Talk:Tornadoes of 2024

New Model for main tornado article: 2024 suggested changes and improvements

2023 was certainly a challenging year for the severe weather project. From editing warring to Andrew5 attacks to the total debacle that happened in February, we have all been through a lot of hardships. However, this project is getting better and stronger with every passing day and with more editors than ever before, it has become clear that we will continue to improve the articles that are within the project. As I did last year, I will make a list of possible changes and improvements that have been, or I believe should be made. This list will not be like last year when I was not mature enough by Wikipedia rules and standards, so I'm very happy and pleased to present this list.

(1) By far the biggest change that will happen this year will be the new model used for the main tornado pages. Although it has not been totally decided upon what exactly it will truly look like, the main tornado article pages will be redone to be less U.S.-centric. Recommended by DJ Cane, this page will now be broken down by continent instead of month and subsection for countries will be made as needed. Once the new look is decided upon, we will, unfortunately, need to work to update all the previous years as well, which I will address in the second point. Maps for these other regions should also be considered. We will need to decide what to put into infobox (I'm still against a picture collage for the sake of avoiding edit wars), but we can figure that out another time.

(2) Lots of changes were made in the last few years, which include, but are not limited to:

(a) the new look main tornado article page

(b) the new model for tornado charts

(c) the establishment of the IF scale tornado count chart

(d) the tornado reports and tornadoes confirmed wording in the lead were changed

I will also add that many old tornado pages need updated NWS refs as well (there has been almost no effort to fix these it seems).

It goes without saying that this is difficult to manage and handle, but a more concerted effort needs to be made to update older pages, especially during slow times for tornadoes like we are in right now. We keep changing the tornado chart look without fixing the older models, which is creating more work for us. We as a project should really consider fixing these things, even if it's just changing one tornado chart, before we go and start working on a whole bunch of new things.

(3) A benchmark standard needs to be set for when tornadoes/tornado outbreaks need articles. Throughout the year, especially towards the end of the year, numerous disputes came up about whether certain tornadoes or needed articles or not. I saw no problem with the drafts being started just in case an article was needed, although this seemed to be more for the pride of starting the article than for actually being helpful, but I think a sharp line needs to be drawn at this point. I honestly hate to have to say this, but the criteria for tornado articles to be created needs to be clearly defined and any event that doesn't reach that criteria just doesn't get an article, regardless of what happened. Mind you that this policy will only apply to tornado outbreaks and individual tornadoes; storm complexes and winter storm articles are to be excluded as tornadoes added onto those articles is just for completeness' sake when it comes to impacts.

(4) There needs to be more non-tornadic impacts (i.e. wind and hail damage) and impacts (i.e. school and road closures and transportation delays) added to ALL of the articles in the severe weather project. This was something I addressed last year, but, unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have "stuck" yet. The tornadoes (as bad as they are) are rarely the only things that happen during severe weather events and this needs to be addressed in every article. Some articles (i.e. February 2023 North American storm complex, Tornado outbreak sequence of June 14–19, 2023, and Tornado outbreak sequence of June 20–26, 2023) did a good job with this, but others (i.e. Early-March 2023 North American storm complex, Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023, and Tornado outbreak of December 9–10, 2023 {the most recent tornado outbreak to be get an article}) were mediocre at best. This needs to be addressed as this, in my opinion, has been forgotten in this project. Mind you that we are supposed to cover all severe weather, not just tornadoes so we really need to start working towards getting that done as well.

That's all for now. If I need to, I'll add more to this list later. Cheers! — preceding message by ChessEric (talk · contribs) at 18:41 UTC 4 January 2024 diff, originally hidden due to malformed comment TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 01:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure how much definite criteria is going to help, because storms can become notable for a multitude of reasons. I think WP:LASTING and WP:SUSTAINED should be kept in mind, though. While a tornado outbreak like the one on April 4-5 2023 might get a lot of coverage and kill 6 total, it won’t have lasting coverage. WP:SIZERULE should be kept in mind too, though in some cases the sections have excessive detail and should be trimmed. 160.72.80.50 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheAustinMan the new model sucks. just have it in one big chronological list, it makes better sense than this shit 142.118.68.158 (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to this discussion at WikiProject Weather for further details as to how this format came about. A reorganization from the old chronological lists was done to avoid having a confusing combination/interweaving of country/region-specific statistics and information with events outside of those countries/regions. However, this change is still in its infancy, so feel free to discuss at the linked discussion. –TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 19:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think this way out outlining is great and I really like the addition of the European tornado count in the relevant section. Will be watching this space to help contribute further over the course of the year. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 06:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is NOT helpful for US tornadic research purposes. Your new system for page organization is spread out and disorganized at the moments, and for what? Rocketman771 (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Rocketman771 — It fixes the U.S. centric layout of the articles. Imagine if Tropical cyclones in 2024 was 90% the Atlantic hurricane season and 10% the rest of the world. That would seem so wrong. That was what the articles were before (90% US 10% world). Now, it is formatting to be less U.S. centric and more neutral. Does it make U.S. tornadic research “more difficult”? Not really since the tornadoes are all listed in the same place under the U.S. section. You might not like it, but if you are researching only U.S. tornadoes then someone else may be researching only European tornadoes. Things like that, hence why the layout needed changing. Hope that helps explain it. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

To add onto this, I don't understand why having U.S. tornadoes listed specifically under a Untied States section makes it harder to do research for tornadoes in the United States. Logically one would think it would be easier seeing as in the old format those tornadoes were just mixed in with other global events rather than being separated to a specific list only covering the United States. Thus, not only does this method remove most U.S.-centrism, for most readers it also improves their ability to learn about specific U.S. events en masse by already having non-U.S. events filtered out. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 06:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

To WeatherEventWriter and DJ Cane.

You both are right that tropical cyclones are not 90% the Atlantic hurricane season and 10% the rest of the world. It is wrong. However, 80-85% of all tornadoes globally occur in the United States. There are many sources online to back that up. Hence, it would make sense to make these pages U.S. centric.

Besides that, my main problem with this update is that no one is updating the U.S. tornado count or formatting it at all. That is what makes it more difficult? Currently, all tornadic events from February are poorly covered and need expansion on. Also, the monthly format is missing, and there has been no follow ups on editing previous year's articles.

While I respect the opinion of others researching European tornadoes, I certainly do not like this update. I believe the previous layout worked well and there is no need to take such drastic changes now, especially if no one is implementing it across all pages. Changing them now plus editing all other pages (nearly 80+) to remove the "U.S. centric tornado count" disregards established data, ignores well-researched and documented events in the US in favor for minor European outbreaks, and overall is a waste of time going forwards. Rocketman771 (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this argument you bring up would make sense, if the main article under which we are currently undertaking this discussion would be named "Tornadoes of 2024 in the United States" or something of the sort. But the non-too uncommon occurrence of tornadoes outside the US, plus the worldwide accessability to Wikipedia, make it important to include all tornadic events that can be relevant enough, not only the US ones just because most tornadoes occur there. If you look at an article like this one, you'll discover that not all tornado events in Europe or other parts of the world are insignificant, and there is value to be added to the main yearly articles if these foreign tornadoes are included.

I know current articles covering international tornadoes may be incomplete or lacking altogether, but I believe there is merit in taking the extra step/running the extra mile and adding all we can in yearly articles, so that viewers from outside the US can learn and read about tornadic in areas that may closer to them, for example. Mjeims (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

While there may be merit in taking the "extra mile", I believe the effort going into turning this page international could be better spent on reverting everything to the old format and just fleshing out the special sections on international events, e.g. (July Xx-Yy, Romania/Greece/Italy Event) in the US July 202X tornado count section.

And why should people have to learn about tornadic events closer to them? Why should us American tornado researchers have to bow down to pesky European Wikipedia editors? This format is completely unhinged. Rocketman771 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You have not yet given a reason that has more meat to it than you simply being mildly inconvenienced. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 22:48, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have also been mildly inconvenienced by the previous format. Why implement these changes? Rocketman771 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you European by any chance? Rocketman771 (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

respond to me you coward Rocketman771 (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Be patient. Not all wikipedians are online every day. 2600:1014:B136:82AF:0:2C:6FD7:D01 (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Its a common misconception to believe, that Tornadoes are an US-American thing. Since there is no comparable research outside of the US, we aren´t even able to give an estimate, how many Tornadoes happen outside of the US.

Including Tornado Events outside of the US / North America may lead to better understanding, that basically any Place in the World has them. That a lot of Countries have heavily damaging and significant Tornadoes regularely. So in my Opinion it is very Important, that Wikipedia also acknowledges the International Threat.

Note: If 80-85% of all Tornadoes per Year worldwide occour in the US, that would mean there are only 1400-1500 Tornadoes each Year globally. The US has 1200 and a great research and recording not found anywhere else in the World. Europe currently stands at 400 with only a few countries having a similar Level of research and recording. The actual Number might be quite a bit higher. And then we haven´t talked about China, India/South Asia, Argentina/Brazil and Canada, which most likely have 100+ Tornadoes annually as well. 2A02:810B:1040:5230:6DED:DCF5:94D:77D0 (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Tornado prone Regions mentioned in the Introduction text

The first paragrah of the article (like all other Tornadoes of [year] articles, so asking this specifically in the 2024 Discuss section might be the wrong place but i don't know where else) mentions two "categories" where Tornadoes happen. 1. Where strong and destructive Tornadoes happen most frequently 2. Occasionally and somewhat regularely

I noticed that Argentina is mentioned in both.

In general i think its very difficult to answer how common tornadoes are in [country] because of a lack of research in most places. So any kind of categorization might be misleading.

On the other side we still can say tornado activity in a country like New Zealand is on a different Level than in countries mentioned in the first category.

Personally i would have said china is also a country where strong Tornadoes are rather common. As well as Europe (30 strong ones in 2022, summary for 2023 not published yet).

Maybe there is a Way to still categorize Areas. So far it seems to be rather empirical than based on an actual number/density/rate... which might be a better way and not affected by general misconceptions many people have on tornadoes outside of North America. Though there is again the ptoblem with the lack of tornado research in most places. 185.35.110.99 (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

January 8-9

Alright folks, I know it’s still early but what are your thoughts? At least two fatalities and the Panama City Beach tornado might have been a high-end EF2 or an EF3. Lots of other tornadoes, some strong, will likely be confirmed as surveys continue. However, in terms of notability for an article, I’m on the fence. Could go either way depending on how the surveys turn out. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The winter storm is also notable, so I think a storm complex article should be made.71.190.208.91 (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Considering how "mid" this outbreak was, I'm skeptical of a standalone article. However, the DAT continues to add tornadoes, and it seems we might go above 20 separate tornadoes from this outbreak. Curious to know others' thoughts.

P.S. @TornadoInformation12 be sure to sign off your replies. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@ChessEric@TornadoInformation12 Letting you guys know an article has been created for this event and will need substantial development to warrant staying up. Wikiwillz (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

After some consideration, I've decided that unless the tornado total climbs significantly, this one falls just short of being article-worthy. If Marianna also got an EF3 rating that would have probably just barely made it notable enough, but it got rated EF2, so I'm gonna say no to article creation.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I want to remind @TornadoInformation12: and @Wikiwillz: that tornadoes are not the sole determiner of notability. In this case, the storm caused two wind related fatalities as well, two others died due to the storm in the Great Lakes, we had major snow and a blizzard in the Plains and Midwest, and NYC got pretty severe flooding. An article titled January 2024 North American storm complex, similar to the February 2023 North American storm complex, where it was decided that the tornadoes were only notably in the context of the larger system. 12.74.238.38 (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

This system may need a storm complex article given the impacts it caused. I just thought I'd remind everyone that tornado outbreaks, especially in the winter, are usually not just about tornadoes touching down; the systems that produce them also have other non-tornadic impacts like hail and wind damage, snow, ice, etc. ChessEric 00:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok that's fair. The non-tornadic impacts of the system were significant so I'd say a storm complex article is definitely on the table, if not probably necessary. It's just not quite enough for a tornado outbreak article.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Given the fact that multiple deadly tornadoes have been reported, in addition to numerous strong events, I thought that this event was sufficiently notable as to merit its own article, so I have already started it. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Issue With Europe Section/Countries In Parentheses

There's a potential issue with the format, strictly related to the Europe section and the countries being listed in the parentheses. So the most recent event impacted Turkey and Greece, and that's what's in the parentheses. The problem is, as Europe gets more active later in the year, it's not going to be that simple. It isn't uncommon for European tornado outbreaks involve 5 or more countries, and I feel like there will be certain events in which we can't list them all in a set of parenthesis. It just wouldn't look aesthetically pleasing at all. A hypothetical example:

July 7-9 (France, Germany, Belgium, Ukraine, Poland, and Italy)

I just think it's gonna look clunky and just kinda "off". So the way I see it we have three options:

1.) Ignore the aesthetic issues and just list all impacted countries anyway.

2.) Above a certain level of countries impacted (say, four or more), just have the parenthesis say (Multiple Countries) instead.

3.) Don't have parenthesis at all, and have information on the countries impacted in the actual section.

What do you all think? I'm open to whatever idea seems the most popular. At the end of the day, it isn't a huge deal, and if we have to list all countries, then so be it. I just worry about how it will look if there's an unusually prolific outbreak in Europe.

Also one more thing, why are we including waterspouts in the yearly total for Europe? A waterspout is technically a separate phenomenon, and for US events, we only list them if they're mesocyclonic or hit land. I worry that the total is going to wind up including every little fair-weather waterspout off the coast of Italy and Greece, which will falsely inflate the yearly total. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

If there are many countries, I don't see an issue with just using a region of Europe instead. This should be sufficient for most outbreaks, and if outbreaks affect numerous areas, then multiple regions can be listed. That said, your example is a bit tricky given that the affected countries are quite separated, and those instances may need to be decided on a case-by-case basis. –TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 16:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

1)I think it would have just been fine if kept how we have been doing it for prior years. The issue with separating regions is just scrolling over the same dates over a rather long page several times over. It generates a physical redundancy that goes against everything I've been taught in levels 1-3 graphic design classes for websites. It may lead to less reader retention.

I think if you guys want to physically separate the regions to generate more clarity, you can always create a separate "tornadoes of xxxx" for a region. Similar to how the tropical pages are set up. I think this creates more clarity and organization that is wanted.

2)I think keeping spouts in there is fine if they did damage or are a rather noteworthy event similar to the CO landspout "fest" in 2018. MariosWX (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Waterspouts that cause damage?? That by definition, isn’t a waterspout, but a tornado. I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying. I’m not talking about landspouts or landfalling waterspouts, I’m talking about tiny little fair weather waterspouts that stay over the ocean and never reach land. Those are very common in the Mediterranean during the summer, but still get listed as tornadoes in the ESWD. We can’t be including those, as they aren’t tornadoes. For example, afternoon fair weather waterspouts are also common in the Florida Keys, but they don’t get listed as tornadoes in the NCDC database or here unless they hit land. Same should apply in Europe, as otherwise, the total will be falsely inflated by non-tornadic events. Also having an entirely different “Tornadoes of XXXX” pages for different continents is simply an impractical idea that will further complicate things. Besides North America and Europe, other continents don’t have reliable, accessible tornado databases, and most don’t get enough significant yearly tornadoes to justify that. All global tornado information should be found in one place. For the European countries issue though, I think going by region for larger outbreaks could work, but what if say, there’s an outbreak in Eastern Europe, but also a few weak tornadoes in the UK from the same system? That would be on opposite sides of the continent. Would we just say (Multiple Regions) in that scenario? I feel like this new format has created more problems than it has fixed, and my enthusiasm and support for it is rapidly decreasing. I’m starting to think this is a misguided attempt at fixing something that wasn’t broken to begin with. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the European tornado total to what the European Severe Weather database lists as 'over land' instead of 'over land, water, and unknown' (what it was previously). EuropeanXTwisters (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Aren´t Waterspouts technically also Tornadoes, just over Water? In that case the way its currently written sounds like Waterspout-Tornadoes are not Tornadoes (which as far as i understand the official definitions would be wrong). Either we completely ignore Waterspouts entirely, as it is done with the US. Or we add them as Waterspout-Tornadoes which weren´t landfalling. But for consitency i think its better to just go with the ESWD entries shown when picking "over land", in that case landfalling Waterspouts are included too (as it is done with the US). 2A02:810B:1040:5230:24F1:7B2:3F6C:352 (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think in major events covering more than, say, three nations we can reasonably go without the parenthesis. When appropriate we might say (Western Europe) or (Balkans) or something but in the example you describe I don't think we need to qualify it. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 06:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Ok much appreciated. However, are you listing "over land/water" database entries too? Landfalling waterspouts still count, even if all they do is kick up some sand. The only thing that needs to be excluded are waterspouts that never impact an are listed as "over water".

(talk) 13:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

If you enter tornadoes 'over land' in the ESWD, it still comes up with landfalling waterspouts, the documentation of the event will just say 'occurring over: waterland'. So if there is a landfalling waterspout, it would be included in the amount of tornadoes as well. EuropeanXTwisters (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Mind you that this is all trial and error. This is the first time we've done something like this, so it's going to take some time to figure out. I thought the same thing as TI12 at first when it came to trying to figure out how to split the regions, but we can always go back and change things. I, for one, am starting to wonder whether or not we were splitting this too much, but this is why I suggested that different continents possibly get their own articles. Again, this is the first time we're doing this, so I think some patience is necessary. This is what the talk pages are for.

However, I will say that we shouldn't be counting waterspouts, and they should only be mentioned if they cause damage to boats on the water or something like that. There is absolutely no justifiable reason to try to have a count for waterspouts. ChessEric 00:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm cool with giving this format a try, and you are correct, patience is important and I need to remember that. Let's see how things turn out once Europe, Asia, and South America get active this spring and summer. However with that said, the separate articles for separate continents idea is a hard, hard no from me. I'd rather keep this current format 100 times more than doing something like that. It isn't a good idea to split up yearly articles for every continent because:

1.) It would completely de-consolidate yearly tornado information into a separated, segmented mess with reader/research-friendliness completely out the window.

2.) The only two continents with reliable tornado databases with public access are North America and Europe. We can barely scrape enough sourcing for Asian and South American events, and having an entire page dedicated to them is dubious at best.

3.) Places like Oceana region and Africa can, and do go entire years without a single significant tornado, and when they do, it's usually just two or three events. An entire yearly page dedicated to something like that is just plain silly.

In a nutshell, it isn't practical, and if we care about our readers and aren't losing sight of the actual purpose of us doing this, which is to provide a one-stop shop for easily-accessible, accurate, detailed, sourced, reader and research-friendly yearly tornado information from around the globe, that is obviously a bad idea. Having it all in one place is such a convenient, beautiful thing, and if we segment it up into pieces, we destroy that, and I can't even begin to describe how unfortunate that would be and how strongly I feel about this. I'm kinda shocked that anyone would suggest it to be honest, but in any case just don't. As I said, this current format is much, much more preferable than something like that in comparison, so let's give it a try. Also after sleeping on the European countries issue, it I think going by region is the best plan for less widespread events, for example (Eastern Europe). For widespread, less regionally-focused outbreaks, let's just list them as (Multiple Regions)

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Again, trial and error. I was just bouncing around ideas and thought of that. I totally agree with you when it comes to not splitting up continents by the way not only because of the confusion it could cause readers, but also due to the sheer amount of additional editing it would entail for this project. Trying to line up articles and make summaries is not the easiest thing for this project and we STILL have to go back and work to update all the other stuff from previous years as well (I, for one, think a lot of the Tornadoes of XXXX articles are a total mess). However, this is going to require patience, and we all need to remember that. ChessEric 02:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Notable vs Any tornadoes in other continents + picture sources for other continents

Ok so I know I'm flooding the talking section with questions about the new format, but I want to get everything figured out before things get more active. So with the US, we only make sections and articles for strong or otherwise notable tornadoes. Is that going to be the case with other countries too? The reason I ask is Africa and the Oceana region can go entire years without any strong or notable tornadoes. If we only include significant tornadoes, we may sometimes end the year with nothing under the Africa or Oceana heading besides "No significant tornadoes were confirmed in Africa in 2024", for example. So should we "lower the bar" so to speak for less tornado-prone continents so they don't end up blank? Won't be an issue with Asia, South America, and Europe though, as they get yearly strong tornadoes. Also, how are we going to source photos for events in other countries? Obviously in the US we have the DAT and the NWS, but that isn't an option in other countries. So to avoid having drab, text-only sections on other continents that are devoid of pictures, how are we going to source them? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Quick note about images from other countries: That was previously brought up and I haven't seen a good solution to it. That said, the best (eh) solution-style thing I can think of is utilizing Wikipedia's guidelines for non-free media. Same process that is used for the tornado image on 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado. Basically, no free-to-use media has to be available for a significant event. There is specific image-sizing guidelines and it cannot be the "top" frame. We do have that as an option. I'm not too familiar with the process, but @JoleBruh: seems to be familiar enough as they uploaded several tornado images for famous tornadoes without any free-to-use images (2021 Western Kentucky tornado is another example they uploaded to). If you click the tornado image and click "More details", you can see that whole guidelines and policy ordeal. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow. I hadn't even seen this discussion yet and had the same idea; I removed the other continents and put them in one big block. I should probably put back South America, but I also thought of just grouping everything back to together with the idea that I had for the previous article of saying, "There were xx confirmed tornadoes in the United States in the month of xxxx. Other tornadoes were confirmed in xx country as well." That would simplify things down somewhat, although I guess this idea wouldn't fit with less-U.S. centric model for this year. ChessEric 02:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the bar for what constitutes a "significant tornado" is not geographically universal and following WP:SIGCOV guidelines implies this is the case for notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. Here in the U.S. Pacific Northwest, for example, any tornado could possibly meet WP:SIGCOV depending on how much other news there is on the given day and nearly all EF-1+ tornadoes will get that level of coverage in local, regional, and often national media. Because climatology varies so significantally I don't think there's any need to have a specific bar unless maybe the criteria is based on the level of coverage rather than the strength of the tornado itself.

I don't have a good solution for the lack of tornado images outside the U.S. other than to outright ask people who have uploaded relevant images to social media to also upload that image to Commons. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 06:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Changed "Southeast Asia" to just "Asia" + Consistent Formatting now A MUST because of international tornado events

Two things:

1.)So I felt it was necessary to move "Southeast Asia" to just "Asia", because we need to account for other tornado prone regions of Asia such as Bangladesh, India, and the Arabian Peninsula. In addition, places like Myanmar, Nepal, and Pakistan have also been hit by the isolated strong/deadly tornadoes in recent years, although they aren't as common there. Also, the Europe section isn't limited to a specific region of the continent, nor is the North America section, so why should Asia be any different, especially when strong tornadoes can happen across the whole continent?

2.)Now this next bit is really important and will come up regardless later this year. In the Europe section, the format is "Date Of Event - (Country)", so let's please just stick with that for everything else. For some reason Indonesia already had its own sub-section, rather than using the same format. But the main concern is that we are going to run into problems with the current format for North America by summer, and that's because of international tornado outbreaks! How did nobody foresee this potential issue?? What happens when a tornado outbreak affects BOTH the US and Canada? It happens every year, and we can't just put them in both sections. Sometimes it's just a few weak tornadoes in Canada, like this one last year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_outbreak_sequence_of_June_20%E2%80%9326,_2023

Other times, we have major tornado activity on both sides of the border: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_United_States%E2%80%93Canada_tornado_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States%E2%80%93Canada_tornado_outbreak

It's more rare, but sometimes we even have outbreaks that produce significant tornadoes in the US and Mexico: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Texas%E2%80%93Oklahoma_flood_and_tornado_outbreak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_outbreak_sequence_of_April_20%E2%80%9327,_2007

The only viable solution?? The parentheses method used for the Europe and Asia sections. When we have an international tornado outbreak, we will have to say (United States and Canada) and so on. We cannot cleanly divide it into sub-sections of "United States" "Canada" and "Mexico/Caribbean" as convenient and straightforward as that may initially seem, because it simply won't work due to the aforementioned issue. It may seem redundant, but everything else will now have to be in paratheses as well. It might not be popular, but until somebody has a better idea, this is our only option. Again, this is an issue created by the new format. This was a non-issue last year, so if this is what we want, then this is what we will have to do. So with that said, I have to now go change the format for North America to the parentheses format. Monthly US tornado tables will also now be clustered at the top of the North America section. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Indonesia tornado Feb 4

Hey TornadoInformation12! I love the changes you made, but I had a question regarding this edit to the February 4 Indonesia tornado. You said we cannot say it was strong due to not being rated. However, the news article said the tornado had "strong wind" (when translated to English). Indonesia does not officially rate tornadoes on any scale. So, should we still say "strong" tornado, since the media does? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Since all tornadoes have strong winds in the sense that their winds can informally be described as strong, and since the articles here more typically use strong in the sense that the National Weather Service in the U.S. does—to describe a particular caliber of tornado—I don't think it's needed. Happy for others to weigh in, though. Penitentes (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Tornadoes should only be described strong if they rank at a 2 or higher the F scale or any variation of it (EF, IF, etc.), or whatever is equivalent to a 2 or higher is on the TORRO scale. The only exception is if the damage is so blatantly intense and devastating that despite no official rating, "strong" would be an objective description of the damage without any kind of guessing or interpretation. The deadly Myanmar tornado last year would be a good example. In the recent Indonesia tornado, it was not rated, and there was no widespread, devastating damage, so as a result there is no basis for the word "strong" in this case.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Sources needed for lead

We recently had a new entry for a tornado that occurred in Northern Brazil. I removed it under the assumption that all of Brazil is prone to tornadoes, but I was reverted because that it is apparently not the case. It now dawns on me that we have not only not specified which exact regions of countries/continents typically experience tornadoes, but we also have no source for it. We need more sources in the lead to verify the claim we are making about where tornadoes form as well as clarification on exact regions. We've been copying and pasting the lead for so long that I feel like we've forgotten that certain facts need to be sourced. Can anyone find sources for the lead? Such additions would be greatly appreciated. ChessEric 20:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the rationale for removal. Shouldn't this article be listing any significant, noteworthy, well-covered event, regardless of whether they're rare or not? –TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 20:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by removal? I never said we should remove anything. ChessEric 04:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

New Format Suggestion

I like the new format by separating events into different regions, I just have one suggestion:

So the current format has a sub-heading 1 for tornadoes by month, and then a sub-heading 1 for each event. I think the monthly tornado count is still useful for comparing between years and for the record, so what if we had a sub-heading 1 for the month that had the link to the monthly tornado list as well as the count for the month and then have significant events having a sub-heading 2 under that. I think this will also make navigating easier by breaking up the North America section more as by the end of the year we'll probably have around 30 sub-heading 1's.

Thoughts? Jamisonsupame (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we need monthly US tornado counts. Rocketman771 (talk) 05:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC) Blocked SOCK. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Different photo for the Feb. 27-28 tornado outbreak?

There have been many better photos of damage and tornadoes themselves going around my city (CBUS strong), which have a higher resolution or just overall represent the true scale of the situation better. Just look up "Wright-Pat AFB tornado" and there are like 70 photos which show the extensive damage. There's also a higher-quality photo of the West Jefferson-Licking tornado that touched down near me. The event mainly was centered around Central and West Ohio, and taking a photo from a completely different state just sits weird with me. It's not a bad photo though, I'll give it that. Also there's an absolutely wild photo of the entire side of a house that was blown out near Hilliard, Ohio that shows how weird the storm system itself was. (To clarify, the Wednesday outbreak was the most severe and mainly hit Ohio, I'm not undermining all of the other tornadoes that happened within those two days) Would a photo like this be better?

File:February-26 2024-Storm-Damage Near my Home, London Ohio, Lafayette-Plain City Road.webp

High-end EF1 damage to a home near London, Ohio on February 26, 2024

𝔐𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔊𝔬𝔡27 (talk) 13:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@MemeGod27: I saw the image earlier today and was planning to reply to this discussion about now, but it looks like the image was deleted under speedy deletion criteria. I think I know why. So like you mentioned to just look up damage photos from the tornadoes and add them. Well, we can’t per copyright laws. We can only add images that are in the public domain (typically ones taken by the National Weather Service), or ones where the photographer licenses them to where the image is free to use. Most of the time, damage photographs are not free to use. On the topic though about Ohio vs other locations, one thing that is a weird discussion that often happens is whether to use a tornado picture or a damage picture. Typically, due to the lack of free-to-use tornado photographs per year (See Category:Pictures of tornadoes), if a tornado photo is available, it is almost always preferred over a damage photo. For instance, there is approximately 340 free-to-use tornado photographs in that category and that covers since 1884. For example, in 2013, there is only 3 tornadoes with free-to-use photographs. That is typically why tornado photographs are used over damage photos, if a tornado photograph is available under copyright laws. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You have a good point. I forgot about licensing (silly me), if your argument applies, then I do sincerely think that the current photo is best. Thanks! (Also I didn't really take into consideration the time of day it occured, we had to run to the basement at like 5:00 AM, so I wouldn't be surprised if there aren't many legitimate tornado photos. Also the one that I did mention earlier is licensed under a local news station, so that rules that out) This is also probably a crazy suggestion, but what about a video? There is one that I think is liscensed under the NWS and I can trim it down to under :20 if needed. I have never seen a tornado video on Wikipedia, so I won't be mad if the idea gets shot down. (It's from the Jefferson-Licking tornado and can be clearly seen in the CCTV) :P 𝔐𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔊𝔬𝔡27 (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

February 27-28

I think we maybe shohld make an article for the event. It occured very far north for the time of year, had 24 tornadoes, an had 4 significant tornadoes which were all outsider 10% significant tornado risk area. 2600:1014:B1A4:F0DB:0:1A:E6FF:4E01 (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: It honestly wasn't too significant, even in my state most of the tornadoes were EFU/EF0, the EF2s themselves weren't deadly or caused any injuries. The only damage was really a few suburban houses and trees. 𝔐𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔊𝔬𝔡27 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

February 2

The sagerton tornado was rated EF2. Typically, EF2 or higher tornadoes have sections added on this page. This applies even of only 1 tornado occurs, as seen in 2023 on February 21. 2600:1014:B1A4:F0DB:0:1A:E6FF:4E01 (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion one EF2 is not noteworthy unless it hit an unusual place. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Do Not Combine the 4 Jan-Feb Indonesia tornadoes

OK let me preface by asking this. If there were four different tornadoes in say...Florida, over the course of two months from completely separate storm systems, would you combine them all into one section? No, You wouldn't, so why would you think it's a good idea to do it for Indonesia, just because there were four in a row?? A single section is for a single event, or outbreak, or outbreak sequence, period. Those were four separate tornadoes, from four separate weather events. The only thing they had in common is where they occurred. There is ZERO basis for making them into one section. Even if it looks "funny" to have (Indonesia) for times in a row, it doesn't matter. We've figured out a format, and we stick with the guidelines we've established.

My other question is this. Why is it when I step away for a bit when my life gets busy, I always come back to an incorrectly formatted mess in at least one part of this page? Especially after I made a detailed talk page post about how to format tornado sections with the new layout, and how they are the same simple format for every region? It isn't rocket science, but if I have to keep cleaning up bad formatting every so often, then so be it. I just wish new editors would PLEASE read my above talk section, so I could at least rely on you guys to format the sections correctly when I'm too busy. That is all I ask. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Criteria For Notable European Tornadoes?

I'm noticing we are creating sections for European tornado events with max intensity of IF1. Why? Those are weak tornadoes, and we typically don't make sections for US events that only produce weak tornadoes. I personally want sections only for IF2 or stronger European tornadoes. I guess I can make exceptions for IF1.5 events, but I do have concerns about the spring and summer months. We are not in peak European tornado season yet, and once we are, IF1 and IF1.5 tornadoes will be happening multiple times per week, and the list is going to get really long, really fast if we aren't a little more selective about what we include. What do you guys think? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 11:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

In reality for any country or continent, the only sections here should be significant tornadoes (F2+, EF2+, IF2+), when injuries/deaths occur, or rare oddities. Once the section is there, weaker tornadoes from the same even should be included. Any events that do not fit that criteria should be in the yearly country/continent lists. I think that is a fair way to go about it. Anyone else agree or disagree with this set of criteria for the overall Tornadoes of XXXX criteria? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

As a proposition to set that as the criteria, I started a discussion on WP:WX talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Proposal - Criteria for inclusion on Tornadoes of XXXX articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. So far, we haven’t had any strong tornadoes in Europe this year. Should I go ahead and wipe the section clean until we have an IF2 or stronger event?

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Section length

Can we stop overbloating them? 96.250.92.78 (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree big time. The section for the small Dayton/Columbus event last month is absurdly large, and needlessly mentions things like Ryan Hall and is overall bloated. It’s also poorly written, not well organized, and not encyclopedic in tone. Another mess for me to clean up because people don’t know how to do it the right way.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I agree. The event was no where as notable as the January 8-9 event, but is nearly as long. 2600:1014:B136:82AF:0:2C:6FD7:D01 (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Events

We should include all events with at leas 1 significant tornado. I added headings for 1 events in the United States that were not included. 2600:1014:B136:82AF:0:2C:6FD7:D01 (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Only outbreaks with noteworthy significance such as having 6-7 or more tornadoes, in unusual places and causing significant fatalities or causalities should be written about. Therefore I am in favor of deleting several blurbs from this page, such as the February 4th and March 9th blurbs as they don’t possess any meaningful content. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 16:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• There is an ongoing RfC to set the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia's Tornadoes of XXXX (ex. Tornadoes of 2024) articles. If you wish to participate in the Request for Comment discussion, you can do so here! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

New format

The new format (North America, Europe, Asia, Elsewhere) has been used on this page and Tornadoes of 2023. Should we convert every Tornadoes of xxxx page to this format? 2600:1014:B136:82AF:0:2C:6FD7:D01 (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Matador tornado rating

I know i already posted on Tornades of 2023 (I forgot to login), but i found a reliable source saying it was an EF4. Here is the link: [1]https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/monthly-report/tornadoes/202313 2600:1014:B134:9495:0:28:8ECF:8401 (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to login again lol Iamakid836e5 (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, this may be the first time this tornado has been officially referred as EF4. However, so far I have not been able to find any other source that confirms this rating. For example, DAT still lists it as EF3. NovemberFog (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

NCEI has put out a tweet saying it was a typo. ModdiWX (message me!) 14:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

March 14 debacle

A definetely serious and widespread tornado outbreak seems to be underway. A draft has been created to begin. You may go to: Draft:Tornado outbreak of March 14, 2024 to help.

While I don’t think this outbreak is going to have a high tornado count (could be less than 20), it was deadly and destructive enough to easily deserve a full article. No-brainer in my opinion.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Yep ill be doing some coverage •Cyberwolf•talk? 13:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

RfC - Criteria for Tornadoes of XXXX articles

There is an ongoing RfC to set the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia's Tornadoes of XXXX (ex. Tornadoes of 2024) articles. If you wish to participate in the Request for Comment discussion, you can do so here! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

European Tornado Total Doesn’t Match Table

Can somebody please explain to me why the number of confirmed tornadoes listed at the top of the Europe section is 32, while only 13 are listed in the tables?? Something is very off. Guys, if we can’t keep an accurate table for Europe, then let’s not do it at all. I’m concerned about starting something we can’t maintain and keep accurate. We’ve already got a lot to deal with given the monthly US tables. Do it correctly and accurately, or don’t do it at all. That’s the bottom line. Unless someone can explain the massive discrepancies, I’m going to revert the European total to 13.

Also, we haven’t had a single significant tornado in Europe this year, and yet we have four sections. I’m strongly considering reverting each one besides the Cyprus IF1.5, because it was in a populated area and fairly damaging. I’ll let other people share their ideas before I make a final decision though.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I started the article but got really busy this past week. I’ll be less-busy this coming week and I plan to get it up to date then. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok but that illustrates my point perfectly. Can we accurately maintain monthly tornado tables for both the US and Europe simultaneously? We're already behind.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformatino12

If we can’t, and WP:TornadoCriteria passes the RfC successfully, then it will just have to be that non-US tornadoes aren’t documented on Wikipedia unless they are in a tornado outbreak or F2+/IF2+, since that is what would let them be here on this article. I’m ok with that if we want to get rid of it, just something to document down for future editors if and/or when questions would come about why there wouldn’t be yearly non-US tornado lists.

That said, maybe once it is up-to-date, others will help keep it updated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

• Just noting the list was fully updated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

China map?

So, perhaps for the Asia section could we put a map of Chinese tornadoes, similar to the US map? Eric Wang has reported numerous tornadoes in China, some of them with significant (EF2+) intensity. MrTwister08 (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I wish we could, but there is no reliable database for Chinese/Asian tornadoes that is accessible to the public. We only publish what we can on this Wiki by scraping together translated Asian news articles and info from X/Twitter (like Eric Wang's). Same thing with South America. Significant tornadoes happen there every year, but there's no database, and as a result, no complete list or map can be made.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Non-noteworthy events being added

Hey everyone. Recently, I have found this weather page to be difficult to scroll to different sections and overly lengthy compared to even the articles on the 2011-2022 tornado pages. It appears the January major format changes aren’t working well with minimal maintenance or expansion from writers. It would make sense to delete certain subsections here of non-noteworthiness, e.g. March 9th event. In that case, three tornados causing little damage and no casualties is not worth mentioning on this site. I believe that events with more than 6 tornadoes AND at least one significant tornado should be the passing criteria for noting here.

Also, to those who keep adding lengthy details to several recent events, please do not add any more than necessary for encyclopedic purposes (e.g. February 8th event). If all information can be expressed in fewer sentences as well, that would also improve the readability of this page. Thank you! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC to set the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia's Tornadoes of XXXX (ex. Tornadoes of 2024) articles. If you wish to participate in the Request for Comment discussion, you can do so here! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Made a new page pertaining to today's outlook and extreme storms

While this storm has not yet impacted the U.S., many weather agencies (including the NWS) have predicted an extremely large tornado outbreak for this evening (April 1) all the way to tomorrow (April 2) or April 3. I have made a new draft pertaining to this, and any help documenting it as it unfolds is appreciated. Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 1-2, 2024 ᵀʰᵃᵗ ᵒⁿᵉ ᵈᵘᵈᵉ ʷʰᵒ ᵐᵃᵈᵉ ᵃˡˡ ᵗʰᵉ ˢᵖᵃᶜᵉ ᵃʳᵗᶦᶜˡᵉˢ (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Was about to say that it was way too premature, but the sudden change in tomorrow's models showing many discrete supercells across northeastern US and the according correction to a Moderate risk by the SPC for intense tornadoes, i'll let this slide. We might indeed see a large, significant tornado outbreak, specially tomorrow. Pretty unfortunate that it is over many of the affected areas in Ohio from a couple weeks ago. Mjeims (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as practically the entire Northeastern U.S. is under a hazardous weather outlook (including me, I'm near Columbus), this is either going to be extremely big and deadly, or big but not deadly. Something is going to happen, I sincerely hope this does not turn into what happened last year. April Fools Day.mp3 (talk) 18:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Given the general lack of information as of writing this, any information we do have is speculation, predictions, or reports which usually aren't accurate in situations like these. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm still working on the article, there have already been multiple confirmed and damaging tornades (specifically Iowa and Kentucky) MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's already started to unfold, severe thunderstorm warnings are being issued, Oklahoma is on a watch. MemeGod ._. (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

We didn’t get a significant outbreak today, and you broke the rules by steamrolling this pointless article into existence. You COMPLETELY jumped the gun and ignored the rules established by editors much more experienced than you. You CANNOT just start an article based on hype, well before we have confirmed EF3+ tornadoes, major damage, or deaths. We have NONE of those things, and you made one anyway, ignoring all the guidelines in the process. You also based it all on early, usually inaccurate information prior to the event even being over. Someone warned you and you ignored them. I am going to mark this for deletion.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

ok MemeGod ._. (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• I have move the article into draft space due to notability concerns. The event is not even mentioned on the parent article, Tornadoes of 2024, due to a failure of passing WP:TornadoCriteria. Basically, the event has not qualified for a section on Wikipedia, let alone a stand-alone article. Please do not move this into mainspace until all tornadoes have been rated and notability can truly be assessed. If it does not pass WP:TornadoCriteria, there is no hope for an article as it would become an orphan article (aka not linked on Tornadoes of 2024). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Delete April 2 Article

This needs to be deleted asap. Someone has once again completely jumped the gun and broke the rules we established years ago by making an article before we even had a significant event underway. And guess what?? Today underperformed. No devastating damage, no long trackers, no deaths, no tornado emergencies, but someone had to “let it slide” because you all got excited over a moderate risk and strong wording, again. We have been over this SO MANY TIMES and I am beyond exasperated. How many times have we said to not make an article until it is abundantly clear we’ve had a major event??? We jump the gun with articles year after year and it’s like you guys never learn. You CANNOT publish article unless numerous strong tornadoes or multiple deaths have been confirmed. We have neither here, and it’s not up for debate. Mark this for deletion immediately. Btw, the reason nobody was helping you with this article is because one wasn’t needed at all. You pushed it into existence with zero consensus or collaboration with other users.

Decided to go ahead and mark for speedy deletion myself. I’m beyond tired of dealing with this.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The speedy deletion was removed by another user (I endorsed your speedy deletion though), so I immediately moved the article into draft space due to notability concerns. It will most likely be stale-deleted in draft space. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It's in draftspace, information is still coming in MemeGod ._. (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I am under the impression that it should be put back up! It had a similar number of tornadoes, if not more, to the March 13 to 14 outbreak and happened over a similar area. Also the fact that strong tornadoes happened outside the moderate risk area Jhardaway1115 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jhardaway1115: — The event has not actually passed WP:TornadoCriteria, which is what is required for a section on this article even, let alone a stand-alone tornado outbreak article. Until WP:TornadoCriteria is passed, there is no use in trying to even think about an outbreak article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

It’s been a week since April 2nd. I think the article should be recreated (there is definitely enough verifiable information about it now compared to a week ago). 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:4DAE:1717:3C0D:C2B9 (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I will also add that it does meet the WP:TornadoCriteria because (at least) three people were injured in Kentucky and West Virginia. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:4DAE:1717:3C0D:C2B9 (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The criteria specifically says that if a tornado in the outbreak caused at least one death or INJURY that it meets the criteria. This outbreak caused multiple injuries directly. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:4DAE:1717:3C0D:C2B9 (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to note, WP:TornadoCriteria is for this specific article, not if the outbreak gets an article. For a separate outbreak article, it needs to pass the WP:NEVENT criteria. For a section in this article, it has to pass WP:TornadoCriteria. Two different criteria’s. It does pass TornadoCriteria, which is why Tornadoes of 2024#April 1–3 (United States) exists. Hope that helps! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Nobody Is Maintaining Europe Tornado Tables

Title says it all. We’re not even into the main part of European tornado season and we’re already completely behind. I already raised concerns that with us barely able to keep up with the US tables, tackling Europe simultaneously would be too much to handle, and now here we are. If we can’t maintain it, let’s get rid of it. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Proposed New Rule: No More Preliminary Article Drafts

I think it’s time to do away with creating tornado outbreak drafts that are put together before a significant outbreak has been confirmed. All it does is make completely unwarranted articles a click away from being published, and someone ALWAYS jumps the gun and hits publish with zero community support or consensus. All it takes is one person, and it always ends with us needing to delete articles and give the same lectures about not jumping the gun. It’s clear that Hat Collecting is at least a secondary motive for people doing this. It’s also become apparent that nobody is learning from this mistake that gets made over and over again, year after year, and I am completely 100% sick and tired of dealing with it. My proposal is ZERO DRAFTS, and that any discussion regarding article creation should not begin until the outbreak is COMPLETELY over, and NWS damage surveys are coming in. Nobody should draft or publish a single thing until we have consensus among users that it meets article criteria. Is consensus a rule for article creation? No, but we deal with this problem every year, and I can tell a more conservative, cautious, consensus-based approach is the most viable solution. I am beyond tired of the unregulated free-for-all of drafting and publishing any time a hyped-up weather system affects the US. April 2 is a perfect example, and it’s time to end this foolishness for good. Enough beating around the bush. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I did get a community consensus (although not big). And I don't know why you keep rambling on and on about the article which multiple people have supported. And sorry if the weather event didn't turn out EXACTLY as predicted. You don't have to make 2-3 new topics on an article talk page just because you have a grudge against 1 article. And I get your points, mind that. Maybe we can just move it to the DRAFTSPACE? It's not a big deal, and as you said, it takes a button to publish, but it also takes one button to move to draftspace. As quoted by you "All it takes is one person." MemeGod ._. (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

And also, HOW MANY talk pages did you go to asking for "desperate backup"? I'm usually one to accept criticisms, even if it is borderline targeted harassment. But you (in my opinion) completely over-exaggerated the ENTIRE thing. And it's not "hype". Again, because I know you'll yell some more, I understand your points completely. I get that at this time, it probably doesn't deserve an article. If you just told me, I would have moved it to draftspace and worked on it there. No need for the attention. MemeGod ._. (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

You just don’t understand. I’ve been doing this for over a decade, and you are clearly a young person who’s new to this, and who’s passion for weather currently exceeds your ability to make meaningful contributions to this site (no offense, that was me 12 years ago and I used to get yelled at for the same thing, so I get it). While I’m not targeting you specifically, you are a perfect example of the type of wiki user I am constantly having to clean up after. You don’t know how much of a headache this creates for experienced editors who strive for well-put-together, accurate, sourced, and encyclopedic weather articles. No offense, but since a lot of these young and overzealous users aren’t able to do that, I have to clean up mess after mess after mess. It gets exhausting, and when you see the quality of articles plunging from how they used to be, it’s both alarming and depressing. It’s clear things are being written by well, kids essentially. You haven’t been around here long enough to see the decline in quality, and if you were, you would understand my deep frustration.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Thanks for the insults, but maybe you could sincerely inform me on what i did wrong? I'm not mad, but since you now seem to be basing an entire argument off of my personal account age, I'm going to take this as a violation of WP:NPA. I get things like this all the time, and this is the exact reason why people are reluctant to edit on Wikipedia. Constructive criticism is usually preferrable to blatant harrasment. Thanks :D MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I AM telling you what you did wrong. You made an article way way way to early before we had any info to suggest an article-worthy event had occurred. I’m not trying to insult you. I’m trying to make you understand what the problem is so you don’t do it again. It IS constructive criticism, even if I’m not the most tactful about it. I’m doing this to keep the quality of tornado articles of what they’ve always been, and because I’m frustrated with new users not following the guidelines. It’s not because I just want to insult you.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Also yes it is “hype” because you made an article based on predictions, not results. It was established LONG ago that you can’t make an article just because of an SPC outbreak prediction. I’ve seen High Risk days produce nothing significant, and I’ve seen wiki editors get burned because they assumed a big outbreak was a sure thing, even though the event hadn’t happened yet. Like I said, It’s a lesson we learned long ago and I shouldn’t have to explain it.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

One talk page, that’s it, so I’m not sure what you mean by that. Also I looked at the draft discussion, and what you are calling consensus is NOT consensus. You ignored users who tried to make the exact points I am making now.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

🤓☝️ PeaceLover23 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't ignore them. Also, I get your points (as I said 3 times, since I knew you'd try to get on me about it.) MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I took into consideration what they said, and decided that it would be better to make an article (I will admit it may have not been the best of decisions) but I did get a consensus, whether it was on this page or the KiwiIRC #wiki-en-help channel. MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that wasn’t enough consensus. Somebody pointed out that it was early and we didn’t have any reliable, accurate info yet. Then you made the article anyway. How is that not ignoring other users? You can’t just publish because a few random, inexperienced editors say “yeah seems fine to me”. Wait for input from people who have been doing this for years and have the context and understanding of when it’s time to publish an article.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:30, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I’m looking closer at the discussion, and the “consensus” you got was from users encouraging you to make an article based on predictions and an ominous setup/forecast. The outbreak hadn’t even happened yet. Even if there was more consensus, you can’t make an outbreak article before the outbreak has even happened. It’s a basic guideline that was established long ago (2011 if I remember correctly).

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Okay. I haven't been around since 2011 (as you clearly seem to emphasize, which again you completely ignored the personal attack I brought up). Maybe educate me (as I've said multiple times). You've been on top of me the entire conversation for not listening and ignoring, but the second I bring up WP:NPA, you completely ignore it. Come on. MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I’ve said my piece and I do apologize if I took it too far. My exasperation from having to repeatedly educate people year after year about not making tornado articles until after a major event has been confirmed reached an absolute peak last night. It’s about four years of accumulated frustration from dealing with the same issues each year, and unfortunately the April 2 article was the straw that broke the camels back. That frustration is directed at anyone who makes unwarranted articles way too early, not just you. Sorry if you got the brunt of it.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Thanks for that. I'm glad we could close this argument on a somewhat civilized note. I just want you to know that I do get your points, and next time I create a draft, I will take what you say into consideration. Thanks :P MemeGod ._. (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• I overall do support the idea of not creating draft articles for every event. Now that WP:TornadoCriteria is out there, we have at least the base for inclusion on this article. Here is how Wikipedia is suppose to work per the rules and guidelines. We have inclusion criteria for this article. Once the event is fully assessed, notability can actually be determined. If and only if notability (specifically WP:LASTING) is satisfied, should an article be created. At the very minimum, a draft article should not be created until the event is fully assessed or unless we have the rare exception of like December 10-11, 2021 that occurred and notability is pretty much already clear for the start. That is how Wikipedia is suppose to work. The page for base inclusion has criteria now. Anything can be mentioned here (if it passes the criteria) before an article even needs to be thought about. Once everything is assessed (via the National Weather Service) and over, then the LASTING impacts needs to be assessed. If it passes LASTING after the event is over and everything is assessed, then chances are high that it needs an article. If it doesn’t pass LASTING at that stage, then it is clear the event was a basic news-cycle event and no article is warranted. That is the process based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, everything you just said is totally reasonable and I agree with it 100%. The issue of unnecessary articles being made leads to bickering and stress every single year, and a system and set of official, objective guidelines to solve this problem has been overdue for years. Drafts or no drafts, the only thing I really care about is implementing a more conservative, cautious approach to article creation some way or another.

  TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

  @TornadoInformation12: Just a weird suggestion/thing I noticed while creating stuff for the Outbreak Intensity Score. We as Wikipedians in the past have actually a weird non-guidelines process to only create articles for “Major Outbreaks”. Just about every outbreak article created at least was a “Major Outbreak” on the Outbreak Intensity Score. Honestly, that may be a decent criteria for what constitutes an article: at least classification of “Major Outbreak” on the Outbreak Intensity Score. Grazulis went through in his new book and listed every “Major” outbreak (or stronger) from 1974 to 2022. We have actually unintentionally been following that “guidelines” through outbreak article creation without actually realizing it. Not sure, but that might be a good “bottom line” for outbreak articles, since that requires 30 points of significant tornadoes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• I also agree with the fact that every weather event does not need an article. We don't need an article for a tornado in Fort Lauderdale or a long-lived supercell. The weather events would need to satisfy notability guidelines for events to be notable, like WeatherWriter stated above. This includes:

WP:LASTING – weather events can be notable if they have a lasting effect; for example, August 2020 Midwest derecho.

WP:GEOSCOPE – we can't have events that are only notable in a local area. A big hailstorm producing baseball sized hail over a city most likely won't receive national coverage.

WP:SUSTAINED – a weather event should attract attention for a sufficient period of time after the event; a burst of coverage during the event isn't notable if there is no coverage of it afterward.

WP:INDEPTH – a weather event should receive in-depth coverage of the event, during and after it.

WP:DELAY – don't rush to create an article for a weather event. As WeatherWriter states above, the event can be fully assessed and then, an article can be created.

While an event can satisfy the general notability guideline, I think the event should satisfy above guidelines as well, and a draft can be created if it satisfies above guidelines (specifically GEOSCOPE, GNG, INDEPTH, and LASTING). Also worth mentioning here that breaking news reports about confirmed tornadoes or tornado damage and casualties are not always reliable – an assessment days after the event and sustained, lasting coverage are much more reliable. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 15:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Over 3 million people were affected across the Central and NE United States(satisfying WP:GEOSCOPE), and there is still major flooding in my hometown, and across the entire Central U.S. at that. Someone also has been confirmed dead, making this even more important. While I will admit I was expecting something much bigger when I made the article, there seems to be enough to warrant an article (but it is open for discussion) MemeGod ._. (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@MemeGod27: Well you and others are still free to create the article. Since there are currently other users who disagree with you that the topic is not notable, the article should be improved fully in draftspace and only moved into mainspace once all aspects of WP:NEVENT as satisfied. In this circumstance, following WP:BRD, the original creation of the draft and subsequent move into mainspace was the “Bold” edits. These were challenged/reverted (moved back into draftspace after speedy deletion attempt), and this is the discussion part. Editors do not have to agree. But, now per Wikipedia’s WP:ONUS guidelines, the responsibility of proving the notability (through article creating and improvement) is on those who wish it to be an article. Proving the WP:LASTING impacts are the hardest thing to prove. While the next thing I mention falls under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it helps prove the point about LASTING. The 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado did not have a stand-alone article for over 3 months after the tornado. Just note, I am not upset or anything (I cannot speak for others here obviously), but following Wikipedia guidelines, the article should not be moved into mainspace until those who are improve it feel it fully satisfies all notability guidelines. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yea, you're right. Sorry if I've been annoying or fighting for a pointless cause today, it's been a really stressful few days. Thanks :) (I'll still work on the page, but I 100% agree with your points, and I do understand that I have others that oppose the creation of the article, hence why I am gonna work on it in the shadows... ...and then I'll bring it back up once I and others feel it is fit to be brought back up) MemeGod ._. (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Feb 27-28 repeated, March-Apr 1 deleted

Someone really needs to fix this. TidalTreka (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Jesus christ, what is this ToT MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

As of this message, all the vandalism has been corrected. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much lmfao MemeGod ._. (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Please be respectful. Thank you. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

What? How am I not being respectful this time? MemeGod ._. (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

European Tornado Notability Criteria

Ok guys this is the third time I’ve brought this up, and I need us to actually talk about it so we can resolve this issue. Why are we including sections for European tornado events that only produced IF1.5 or weaker tornadoes? Shouldn’t we only be listing significant tornadoes (IF2 or stronger)? The exceptions would be if they’re highly anomalous like a weak tornado in Iceland, notable due to location such as if an IF1 went through downtown London, Berlin, or Paris, or if they’re weak but still cause a fatality. I need to know what you guys think, and if you all are ok with that system, should I go ahead and pull all the events from the Europe section besides that recent one that produced an IF2 in France? One could argue that the IF1.5 in Cyprus could stay as well due to the densely populated area it impacted. PLEASE let me know what you guys think so we can make a decision. Also I still need to know if we’re going to maintain European tornado tables or not. We’re pretty behind already. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

In theory, Europe and all countries will follow WP:TornadoCriteria for inclusion. That criteria isn’t “formal” guidelines yet. The the RfC to “ratify” the guidelines is still ongoing and ends April 13. Just wanting to ask, should we go ahead and remove the non-inclusion entries before the ratification ends, or should we wait until it ends in 10 days? Either way, in 10-ish days, there will be formal criteria for the article, which would automatically mean removal of events that don’t pass the criteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I seriously think we should revert to the original pre-2022 page format. While I appreciate the efforts of @ChessEric and @WeatherWriter to integrate this new page model centered more on global events, I don't think it is practical in the long run due to the lack of information on European events and editors willing to update European and Asian tornado charts. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 19:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I’d say let’s wait 10 days and go from there.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I think so too and I've been meaning to bring it up for a while now. The date organization is what is bothering me since I like putting things in chronological order. Splitting it by continent is too much and hard to follow at this point. ChessEric 03:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

April 1-3

It was a very notable event. 8 significant tornadoes, although no tornadic fatalities. It had 50 tornaoes in total, making it the largest outbreak so far this year. Also, it had more tornadoes in 3 days than any other month this year in total. This should have an article or should be published if one already exsits. Catsarecool558 (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It has not met WP:TornadoCriteria as of the latest report. There is a draft by user:MemeGod27 for the April 1-3 outbreak that you could work on and expand, if you are passionate about putting this event on the wikipage. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It almost passes Catsarecool558 (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Just checked your account and found it to be a sockpuppet for a blocked vandal. Such a shame. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Uhh yes it has met the criteria. It specifically states that if people were injured that it met the criteria. Multiple people were injured and even hospitalized. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:4DAE:1717:3C0D:C2B9 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

That does not constitute the criteria for article creation at all. If you are talking about a section dedicated to this event on the Tornadoes of 2024 page, it has passed WP:TornadoCriteria as of April 10th and is published on the page. However, I was talking about the eligibility for the April 2nd outbreak to have its own article, which fails to meet WPN:LASTING and WP:NEVENT due to the minimal damage caused and only injuries reported. Guarenteed no long lasting impacts from that event.

While I am aware several Wikipedians have been cooking up an article for the April 2nd outbreak, it is very certain that it will never be published outright for the reasons above. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

It was a very notable event in that more tornadoes were confirmed by the Charleston weather service office in this single event than in any whole year before then (15 tornadoes were confirmed so far; and the previous record for an entire year was 11). 108.147.10.55 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

• It technically passes WP:TornadoCriteria as two people were injured by the Conyers EF2. However, TornadoCriteria only applies to Tornadoes of XXXX articles, i.e. this article. Since it passes TornadoCriteria, it has a section (Tornadoes of 2024#April 1–3 (United States)). For it to have an article, it must pass WP:NEVENT, which requires passing WP:LASTING. The event has yet to prove it will have a lasting impact (like the 1 year or 10 year rule). Will this event or a tornado/tornadoes from this event have news articles in a month? 6 months? A year? 10 years? Will there be academic articles? If the answer is most likely no (which I think it may be in this case), then it doesn’t pass Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think it was notable enough. There was a Facebook post from the National Weather Service office in Charleston, WV that said that this was the most tornadoes that the office had confirmed from a single event on record (it even beat the record set during the 1974 super outbreak; at least in West Virginia and surrounding areas). 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:4DAE:1717:3C0D:C2B9 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

  How does a social media post confirming an obscure record for one location in West Virginia constitute the eligibility for article creation? Very absurd. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not only that. But all of the news outlets (at least in the Huntington-Charleston area) as well as the National Weather Service are calling this thing historic. It wouldn’t surprise me to see it mentioned a year later or two years later on account of that. 108.147.10.55 (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  Can you link the source where the National Weather Service stated this was “historic”? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  https://www.weather.gov/rlx/2024-April-2-Severe 108.147.10.55 (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

  The Charleston weather service office has also confirmed nearly 100 reports of straight line wind damage (and that doesn’t include reports from outside of their coverage area!). 108.147.10.55 (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

As a P.S. note, the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado did not have a stand-alone article for over 3 months after the tornado as WP:LASTING impacts had to be shown. Wikipedia has no deadlines, so since there is a question from editors (myself along with others) about the outbreak’s notability, for once, we need to wait before making an article. I would honestly probably nominate any article for this outbreak for deletion if it is put into mainspace within a week of the outbreak. If by say Tuesday next week (which is 1 week after the outbreak), there is more than say 2 news articles about any tornadoes from this outbreak, then it might pass LASTING. If not, then I would say there is no hope for the outbreak to receive an article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

There are still news articles on this outbreak and it’s been over a week. See WSAZ and WOWK. 108.147.10.55 (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There were also several news articles early on that were from national sources such as the Associated Press and FOX Weather. 108.147.10.55 (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

WSAZ said that the damage to the billboards (both in Cabell and in Putnam Counties in WV) was the worst damage they had seen in the area since the 2012 derecho. Even if the tornado part of the article doesn’t pass LASTING (which I think it probably does because West Virginia doesn’t see tornado outbreaks like this); the derecho part probably does. This thing traveled for over 500 miles. Had Tornado Warnings and Severe Thunderstorm Warnings from West Virginia (and Severe Thunderstorm Warnings into Virginia) all the way back into Missouri and if it wasn’t continuous on the Severe Thunderstorm Warnings; it was at least very close to it. So even if the tornadoes don’t meet WP:LASTING; I would think a derecho traveling over 500 miles would. 108.147.10.55 (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

See Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 2, 2024. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I could live with the general headline; it was just as much a derecho as it was a tornado outbreak. But it needs to be updated substantially before anyone even attempts to publish that. It’s still saying things in present tense that should be in past tense. 108.147.10.55 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of changes that should be made before ANYONE clicks “publish”; but I do think there should be an article on at least the derecho part of the storm with the tornadoes mentioned. I think both sides together do meet notably criteria. 108.147.10.55 (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed Addition For U.S. Includsion Criteria: Multiple or damaging EF2 tornadoes

Ok so I'm wondering what we do if we get an event with multiple EF2 tornadoes in a rural area, or one single EF2 that causes widespread significant damage but doesn't hurt anyone? Those both seem like scenarios that would be notable enough for inclusion, especially the second. It's not likely, but an EF2 tornado can go through a densely-populated area, cause major damage, but cause zero injuries. The other scenario is an outbreak of multiple EF2s in a wooded or rural area, where there is widespread major destruction to forests, outbuildings, farming equipment, livestock, and power lines, but no injuries occur. I know the current criteria requires an EF3 or stronger OR injuries, and I'm concerned about these two scenarios which could allow significant events worthy of inclusion to "slip through the cracks" so to speak. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 08:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Support In light of recent events, this question of creating sections for tornado events with large numbers of EF2 and weak tornadoes, totally makes sense. And there are valid points to creating such pages, if there are significant numbers of tornadoes (50+), AND significant damage reported ($1+ million in costs) and possibly multiple causalities. However, I believe two of the three points regarding the size and human impacts of such outbreak must be met for inclusion. And of course,

Take for example, the July 16th event or the October 30-31st event from Tornadoes of 2015 for precedence. These were generally weak events in rural parts of Oklahoma and Kansas that were left included in the Tornadoes of 2015 article because of the major damages they caused in both states. Also, 1999 Salt Lake City tornado establishes a precedence that covers your other scenario of an EF2 tornado in a densely-populated area, cause major damage, but cause zero injuries or deaths. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with your sentiment, but the Salt Lake City tornado killed a guy and injured over 100, so it doesn't really make for the best example. There's examples out there, I'm just having trouble thinking of them. Maybe the Spartanburg, SC EF2 tornado of 2017? Cut right though the city, yet the only injury from that one was a guy who had eardrum problems after due to the pressure drop inside the vortex.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I would assess this in a couple of days. Preferably, if I may ask TornadoInformation12 if this discussion could possibly wait 3 days to let that RfC conclude. Let's get the base criteria established and then change/admend it from there as needed. But yeah, some addition based on the number of tornadoes and an additional rule for cities over X population may be good additions once the base criteria is established. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Support: I would support that. There were a slew of EF2 tornadoes from this event. Including one in Fayette County, WV that was on the high end of that category, if it had been 10 mph stronger, it would have been an EF3. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:4DAE:1717:3C0D:C2B9 (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

According to this page. There were at least 14 EF2 tornadoes on April 2nd by the way. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:4DAE:1717:3C0D:C2B9 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

• @TornadoInformation12: — WP:TornadoCriteria was just ratified. Feel free to open a talk page discussion here to discuss the proposed amendments! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Derecho article now in mainspace

Since there has been so many comments regarding the April 1–3 event, I went ahead and did the very simplistic copy/paste of tornado charts, article renaming, and very slight lead-rewriting and got the April 2024 Pre-Dawn derecho into mainspace. I do not have any time to care about its format right now, but it is over 100,000 bytes currently. I shall let others fix it up. Enjoy y’all. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:TornadoCriteria is formally the criteria now

Just alerting for editors that the Request for Comment (RfC) for WP:TornadoCriteria has concluded and with a clear consensus, was ratified as the current criteria for Tornadoes of XXXX (i.e. Tornadoes of 2024) articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

April 9-11 Shouldn't Have Been Removed

I put it back because not only did it indeed cause injuries (NWS New Orleans lists "several injuries" in their entry for the Slidell EF2), but also because this perfectly highlights why I proposed the addition of "multiple or damaging EF2 tornadoes" to the criteria, and why we should weigh major structural damage in populated areas just as heavily as we do injuries. The Port Arthur and Lake Charles EF2s are exactly what I'm talking about when I mentioned that strong tornadoes can sometimes cause major damage in populated areas, but still not hurt anyone. Those two EF2 tornadoes were absolutely significant events, and a lack of injuries does not undo that. I have started a new talk section on the criteria talk page suggesting we add this as an amendment. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I think it should be deleted. It was much less notable than the April 1-3 outbreak, and does not deserve a section as long as it is. Also, I could not find the sourcing for "several injuries" on any of NWS New Orleans platforms, so if you can link that I am willing to change my sentiment. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The NWS damage survey for the Slidell EF2 notes multiple injuries, so it passes WP:TornadoCriteria. Also, the proposed new criteria discussion that TornadoInformation12 referred to can be found here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

March 31

Are the March 31 India and China tornadoes spawned by the same storm system? Meatballrunfatcat (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

April 15-16

Hey ChessEric, April 15-16 actually already passes WP:TornadoCriteria as one of the EF1s injured two people. (NWS Survey) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I know, but I really don't think that it should be there right now because the outbreak wasn't that big for April standards, and it's currently just one weak tornado that caused injuries. It can go there later if it's substantial enough. ChessEric 04:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Theres a major problem with the current criteria regarding injuries. Hypothetically, if an EF0 simply knocks a tree branch onto someone's head, does it make it more notable than an EF3 that doesn't injure anyone but causes $5 million in damage? Point is, injuries should not be used as WP:TornadoCriteria. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Just to note, an EF3 would automatically be included per the criteria. The current criteria was looked at and commented on by a solid amount of editors, who commented either on the first draft, second draft, or the RFC to ratify it. Someone else did mention a possible problem down the road using a single injury as a criteria point. But in reality, yes, an EF1 or EF2 that caused $5 million in damage but no injuries would be less notable than an EF0 that actually injured someone. That said, the current proposed additional criteria (in discussion right now) would add inclusion for 4-5+ EF2 tornadoes (even if no injuries) or if a tornado caused severe damage to a specific town (case-by-case discussion). Remember, this list is suppose to be about global tornadoes, not every tornado. Damage total means nothing for notability. A good example is the North Carolina EF1 on January 3, 2022 which caused $1.5 million in damage. It hit 2 structures. That is a solid reason why damage totals aren't mentioned in the criteria list, but injuries are. A tornado with a high damage total almost always did one of two things: Significant tornado (chances are high for it to be EF3+ or be in an outbreak) or it went through and hit most of a town/city, which would be covered under the new proposed criteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

January 8-9

Should the outbreak have a separate article? It had 35 tornadoes and 7 significant tornadoes. 2 people were killed by the tornadoes. Meatballrunfatcat (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Its already part of another article, so it's fine. ChessEric 18:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

PDS tornado warnings

Should there be a page called, "List of PDS tornado warnings"? Meatballrunfatcat (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No. We have probably at least 100 of them per year, so there's no notability in such a list. ChessEric 23:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Updates to article

I copied this page to my sandbox and made some edits to it. You can view the edits i made here: User:Meatballrunfatcat/sandbox. Meatballrunfatcat (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Breaking news

There are currently 75 miles of active tornado warnings. This event is currently overperforming. Seek shelter for every tornado warning in your area. Meatballrunfatcat (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

April 16-18

Should a draft be made? Meatballrunfatcat (talk) 23:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No (or not yet at least). It hasn't reached the level of notability or activity for an article to be needed. ChessEric 23:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I will decide if an article is needed after the April 18th tornadoes are rated Meatballrunfatcat (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

September 7, 2009

There was a tornado outbreak in South America on that day. It had 28 tornadoes, 12 of which were significant. I think an outbreak article should be made for this event. I posted here because i would probably not get a response on the Tornadoes of 2009 talk page. Meatballrunfatcat (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

European tornado events

Can we please stop including every tornado event with an IF1 tornado in Eurpoe on this page? It would make more since if we only included events with an IF2 tornado or a tornado that goes through a large city. Meatballrunfatcat (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Meatballrunfatcat: I do not know what you mean, as of this message, every event (US or Europe or other places) meet WP:TornadoCriteria. So if you are complaining about one of the listed European events, (Jan 3, Feb 14, Mar 5, Mar 9, Mar 27), then know that the community has already decided those events are notable for inclusion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Ref problem from older lists

I normally don't bring issues like this to here, but this may affect current tables, so I will. I was updating the progress of the monthly lists today and was quite alarmed because I had to downgrade the status alot of the lists to not done and half done, leaving only 2 lists as done. The main issue appears to be that there has been some sort of change to cite report refs; as a result, it requires an agency input. When it contradicts the way that a lot of the refs are put in, they display as errors. It may not seem like much of a problem, but there are some list pages with entire ref sections that show up with these errors. It's not a glitch either because there are other older list pages that don't have this sort of problem. This needs to be addressed because this problem is on pages as recent as last year and having that many errors in ref sections is not a good look. ChessEric 04:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)