Talk:List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2021

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Low-importance).

Fultondale tornado rating

The national weather service assessment says that the tornado in Fultondale Alabama on January 25th was rated EF2, not EF3. IBlazeCat (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The preliminary findings showed high end EF2. I don't know why it is set at EF3. Maybe someone found something we didn't. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was just confirmed as an EF3 with 150 mph winds. NWS Birmingham just tweeted. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this page, albeit incomplete, listed the EF3 rating some hours before the latest tweet. TornadoLGS (talk)

Fultondale tornado - separate article discussion

Is the Fultondale tornado large enough to have a separate article or should it just have a large box on this article, or both? Elijahandskip (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the discussion decides to have a separate article, we could work on Draft:2021 Fultdondale tornado. If the discussion decides not to have a separate article, we will speedy delete the draft.

Support Separate Article since an EF 3 tornado (Deadly) is rare to see in January. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose - This was one EF3 tornado. It did considerable damage. But, it wasn't exceptionally deadly or impactful. A good section at Tornadoes of 2021#January 25 will do just fine. United States Man (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tornadoes like this are not uncommon in the Southeast. The time of year is irrelevant. Unless this gets a lot more coverage later on, it fails WP:LASTING and WP:GEOSCOPE. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral In My Opinion, this may not be a bad idea to have a separate article. However, I don't know if every tornado deserves an article or not. However, I don't think that we should never write tornado articles. For example, I think we should possibly write an article on deadly EF3+ tornadoes, all EF5 tornadoes, and rare tornadoes. (e.g.) Non-fatal EF3 Tornado in South Florida during winter. --Wxman28 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Support, but not now I was actually going to start an article myself until I saw this. Heavy damage in a populated area and a fatality warrant a section, but the thing I want to highlight is the unusual environment the storm formed in. We won't know much about it now, but I do want to see what is being said on it in the future.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:48, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here warrants a full article, as it will inevitably be a rehash of what’s already in the section. Also, there is nothing exceptionally special about the “environment the storm formed in.” United States Man (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed I said environment and NOT place. The place has nothing to do with my argument. However, the summary from the NWS Birmingham states the more favorable conditions for tornadoes were further north. They also said, "...the formation of this tornadic storm was particularly interesting given the overall environment. A few small-scale factors, perhaps not present elsewhere, appear to have come together to allow this storm to produce such a tornado." That's why I want an article. Its not for the event itself, but the factors that led to it.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support separate article Seeing how rare an intense tornado like this one is in January, it should have its own article. IBlazeCat (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An EF3 tornado in January or February is not exceptionally rare. A tornado in the south (especially Alabama) is not rare at all in January. So this argument holds no weight. United States Man (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, a strong occurring somewhat outside the typical temporal or geographic range does not lend all that much notability. It doesn't matter if the tornado hit in January or April, Alabama or upstate New York. Impact and coverage should be the primary factors determining article-worthiness. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Section in the main article supplemented by this list is fine. The scale/scope of damage and meteorological context isn't exceptional for January. There will always be enough meteorological info to make an article of adequate length, but I don't think it's warranted. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@United States Man, ChessEric, and Wxman28: It seems there has been a failure to communicate, since the Fultondale article was move from draftspace to mainspace, redirected, and moved to user space without discussion. Things might need to be hashed out more, but it seems consensus is leaning against having the article. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS: I know that. I wanted to keep it for myself. I don't think there is anything wrong with that.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Humphreys County tornado

@United States Man: Is there a source for the Humphreys County, TN tornado on February 28? I can only find a report of thunderstorm wind damage. I was going to remove it, since an IP has been adding TN tornadoes without a source, but I saw that you added it. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is on DAT with a complete survey. There was also a warning just east of that area just after that time so it lines up. United States Man (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cantore confirmed tornado today.

I can't find much info on the tornado other than a confirmation from a famous weather guy. Well, he retweeted it, so that is a confirmation from him. https://twitter.com/nmjameswilson/status/1370515603417669632?s=19 Elijahandskip (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. That has no relevance and holds no weight here. United States Man (talk) 03:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USERGENERATED. We don't accept posts from personal social media. We can wait until confirmation from the NWS. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3/22 Lubbock Tornado

I am going to have to ask you stop reverting it. That report list specifically states the NWS certified local storm report confirming the tornado in question. -8medalkid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8medalkid (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 12 tornado

@United States Man and 8medalkid: Let's do this here instead of getting into another edit war. 8Medalkid, if you can provide a better source for the tornado, please do so in the same edit that you add the tornado. Preliminary tornado reports through the SPC are generally not confirmed until there is a survey. Worst case, we wait for the NCDC release. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between edit warring over content and protecting the integrity of an article. United States Man (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except, this is a content disagreement. When it comes down to it, what you and 8medalkid disagree on is whether there is sufficient reliable documentation to include the March 12 tornado. That kind of thing is not an exception to the three-revert rule, which both of you are close to breaking. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly reverted it as I provided an NWS certified LSR. I think it is an edit war at this point. 8medalkid — Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice about a new draft

Just a heads up to editors that I started Draft:Tornado outbreak of March 25, 2021. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elijahandskip: In mainspace already. Just a note, more people will likely see these discussions if they are posted to the early article talk page rather than the monthly list. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS: It got moved due to the news on Portal:Current events. Also I sent this message to editors and added it to about 4 other articles. I know not to just add it to this. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worth updating for small changes?

I'm looking over the NCDC data and updating tornado with significant changes, but a lot of tornadoes are pretty much the same apart from a 1-minute difference in touchdown/liftoff time or a 0.01-0.03 mile difference in path length. Are these small differences even worth updating? While It's kind of OR territory, I kind of doubt a lot of tornado paths can even be defined to an accuracy of 0.01 miles, since the tornado does not have sharply defined edges and the path may be subject to something along the lines of the Coastline paradox. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NCDC report represents official NWS Storm Data, so yes it is worth changing. United States Man (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into that after the next map update, then. It also seems that a lot of tornadoes that cross county lines have shorter paths than indicated by the original PNS's. It's so common that I'm wondering if some error is introduced when the paths are broken up. TornadoLGS (talk) 13:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is very likely. The pre-2012 NCDC data is notoriously bad for path length and location discrepancies across county lines. United States Man (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]