Talk:Tornadoes of 2023

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Poodle23 (talk | contribs) at 18:34, 5 December 2023 (→‎Discussion: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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)[reply]

I farted 72.46.58.62 (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

January 24-25

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

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

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)[reply]

An article might also be justified if the blizzard is significant. 12.74.238.54 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the draft: Draft:Tornado outbreak of November 20, 2023 Tenleycat123 (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

RFC - Inclusion of the November 20-21 tornadic event

Should the November 20-21 tornadic event (8 EF1 tornadoes and 6 EF0 tornadoes) be included as in this version or be excluded as in this version? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • Notes: Two discussion sections occurred prior to this RfC and given that several editors are involved in this disagreement, a third-opinion is off the table and WP:RFCBEFORE is satisfied. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:30, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (leaning exclude) — The event only consisted of weak-end tornadoes. That said, it was the only tornadic event in the United States for the entire month of November, which is why I am neutral. It wasn’t the only event, given Europe had a significant tornadic event earlier in November, which is why I am a slight lean to exclude, since the month’s section wouldn’t be empty. That is my two-sense for this discussion/debate. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose — While it has quite a few tornadoes, these don't have a very high rating. Plus, no deaths occurred, so I think that this shouldn't be included in the page.
    Poodle23 (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornadoes_of_2023&oldid=1188481303"