Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 3, 2019

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

Terrible title[edit]

The title of this article does not specify the location of the tornado outbreak and is instead too specific with the time of occurrence. I suggest a page move as soon as an appropriate name is agreed upon. CentreLeftRight ✉ 06:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I went ahead and changed it. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be some sort of established pattern, see: Tornado outbreak of May 7–10, 2016, Tornado outbreak sequence of May 22–26, 2016, Tornado outbreak of April 27–30, 2014, Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011, Tornado outbreak sequence of May 21–26, 2011. Perhaps it is needed to change those as well or find the MOS regarding these. 93 (talk) 08:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but winter storm/cold wave articles all have both locations and dates in their titles (i.e. January–February 2019 North American cold wave, 2017–18 North American cold wave, Early February 2013 North American blizzard, North American blizzard of 2006, February 5–6, 2010 North American blizzard, March 2010 nor'easter, December 2010 North American blizzard, January 31 – February 2, 2011 North American blizzard, December 2009 North American blizzard, February 5–6, 2010 North American blizzard, just to name a few). Tornadoes should follow the same format. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I titled it as such in accordance with almost all other tornado article titles. I agree, though, that the established norm doesn't make much sense. Alex of Canada (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem that you have a history of working on tornado outbreak articles like other users such as myself, and you clearly don't understand that it was agreed upon about a year or so ago for all tornado articles to follow the "Tornado outbreak of (month and date here)" format. The reason is, if there is another tornado outbreak in Alabama/Georgia later this year, what are you going to title that? Such occurrences are the reasoning behind the formatting. Use your freakin' brain. It doesn't matter if you think the title is "terrible". All tornado outbreak article titles follow that format, and it needs to be changed back for consistency's sake. Really biased, uninformed editing on your part. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]
What the hell are you even talking about? I created the article with the proper name, and someone else changed it after. You're yelling at the wrong person. In fact, you're overreacting either way. Save the insults for when someone maliciously edits. Alex of Canada (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why am I unable to move the page back now? This is ridiculous. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]
I do agree with changing the title, as we need to stay consistent with other tornado outbreak articles. – Braxton C. Womacktalk to me! 17:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the article back to the original title to maintain consistency with WP:SEVERE articles. Tornado outbreak titles are handled with duration dates unless they have received widespread usage of a particular name (i.e. 2011 Super Outbreak. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, that comment was directed at CentreLeftRight and TomCat4680, not you. You did nothing wrong. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]
Sorry I changed it without a consensus and I'm not familiar with previous protocols. My mistake. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not put ratings until official[edit]

Someone keeps changing the Lee County tornado to EF4. So far it is only confirmed to be EF3+. While an EF4 upgrade is admittedly likely, it is not confirmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syryquil1 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: @StormChaserJosh: Please wait until an official statement from NWS Birmingham. News reports or storm chaser estimates do not constitute an official upgrade. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There could also possibly be other EF3 rated tornadoes during that outbreak, but so far, the tornadoes are only confirmed to be EF2+. Official ratings could change at a later time once the nws has an official statement. StormChaserJosh (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Ok, they officially upgraded it from an EF3 to an EF4. StormChaserJosh (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an EF4 yet. No sources as I see it show that. 8medalkid (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@8medalkid: NWS Birmingham posted the upgrade a little bit ago. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What if they find EF5 damage in another area of the town. StormChaserJosh (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for updating me on it. 8medalkid (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Cairo reading? That would surely indicate an EF1+ as it was a 102 mph gust. 8medalkid (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@8medalkid: - I wrote in the description box when I reverted you earlier, but it's too complicated to assign the EF1 rating to Cairo just based on the mesonet. Any number of factors could impact that. Perhaps the instrument was elevated. Perhaps the instrument was malfunctioning. It's better to wait for the NWS to issue a preliminary rating. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 19:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The last EF5 rated tornado was the 2013 Moore tornado. StormChaserJosh (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Didn't see that description. 8medalkid (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the final rating could either be an EF4 which is what it is at currently, or it could be an EF5, which would've been 2,114 days since the last EF5 happened. StormChaserJosh (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are still assessing the damage and its still an EF4. StormChaserJosh (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There could've been a possibility that the winds could've been above 200 miles per hour (mph), lets wait until the next update of the report. StormChaserJosh (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The tornado that happened in Jefferson County, Florida was rated an EF3 so already so two tornadoes were rated above EF3. StormChaserJosh (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The EF4 rating is still preliminary, the rating could change if they find cracked pavements which happens if its an EF5, also the bricks that were moved make it seem like it could be an EF5. StormChaserJosh (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also a fridge was still intact seeing photos of the damage, also we should create a page about all F4 and EF4 tornadoes in history. StormChaserJosh (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, they have now confirmed an EF0 tornado in Bullcock county. StormChaserJosh (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting unnecessary clutter on this talk page. I know the first violent tornado in the US in almost two years is exciting, but this is not a forum; it is for discussing the content and any issues with this article. Either the rating will be upgraded or it won't. Speculating on it at this time pointless. I am also opposed to creating the list of F4 and EF4 tornadoes. The List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes is already rather cluttered as it is. An F4/EF4 list would be ten times longer. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The EF4 rating is still preliminary as there are still surveys going on, also the leon country EF3 tornado should also be added to the notable tornadoes of the outbreak. StormChaserJosh (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a preliminary rating, but it still comes from the official source. Is there a problem with that? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the final rating is most likely going to be EF4 as no EF5 damage is found yet. StormChaserJosh (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone made an analysis of the damage and it was believed to be EF5 damage, so possibly the rating is EF5. StormChaserJosh (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NWS said it was EF3 damage, but it looked more like it was EF5 damage along Lee road 166. StormChaserJosh (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is a reliable source claiming there is EF5 damage, we cannot have it here. Even if a reliable source does dispute the rating, we still go with the official rating. Trying to assess the damage yourself for this article is original research. You seem to want this to be an EF5, but please stop cluttering this talk page with speculation. It contributes nothing. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The EF4 tornado that hit lee county was the worst since a previous EF4 tornado that happened on march 20 1875 and the worst march tornado since 1932. StormChaserJosh (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to add the F4 tornadoes category to the outbreak article. StormChaserJosh (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bolding the death tolls[edit]

I've lost count of how many times I've had to correct this. Death tolls haven't been bolded for years. It's like everyone has forgotten every single formatting policy. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

"deputy sheriff", not "a sheriff" in Damage subsection.[edit]

Lee County, Alabama, has only one elected sheriff. Those officers who work for him are properly referred to as "deputy sheriff". Under the assumption that it was not the sheriff himself making the comment, the sentence would begin, "A Lee County sheriff's deputy described the damage...". If it was the sheriff himself, it should read "Lee County Sheriff Jay Jones described the damage...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throgmo (talk • contribs) 23:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Outbreak"?[edit]

Using outbreak in the title suggests (at least to me) that it was contained first (by what?), or that it spread like a epidemic disease. Is this common wording in weather reporting? -DePiep (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the proper terminology, and almost all articles about a series of tornadoes use the term. Alex of Canada (talk) 12:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is the proper terminology. See tornado outbreak. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 March 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak of March 3, 2019 → 2019 Beaurguard tornado outbreak – Without this tornado, the outbreak is of questionable notability. This is what everyone remembers it for, and it is the clear primary topic, therefore it should be this title. None of the other tornadoes killed anyone, where’s this became the deadliest tornado in 6 years. 173.220.46.178 (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – Against project naming policy. United States Man (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but project guidelines of WP:COMMONNAME take precedence over local guidelines. 173.220.46.178 (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That’s not the common name lol. I’m speaking for all the regular editors here in saying that everyone would oppose this move. United States Man (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agreed with United States Man. The Beauregard tornado got the most media attention, but I don't think any sources actually referred to it as such. This is pretty standard for tornado outbreaks because, in most cases, there is no common name. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Excerpting meteorological synopsis[edit]

I've finally stumbled upon the 2019 Beauregard tornado article, and I'm pleased by how complete and informative it is. Not only the tornado summary, but the meteorological synopsis section of that article is very complete, much more than the one present in this article. I would like to either excerpt the synopsis and placing it into this article as well, or copying it and removing the tornado-specific images placed in that section. However, I wanted to know if anyone is opposed to such a change, or if it is pertinent to do so. Mjeims (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe it would be a good idea for both articles to have the same MS section. They should be different. I don’t like how the December Kentucky tornado has been transcluded from the outbreak article, but I haven’t written a better one (nor has anyone else). United States Man (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its fine. But I do believe this MS section needs some work. Maybe I'll get into it later. Mjeims (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are you saying that an article for this tornado is okay? I just wanted to confirm that. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I believe that article is fine. The only thing I said was that I read the MS section in that article there and thought that it could be brought here as well. But I agree with United States Man that it would not be ideal to have the same MS description in both articles. That's all. Mjeims (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornado_outbreak_of_March_3,_2019&oldid=1210742169"