Talk:Tornadoes of 2024

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Format Issue Status?

Hey all, back from an unannounced break. Before my break, it looked like there was overwhelming support to go back to the old format, but now it looks like everything is dead in the water. What happened? I cannot make sense of the discussion. If most users want the old format, don't we just go to back to the old format? I don't understand what is getting in the way, and would really appreciate it if someone explained the current situation. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Personally I opposed the new format at first, but have come to enjoy it better as I've used it frequently over the past months. I did not even know there was a discussion to revert back to the old format to begin with, so maybe that may be a point; that said discussion was maybe not more extensively encouraged throughout the Severe Weather Project. Mjeims (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@TornadoInformation12: despite my idea to request formal closure in a week for the big discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Discussion -- New Proposal for layout of Tornadoes of YYYY articles, Jasper Deng argued that a week would not be long enough ("Something this contentious ought to stay open for discussion for much longer than just a couple of weeks"), so an RFC was started. Right now, there is over a 2/3 majority for the old format (11 to 3), but like always, Wikipedia bureaucracy put a temporary hold on the idea and we have an RFC set to expire on June 7. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the old format idea brought by @TornadoInformation12 is a great idea. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

One thing though. The current format appears to have been used for years. The by month format hasn’t been used since 2010. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:8DA2:1017:AC5D:DA4A (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

If someone can explain what the “old format” is; that would be great. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:8DA2:1017:AC5D:DA4A (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Because I haven’t noticed any changes between the 2022 format and 2023. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:8DA2:1017:AC5D:DA4A (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, the format was changed in 2023, and several users expanded the new format up to 2010. Look at Tornadoes of 2007 for the old format in usage. It works better for an encyclopedic format. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

And I agree with the 2007 format 100%. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is maintaining European tornado table

Asking this question once again, because my prediction is coming true. Why are we even trying to keep a European tornado table when nobody has the time to keep it updated? It's been abandoned since early April. Is it really worth including something if nobody puts in the effort to maintain it? It's a serious question, because I feel that this is becoming an example of "We'll get to it later" becoming "We'll get to it never". TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation

I am going to be as honest as possible here: Stop worrying about if an article is not updated or “perfect”. Wikipedia is a work in progress. As a reminder, there are dozens of tornado articles that are not “updated” or perfect. List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes, Tornadoes of 1982, 1969 Hazlehurst tornadoes, just to name a few random ones. If you think it shouldn’t be an article, AFD it. If your reasoning is solely because it isn’t “maintained”, then you have 0 ground to stand on due to Wikipedia not being complete and being a work in progress. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I also seem to recall reminding you last time you complained about that list not being updated that it took me 20 minutes to update it. Hmm… 20-30 minutes worth of time to fix it seems better that continuing complaining. This year alone you have started multiple discussions regarding “why does this list exist”. I’m just going to be blunt: AFD it or fix it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for seeming rude there. I can update it later today. But if you open any other discussions in the future regarding it, it better be an AFD or I am just going to consider it more or less disruptive since you are complaining about it with no action (AFD or fixing it). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I hear you, and I'm not going to pretend I have the time or motivation to tackle it myself, but that's kind of my point. What I'm saying is that nobody, including me, seems to want to work on it (I haven't even gotten though the March events yet, let alone the huge outbreaks that happened in April and May). Yes Wikipedia is a collaborative work in progress but that requires, well, active collaboration. I'm not trying to pass the buck to other editors, even if that's how it comes off.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Probably the biggest explanation here is that a lot of people including myself, don’t pay too much attention to tornadoes in Europe. Probably because we’re so focused on how many tornadoes have touched down in the United States this year (which totals up to be a lot of tornadoes). West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

When you don’t pay attention; it’s a lot more likely that things slip. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that a lot of people here including you want to concentrate more on US events? Well, why don't we revert back to the old US centric format?

Provided that the old oligarchy of weather editors finally relents to a sensible return to normalcy. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

It is not good to have slips in information, format, structure and general readability on Wikipedia, to name a few important things.

I know Wikipedia is not going to be fully perfect. There will be merits to some and some ideas editors have. But we editors should still strive for perfection, for high-quality articles and WikiRecognition. Therefore we should adopt the US-based page format for yearly tornado counts, as the benefits of that format far outweigh the detractors. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

And I completely agree 1,000% on that. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC) (re-signed under current username)

I'm sort of not surprised by this. We had an annual European list a while back but stopped updating it around 2014 or so. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Well we need to update it! Now is as good a time as any. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge May 19 and May 20-22 Events?

What would you guys think about merging these two sections, and potentially even creating an article? While May 20th was uneventful, the other three days all featured strong, damaging to straight-up devastating tornadoes, including the deadliest one so far this year. I'm thinking this may turn out to be a rather impactful four-day outbreak when all the surveying wraps up. Would love to hear everyone's input on this. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

1. Draft:Tornado outbreak of May 20–22, 2024

2. They are not connected.

MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 16:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

OK that works. I didn't pay attention to see if the May 19 was from a separate weather system or not, so I assume it was? In any case, I do actually think May 20-22 alone is enough for an article, even if the tornado count isn't very high. The impact of this event has been pretty devastating regardless, big outbreak or not.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation

I think it was a seperate system, I'll have to do more research on it. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 17:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

How about a tornado outbreak sequence section? There were tornadoes on the 20th, so its a connected stretch of activity. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

That would be a good idea West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Was the Greenfield tornado an EF4 or EF4+?

I keep seeing the "EF4" rating in the article, although the tornado itself hasn't been confirmed to be an EF4. Should it be "EF4+", "EF4±" or just keep it as EF4? I'm still kinda confused on the rating. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 12:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep it as EF4+ until finalized. It means that it is at least a confirmed EF4, possibly higher. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

No. The plus should only be added when the NWS explicitly says "at least" [x] damage was found. All tornadoes are inherently preliminary until they are finalized in Storm Data. They used the "at least" EF3 wording early on, but that wording does not exist after the upgrade to EF4, so the plus should be removed. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 18:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

That is literally what they said. "At least EF4 damage has been found in Greenfield". MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 18:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Where? Their tweet says Survey teams have identified EF4 damage in Greenfield and southern Adair county and their PNS says After completing damage assessments across Adams and Adair Counties, including Greenfield, survey teams have identified damage consistent with EF4 tornado damage, with peak wind speeds of 175-185 mph. EF4 damage was located within the community of Greenfield and across rural portions of southern Adair County. The fact they added a specific range of 175-185 mph is another point against treating it as an EF4+. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 18:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

But if you read it; it also says that “further refinement of the tornado statistics are possible.” Which means it could be higher than the 175 to 185 mph that it had found. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:842E:D85C:F39B:604A (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Further refinement is always possible. Tornado tracks are constantly tweaked for weeks after they're confirmed. That's not specific to this tornado. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 19:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The tornado will not be upgraded to EF5 and the plus sign should be removed. United States Man (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

How do you know? Anything can happen, even if it seems impossible. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 19:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you are wishcasting. Based on the damage and the resulting survey, the tornado will not be upgraded. United States Man (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@MemeGod27: Yes anything can happen including me suddenly becoming an EF5 tornado, but it would be original research for me to speculate that I have become an EF4+ tornado, however, if I had a reliable source which told @United States Man and Wxtrackercody: that I was an EF5 tornado, I could possibly include it in Wikipedia.Jason Rees (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

In agreement about removing the +. It kind of is OR. We commonly see "EF3+" because the Quick Response Team needs to be called in to verify anything above EF3. At this point, considering the wind estimates are mid-range rather than high-end EF4, it's doubtful it will be upgraded to EF5 anyway. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Remove it for certain. Yes. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Maryland?

Can someone please start looking into sources surrounding a strong long-tracked family of tornadoes that resulted in a tornado touchdown in the Baltimore metro area; and a particularly strong tornado around the Gaithersburg area just north of DC. Please? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It's early yet. Damage surveys are still underway. Keep an eye out for statements from the Baltimore/Washington NWS office. Though I don't think the Gaithersburg tornado was that strong. From early damage pics I don't anticipate a rating higher than EF1. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It had a PDS Tornado Warning on it at one point. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

But I’ll keep an eye out. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Tornadoes also affected several other states. Surveys are also planned in parts of Virginia and West Virginia as well. I am also aware of Tornado Warnings in Delaware too last night. But I haven’t checked the NWS Philadelphia/Mount Holly website yet. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Highest rating was a high end EF1. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

And two things @TornadoLGS, number 1, I already know about the IEM, I’ve used it before (including on other Wikipedia articles). Secondly, a friendly reminder that you forgot to time stamp your signature. Remember it’s four tildes, not three! (Three tildes only generates your username.)West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 07:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, a good place to look is the Iowa Environmental Mesonet. They archive statements that don't always appear on the NWS main page. Mainly we look for public information statements (PNS). You'll see we make heavy use of it on the monthly tornado lists. As to the PDS warning, we have had those, and even tornado emergencies, associated with weak tornadoes. TornadoLGS (talk) Timestamp of that comment was 20:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC). Timestamp added by West Virginia WXeditor (talk).

But let’s please stay on topic. That way this discussion doesn’t get closed. Keeping in mind that @Ks0stm already closed one discussion because it was turning into a forum; and I (as an IP) closed another one for the same reason. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I know, it was kind of borderline. But I wanted to balance things since there sometimes is a tendency to jump the gun on the significance of events, though this one clearly fits in. Also the three "~"s was just a typo. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

June 3rd South Africa tornado

Should it have an article? It is notable, killing 11, displacing 1200, and occuring at an unusual time if the year. The section on this page is also getting lengthy. I think it should have a separate article, what do you all think? Weather article creator (talk) 03:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Currently the section is six sentences long and has only one source, not what I would call lengthy. It would need more than that for an article. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose; I agree with @TornadoLGS on this. Only one source; that is most certainly NOT enough to warrant a standalone article. There really needs to be at least half a dozen sources before I would even consider writing an article about this. Any standalone article attempt would potentially get PRODed, AfD’ed, tagged with a bunch of templates, etc. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Make semi-protected?

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.

---

I know this isnt done often, but with vandalism being more common, should we consider making this article semi-protected? Weather article creator (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

If vandalism increases, that would be a good idea. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, @Weather article creator is a confirmed sock puppet of @Lokicat3345, what a shame. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see recent vandalism on this page anyway. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems to be Lokicat’s calling card. He likes to glorify drama. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2024 (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.

Tornadic research (How to best format)

So I think the new tornadic research section is a good idea, but I got to thinking and want some thoughts on which is the best format.

1. As is, meaning a except of the History of tornado research yearly section (noting that article is only probably 10% done, ballparked...only the larger-research stuff is in there for pre-2022)
2. Only yearly respective-related entries

Now here is the dilemma with both of those options: With the first one, info from past years is included, due to research on past tornadoes being published this year. The second one is what I was originally thinking, but specific tornado studies are relatively rare (I think only a dozen have been published on AMS for 2020-2024 tornadoes). however, majority of research is wide-spread style. For example, the tornado alley shift paper published this year through AMS.

So yeah, really any thoughts or suggestions would be helpful. Like I said, I sort of prefer the 2nd option (not a true excerpt, but yearly-related stuff), however, the lack of individual "2024" (or "2023" or "2022" since those are also somewhat filled in) research is very obvious, since most of the entries and AMS papers aren't true case studies, but rather true academic papers. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, the current (option 1) version might be good as well, since it shows what was actually published or what did occur during the overall tornadic year. But then again, past, non-related year (in this case, non-2024) tornadoes are mentioned. Yeah, I need others to chime in on this. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pings for the regulars and recent editors on this article: TornadoLGS, ChessEric, WestVirginiaWX, Penitentes, IrishSurfer21. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm personally not a fan of this concept, so I'm going to stay out of it for now. ChessEric 21:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Im not sure I am a fan of it either since after all we cannot cover all of the "Tornadic Research" done, within a year or relating to a particular year for obvious reasons, including Wikipedia not being notable. I also feel that the section contains original research such as there being a nine day case study on a particular tornado. If it is too stay then it needs to be reduced just to the most notable pieces of research, cut down on all the Twitter ref and focus on the most notable research of the year.Jason Rees (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I might go with option-1 since many studies are not tied down to a specific year and may include things like long-term climatology. That being said, if a particular tornado had notable research published about it, it would likely be worth mentioning in the section for that outbreak (and/or the article if there is one). TornadoLGS (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I started a draft article (Draft:List of case studies on tornadoes) with the 2020s being an article article (List of case studies on tornadoes (2020–present)), so specific/individual tornado notable research is going to be in those articles, listed by the tornado they are associated with. Pretty much, if it is listed on those lists, it has some notability as it is published research on a specific tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I think option 1 is a good idea after having carefully reviewed it. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Section removed. I have removed the section as there is no consensus (split) for a "tornadic research" in 2024 section. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)