601:247:C500:43E0:D83:3ADE:C8E:8BD (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado upgrade[edit]

Geez, the Idabel tornado got upgraded to EF4. That makes 3 violent tornadoes this year. Poodle23 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

kinda crazy how this one was a day off of the april 5 and march 5 ef4s Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i have a radar image[edit]

ill let wiki decide where to put it

I have a imagine of the New Boston tornado on radar with debris shown on radar Topkid51 (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It most likely will not be needed. The section is only large enough for two pictures and NOAA released damage photos for two of the three locations of EF3 damage, so those damage pictures are the two pictures for the section. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the reason above,  Not done. Sarrail (talk) 14:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

another tornado on the 5th[edit]

there was a ef1 on the 5th in Arkansas Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

where in arkansas and when (Arkansas time) Poodle23 (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2 SE CENTRAL in hot springs (county) Arkansas and on 04:26 Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/221105_rpts.html Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
thanks Poodle23 (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
wait it already shows it on the november 4 event. is that incorrect? or should we let it stay there Poodle23 (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source: [1] Sarrail (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

first violent tornado[edit]

just because it was wider don't mean it was stronger, width dont mean the tornado strength @Poodle23 Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edit. Poodle23, please add a source to clarify if that tornado was the strongest. Sarrail (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well even then, we don't know which was stronger: Powderly or Idabel, because they both have wind estimates of 170 mph and are both EF4. Poodle23 (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't we just remove the "strongest" word entirely? Poodle23 (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since they both have estimated same wind speeds, sure, why not. I observe you have done it here. Sarrail (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i guess it was smaller than we thought, still pretty large wedge not a mile wide, ice skater effect? Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use DAT to determine the number of peak damage points[edit]

Title says it all. I had to revert some stuff. The DAT is NOT 100% comprehensive, nor is it an accurate representation of how many areas of a certain damage intensity have occurred, as sometimes the DAT doesn't include each point of damage, and others are only mentioned in the text survey. Conversely, sometimes multiple damage points are placed for one structure. It is not a good idea to use the DAT to ascertain how many damage points of a certain intensity occurred, and results in inaccurate info. Please refrain from doing so in the future, and only use text surveys to determine how many structures sustained what EF level damage. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I 100% agree with this. DAT is not official and there is too much reliance on it around here. United States Man (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, NOAA classifies the DAT as a preliminary information tool. Once NCEI releases stuff in January 2023 about this event, then we can add how many structures sustained what level of damage type stuff. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't really what I'm saying. It's a great resource for detailed damage info and I fully support it being used as a main source. I'm just saying it has limitations regarding quantitative info (how many structures or areas sustained what intensity of damage). When it comes to location, path movement, damage details, and path description, it is by far the best resource. When writing longer detailed summaries, it is an absolute must. Though it should be used in combination with and cross-referenced with NWS text survey summaries and NCDC entries to ensure accuracy. In a nutshell, use the DAT as much as you want, but understand the limitations it has.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]
Agreed. When I first got on Wikipedia, I wrote a section on the Nixville, SC EF4 tornado, which the DAT had only about 5 damage points for (thanks TI12 for approving it so early on despite this; it helped my confidence). DAT is nice, but you have to literally analyze EVERYTHING, which is not always possible. Additionally, the DAT upgraded the tornado from EF3 to EF4, but it was not officially upgraded by the NWS Charleston until the next day. Always remember that the DAT is preliminary and has it limitations despite being so helpful. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarksville/Idabel tornado being 5th costliest[edit]

Just starting the discussion because of some disagreement between editors. Honestly, it might be good to see in a RfC (on like a policy noticeboard) whether looking at a chart that is sourced and determining the placement of those numbers falls under WP:OR or WP:CALC. It would be one of those two. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the first reverts (other than mine) ignored WP:CALC, but I don't feel like making a 78-word explanation of how that works right now. Poodle23 (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornado_outbreak_of_November_4–5,_2022&oldid=1205732890"