Talk:Tornado outbreak of January 12, 2023

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

Notability Consensus[edit]

ChessEric: I get why it is notable in your mind, but I thought we agreed to get a consensus before moving it. Please keep that in mind for the future, especially since you wanted some changes about moving things into mainspace before notability was proven. (P.S. I do support the moving, just needed to say a reminder message). Elijahandskip (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I did say that didn't I? LOL! I would categorize the move as WP:BOLD since I believed it was already notable enough to move though. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rating[edit]

I know we don't pre-rate tornadoes, but i'd like to get everyone's opinion on what they think the Selma tornado is going to be rated. Poodle23 (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, i'd say EF3 or EF4. Poodle23 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-range EF4, But don't assume it. Damage is still preliminary. TheEasternEditer (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen anything worse than EF3 yet, but its still early.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)TornadoInfomation12[reply]

High-end EF3, potentially. Tails Wx 01:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably at least low-end EF3, although this is not the place to discuss things like this. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before this happens...[edit]

Before this guy even gets a chance to say "this article should be deleted", i'd like to present my case why this should be kept.

The first and most obvious answer is that it was a January outbreak, which usually happens less than a December outbreak would.

My second answer is that there were 7 fatalities from a single EF3 tornado. Usually, you'd expect those many fatalities to be associated with an EF4 tornado, but this was an EF3, although it could be upgraded to EF4 or downgraded to EF2.

My third answer is that the Selma tornado had a visible hook echo, which we haven't seen in a while, and to add on to that, the tornado was rated an EF2. I know that tornado ratings don't correlate with tornado width, but you still don't see EF2 tornadoes with hook echoes like that on radar very often.

And that's my case. Poodle23 (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is wanting this deleted. That IP is a sockpuppet anyway. United States Man (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. Poodle23 (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SPC Image[edit]

Instead of fixing the problem, Elijahandskip chooses to be childish as usual. Rather than adding the proper image, he chooses to keep readding this image that is highly misleading. The actual risk area is much larger and had already been trimmed prior to this specific afternoon update. I find it rather silly that he chooses to fight over this rather than use common sense to realize that maybe that image might be misleading and make it look like the tornadoes in Alabama occurred outside the risk area. He responds with a childish edit summary: “Stop being disruptive and harassing me for adding the typical SPC image. If you want it at a different time, fix it otherwise leave it.” Instead of working to better the article, Elijahandskip would rather squabble over nonsense. United States Man (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What United States Man calls “childish”, the first alert that I boldly reverted his edit was classified as “harassment”. I’m not going to argue anymore with USM, but I will keep a SPC image on the article. I am fine with someone replacing it with the SPC image being requested by USM (one at a different time), but until then, USM is just harassing me and at this point being just plain disruptive. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not harassing you. Get over yourself lol. I’m trying to upgrade the integrity of this page, which some other here apparently have a hard time doing themselves. United States Man (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ChessEric: Could you fix this issue? He seems to be unwilling to do so and I am not in position to upload images. He’d rather accuse me of harassment than add the correct image. United States Man (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Then Fix the SPC image yourself. I’m not in charge if changing an SPC image, just trying to also keep the page quality better since just about every tornado outbreak article in the last decade has the SPC image on it and you are basically hell-bent on arguing about it not being good. Just get the damn image you want and replace it. At this point, you need to get over yourself and stop being childish. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
USM, being blunt, I do not know what image you WANT. Therefore, I cannot fix it so stop asking me to fix it and do it yourself. God damn you are in an argumentative mood today. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wayyyy past WP:CIVIL. Definitely showing a side that may get you sent to AN/I. United States Man (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, to Elijah's point, which one would you prefer?
Though only the outlook in the current image (2000) shows a hatched area. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the tornadoes occurred before 20z, so it makes no sense to have just that one. You could add the 13z and then have them both side by side or something. Use the caption to explain the evolution of the risk area through the day. General readers may understand that better. United States Man (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finally explaining what image/images you wanted. All you were saying was “Not that image, use a different/earlier one” without actually saying what earlier image and/or not willing to replace it with the image you wanted. That was the entire issue. ChessEric is right, it was a single image that caused this. In the future, if you want to debate an SPC outlook image: 1. Just replace it rather than edit warring…which follows into 2. Explain what you want it to be replaced with rather than a vague “earlier” image. In short, explain yourself more…and for heavens sake, don’t call a nice head’s up message (which I normally do not send to people) “harassment”. To be honest, that ticked me off more than this image debate. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? I don't care WHAT started this discussion. This is the type of garbage that I specifically said NOT to do in that long list I made on the talk page of Tornadoes of 2023. You guys really couldn't go 14 days into the new year without starting BS like this? This is the first outbreak article of the year! Get it together people because I refuse to be the moderator for this again.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 06:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And while everyone was arguing over some images, i was sleeping. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Poodle23 (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HEY!!!!!!!!! Enough of this crap. It's ONE IMAGE. Calm the heck down. I'll look for something, okay? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding a radar loop as soon as my computer stops running at like 1 mph. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a radar loop. Happy now? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ending location of the Selma tornado[edit]

Let’s have a civil discussion about the ending location of the Selma tornado.

According to the Damage Assessment Toolkit and Google Maps, the tornado ended about 1 mile southeast of Manila, Alabama.

Selma tornado ending distance to Selma city limits

This end point is approximately 8 miles northeast of the Selma city limits.

Selma tornado ending to Manila, AL

Should we have the location “track” as:

1. NE of Orrville to NE of Selma

2. NE of Orrville to Selma to SE of Manila

  • I support the 2nd option since 8 miles is a decent distance, especially when the tornado ends fairly close to an unincorporated community which already has a Wikipedia article prior to the tornado. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eight miles is a very short distance. Google maps shows Manila a couple miles further west, so the exact location is very fuzzy. NE of Selma is still accurate and not unlike something we would’ve done many times in the past. If anything, you’d need to use Burnsville and not Manila anyway. United States Man (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just added two images to show the distances between Selma/Manila and the tornado’s ending. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he is right. Manila is actually where Brantley is on the DAT. However, the locations should say, "NE of Orrville to Selma to E of Manila" which makes more sense since the tornado passed near other towns before dissipating. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are definitely not “towns”, but clutter the table with more nonsense... United States Man (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you two think I’m stupid or something. I’m the one who actually started the practice of adding more than two locations, but it was meant to highlight a major town that was affected toward the middle of a path. When two locations accurately describe the location, only two should be used. By the way, I personally travelled the whole length of the path, so I’m aware of these “non-towns” that you keep trying to add on here. They don’t even have a sign along the road lol. I’ve been doing this twice as long as both of you combined, so I’d think you’d have more respect and listen to me. I’m never trying to mess with anyone on purpose, but if I have a different idea, it’s for a reason. United States Man (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is just the same as original research, so it cannot be used on Wikipedia. Also, I do not think you are stupid. Myself and ChessEric are both just trying to improve the article. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Using DAT and Google Maps is original research? Stop grasping at straws. United States Man (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "I’ve been doing this twice as long as both of you combined, so I’d think you’d have more respect and listen to me." comment is what I was referring to. But that is beside the point. I'm going to keep this civil, so at the present time, I'm with ChessEric's comment that it should be NE of Orrville to Selma to E of Manila. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn’t it be OR to say your own location instead of what the NWS survey says? United States Man (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not say I think you're stupid as I do respect your decision-making. I just like to be exact with the locations I put in, which is why I try to add specific locations, even if it isn't labeled on a road. Plus, one of the refs for Manila shows a map that actually has both that town and Burnsville on it. Additionally, there are many routes and towns that are unsigned (i.e. Interstate 595 (Maryland)), so that's not really an adequate reason. I've loved looking at maps and studying roads for over 15 years, so I know a thing or two about them as well. Also, I respect you, but I don't have to always agree with you. Honestly, I pick my battles with you because I just don't feel like arguing. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Combined section for tornadoes from the Selma supercell[edit]

With the number of tornadoes (particularly long-tracked tornadoes) that the Selma supercell produced, I'm starting to think that we will need to do something similar to what we did in the Tornado outbreak of June 16–18, 2014 and the Tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007, which is put all the tornadoes under Selma supercell under one section or, like in the Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020, make a section providing a timeline for the supercell's lifecycle. In this way, I believe that we can adequately describe what this storm did rather than make three sections for three different tornadoes produced by the supercell, especially since the storm was producing two tornadoes at once a few times and three tornadoes at one point. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might could do that, if we can format it all correctly. However, the tornadoes in Georgia can hardly be described accurately as coming from the Selma supercell, because new storms kept building to the southeast and producing new tornadoes. United States Man (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, although the NWS Peachtree City said that they came from the Selma supercell. Considering how messy that storm got once the line finally caught up to it in central Georgia, however, that's debatable. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Basic math calculations for Old Kingston forward speed[edit]

Per WP:CALC, basic calculations are not considered original research. There is a discussion about whether to add the information about the Old Kingston, long-tracked EF3 having an average forward speed of 57.5 miles per hour (92.5 km/h), which can be found based on the distance travelled (which is listed in the article already of 76.67 miles) and the duration of the tornado (which is listed in the article already as 80 minutes). 57 mph is fast, especially for an EF3 (with plausible higher intensity). 2021 Western Kentucky tornado’s forward speed was just barely higher than that at 60 mph and it is mentioned due to it being such a fast speed. Can we just add it and not edit war over this anymore. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but it's not commonplace for us to do that outside of a few special instances. Not a big deal, but I'd like more input before adding it. United States Man (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being honest, this probably falls under one of those “few special instances”. Longest track tornado of 2023 (so far). Strongest tornado of 2023 (so far), longest/strongest tornado of the outbreak. Easily gong to be discussed and referenced for most of the year (especially the supercell which produced it). It already has a section breakout, meaning information doesn’t need to be short-and-sweet like in the chart boxes. Basically, I see no reason at all to not include it since policy allows basic calculations. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I really don't think its needed here, but I'm going to go neutral here. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
57 mph is objectively fast, but there are plenty of fast tornadoes every year. I'm opposed to the idea that it's notable enough to add. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 05:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
”fast” is but isn’t really an objective opinion style statement. NSSL states that a typical tornado speed is 10-20 mph. Even going at the upper-end of the typical speed range (i.e. 20 mph), this tornado would be nearly 3x faster than the average tornado. So while the term “fast” is an objective opinion, at a point, it stops being a true objective opinion and more of objective fact. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pineview, GA tornado is an EF1[edit]

If you zoom into its path on the DAT, you'll see a small area of EF1 damage. Poodle23 (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. It keeps disappearing on the DAT, so I added a note about it. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The polygon was under the wrong date, which is why I didn't see it. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin tornado width[edit]

What's going on with the width of the Griffin tornado? It seems like nobody knows its width, not even the NWS. Did they skip that? Poodle23 (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is further research ongoing since the damage width was identified at around 2 miles, but they were unsure if it was truly tornadic or straight-line wind damage caused by a real-flanking downdraft. So it was list as “TBD” most likely until the NCEI reports come out in April 2023. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Darn. If it's confirmed to be 2 miles wide, that would be the largest tornado in Georgia history. But then again, I'm talking hypothetically, so things could change. Poodle23 (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some guy decided to put in the width as 3467 yards. I have no idea where that could possibly be sourced to. Poodle23 (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing RfC related with this topic[edit]

There is an ongoing Request for Comment (RFC) to determine if the Old Kingston EF3 tornado qualifies for the list of list of possible F4/EF4 tornadoes with no official rating or lower rating. You can participate in the discussion here! Elijahandskip (talk) 18:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado mess southwest of Experiment on the DAT[edit]

So, the NWS FFC appears to still be trying to figure out the tornado paths southwest of Experiment. The result on the DAT is now a bunch of messy, erratic paths with scattered damage points and no damage lines. This is something I've seen from them the past few weeks and it just seems like they have no idea what they're doing with that area (I'm not trying to criticize them, but I'm just saying). I want to point out that the DAT, while helpful, is still preliminary and, unlike PNSs, not official, so I really think we should just revert back to what the article had before until we can figure out what is going on. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the NWS has a ridiculously difficult task in their hand here. It is not common for a supercell to produce so many tornadoes that overlap each other our around a main circulation, and we have to understand that identifying each tornado and damage path is very hard. I say we give them time, revert to what the article had before, and give them time to figure out just what in the world happened in Georgia that day. Mjeims (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We don't have to be in any hurry to add something. Until they make an official statement and/or send it to storm data nothing should be changed. United States Man (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjeims and United States Man: Well...they figured it out. My brain hurts just looking at it. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sheer craziness that was the Selma-Old Kingston-Griffin supercell (just putting Selma isn't enough), I propose that we make a section under the meteorological synopsis for just that storm. This was something that USM did for the Tennessee supercell from the Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020. I'm suggesting this because 8 of the 13 significant tornadoes as well as all nine fatalities came from the Selma storm, which produced 12 tornadoes total. Can I get some thoughts on this? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like this too, but I'm pretty sure that article is not the right example, because there are two sections for both of the individual tornadoes that caused the most damage (these being the Nashville EF3 and the Cookeville EF4). Maybe you mean something more along the tracks of the 2007 Greensburg supercell, or the June 2014 Nebraska tornadoes. Something like that? Mjeims (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think he means supplementing the sections below with a subsection in the MS. I think that makes sense @ChessEric:. United States Man (talk) 22:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Do you mind if I start it? Mind you that I would probably write up the whole thing first before I put it in the article. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead! That's a good idea. United States Man (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm SO glad I caught that tweet that showed the whole radar timeline of that supercell. I've started it here and you can help out if you want. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should I add in some of the earlier warnings for the storm or just focus on the tornadoes and tornado emergencies? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't focus on it all that much. Putting too much emphasis on warnings and evolution in Mississippi when nothing happened is undue weight. Plus, you don't wanna make that section so long that it's a chore to read. United States Man (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soooooooooooo, when the storm crossed over into Georgia, it CLEARLY dissipated within the QLCS with the mesocyclone, at best, being absorbed by another one to its south. WHAT THE HECK DO I PUT NOW?!?!? XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornado_outbreak_of_January_12,_2023&oldid=1210742414"