Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 16–18, 2021

Article name change?

Hello everyone, I would like to know if we could change the name of this article to 2021 Saint Patrick's Day tornado outbreak, or at least make a redirect. Since lots of other outbreaks that occurred on special days their have articles named after the name of the festival/events on that day, such as the 2020 Easter tornado outbreak, 2012 Leap Day tornado outbreak, and the 1965 Palm Sunday tornado outbreak. So I strongly propose that this article should be named after the festival day it occured on. If the name change request isn't succesful, we should put a redirect link, as many people would think this is the name of the outbreak. DavidTheMeteorologist^Talk 22:04, March 17, 2020 (UTC) DavidTheMeteorologist (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I considered naming the article that in the first place, but it would have been changed as tornado activity will likely continue into tomorrow. That said, this page cannot be change to "March 17–18" until tornadoes occur on the 18th. A redirect is fine. United States Man (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

@United States Man: I’m not too experienced with tornadoes but it seem so those outbreaks also spanned on days without the holiday.DachshundLover82 (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read before uploading files

Hi, as today's events have unfolded, I repeatedly see files uploaded with incorrect information. Please fill out the entire page on the upload page, and make sure the copyright information is correct. For example, {{PD-USGov-NOAA}} will label the data as being public domain from NOAA. Put this in the upload instead of saying it is self-made.

Page needs updating

The page needs updating because it’s March 18 not 17th and it has moved to different states. TornadoesInAlabama101 (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the region affected, but I'm not sure what you mean about the 18th, since we don't have much to report on in that regard and the article title includes the new date. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Event Notability

This event underperformed due to a lack of cells firing in Mississippi. There weren’t any long trackers or fatalities, and right now it’s looking like only one EF3+ (Chilton County, AL) which they are currently keeping at high EF2The creator of this article may have jumped the gun. We should know by know that a High Risk day is no guarantee for an article worthy event, as they have underperformed a lot in recent years. All in all, consider reverting this back to a section in Tornadoes of 2021 if surveys reveal an unremarkable event. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Eh, this article was going to happen anyway. We should at least wait until today's part of the event is over. Other than that I won't oppose a merge, but I don't support one either at this point since I was wrong the last few times I said an outbreak wasn't article-worthy. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That's fine with me; we should wait and see however. But, I have had the same thoughts as you. It would have been created anyway by someone else. United States Man (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I think if we get an EF4 (maybe even an EF3) tornado out of this, I would keep it. Other than that, it can be removed.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

As suggested by LightandDark2000, since the tornado outbreak underperformed and faces notability issues, we can use our original plan and rename the article to "Mid-March 2021 tornado outbreak and blizzard", change the format to a regular extratropical storm article, and add the non-tornadic impacts to the article as well (mainly the severe blizzard in Texas from March 16-17). This way, we can keep the article and the tornado stuff, while also including information about the blizzard. 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 15:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Consensus here is to merge. Your “snow” articles are getting old. United States Man (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Or whatever, that's fine too. I just think y'all get a little overboard on all these winter storm articles ;). United States Man (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This is actually going to end up with over 40 tornadoes; that should be enough to stand alone even without deaths and EF3+ tornadoes. United States Man (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I still think we should include the blizzard impacts and rename the article. 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 01:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding the blizzard impacts is fine, but the tornado outbreak was the big story so changing the name seems counter-intuitive (I think I used that word correctly) and could just confuse the reader.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@ChessEric: We can rename it to "March 16–18, 2021 tornado outbreak and blizzard" so that way we include tornado outbreak in the title and it won't confuse readers too much. 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 21:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe we can keep the title as is and you can just include some information about the snow in this article. The snow isn’t the main story here. So I would oppose a rename. United States Man (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

However, this snowstorm was no ordinary snow event. It prompted blizzard warnings in all of the Texas panhandle, caused zero visibility for hours on end, causing numerous crashes and stranded vehicles. I definitely think it should be in the title, as said by LightandDark2000. (Also, we did it this way for Tornado outbreak and blizzard of April 13–15, 2018, in which we included blizzard in the title even though the tornadoes were the bigger story.) 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 13:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

We do not need to do this for every outbreak with snow. That one was an exception because it was a historic storm, this one was just in a small area and not really significant in anyway. I also oppose such a move. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: While this tornado outbreak did cause over 40 tornadoes, almost all of them were EF0s and EF1s. There were 0 tornadic fatalities, and overall, it wasn't that major of an event. Meanwhile, the blizzard overperformed, resulting in Blizzard Warnings being expanded in all directions, zero visibility for hours in a row, as well as several injuries. Overall, the impact from the blizzard wasn't that much less than the tornadoes, so having "blizzard" in the title isn't a bad idea. 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 00:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneCovid: You act like this blizzard was record-breaking and affected millions over a wide area. It DIDN'T. The main impacts came from the tornadoes. Period. Enough with this back and forth about this. This is ridiculous. Not every article needs to be dominated by snow impacts and that's that.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@ChessEric: Tell me, what records did the tornado outbreak break? The high risk doesn't count because that isn't an impact of the storm. But you still say it's notable. Same thing with the blizzard: a storm doesn't have to be historic or break records to be notable. This blizzard was notable. Maybe not notable enough to change the name of the article, but notable enough to add some info abt the snow to the article. 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 15:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneCovid: Since when do tornado outbreak have to have records to be notable? They don't. Just like this one.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@ChessEric: I didn't mean the tornado outbreak wasn't notable (it obviously was notable). I'm just saying that an event doesn't have to break records to be notable. You said above that the blizzard wasn't notable enough for inclusion because it wasn't record-breaking. What I'm trying to say is that even though the blizzard didn't break any records, it was still notable enough to have a section in this article. Same logic with the tornado outbreak: it didn't break any records but was still notable. 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 16:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@HurricaneCovid: Not arguing that point. I never said we couldn't add the snow; I said changing the name wasn't needed.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@ChessEric: Oh. I don't mind if we dont change the name. As long as snow impacts are included, its fine. 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 17:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

We reached a compromise. That means it’s done. I see you are still picking and poking at it. United States Man (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV, TornadoLGS, ChessEric, and TornadoInformation12: A user here has been trying to add in "snow" impacts to a tornado outbreak article. The same user has also been trying to change the infobox to include and format things which are inconsistent with other tornado outbreaks (we should be closely following the model of 2011 Super Outbreak). The same user has also twice changed the position of a tornado within the table to be out of time order with the rest of the tornadoes and has tried to bold the article title in the lead, something we have moved away from for years now in these articles. Not to mention twice deleting injuries from the casualties section of the infobox (which is inconsistent with other outbreak articles which have injuries included), and also dividing the synopsis section into subsections, even though that section is short enough to not require splitting. That user also states that the system dissipated on the 19th, but this is a tornado outbreak article, so we go with the dates of tornado activity (16-18). I mentioned that I thought consensus here was against adding snow. Any opinions? United States Man (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

We can add snow impacts, but that other stuff? No. This is predominantly a tornado outbreak and it should stay that way. I'm getting annoyed with this.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not sure what's up with changing the position of that one tornado, but from a look at this thread, there doesn't appear to be much of consensus about including the snow. As I said below, I don't oppose having a section on it. Non-tornadic impacts are a standard part of tornado outbreak articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to adding a section at the bottom, but I am opposed to rewriting the lead and redoing the infobox. United States Man (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@United States Man: I agree, ESPECIALLY when we have established that this was mostly a tornado outbreak.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

If no one will revert me, I have an idea for a compromise. I will add the last section at the bottom and an extra couple sentences in the lead. The infobox will be left as is except for adding "blizzard" as an event type and adding the max snow total. United States Man (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@United States Man: I think this is a good compromise. I'm fine with it, as long as some snow info is included in the article. 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 02:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

This is sorta embarrassing because I think this got posted as blank (unless my original edit request can only be viewed by mods or something, I don't really know how this stuff works yet)

Anyways, the link on the Guilford County tornado (specifically, the "NNW of Archdale") links to the wrong location. If possible, it should be changed to "NNW of Archdale".

Unrelated to that minor edit is the "E of Chilton" tornado shows up as EF1 on the DAT and I can't find anything suggesting that it's EF0 like the article has it as. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong about that though. - EroSplahz (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

All set. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Those were my mistakes. Thanks! I did not know this page was going to be protected; sorry you can't edit anymore. Hang around and you'll achieve autoconfirmed status and be able to edit protected pages. United States Man (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Blizzard

Let's discuss whether to have the blizzard content here, shall we? Can we actually follow WP:BRD and not have an edit war on every outbreak? I'm not opposed to including it, since non-tornadic imparts are a standard part of outbreak articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I commented above. United States Man (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Frankly I believe that the edit warring is by one person who refuses to go to the talk page to discuss things.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Part of on infobox

@United States Man, LightandDark2000, Hurricane Noah, MarioProtIV, and ChessEric: Hey, so since the article is protected already, I don't want to submit an edit request for this because some people may oppose, but I would like the bottom of the infobox to read "Part of the tornado outbreaks of 2021 and 2020–21 North American winter", since we have a section on the blizzard in the winter season article. I don't mind if we don't do that; I'm fine either way, but I would prefer if we do. Thoughts? 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 13:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Fine. THAT'S IT.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok. 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 _(contribs) 16:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Similar new draft started

Just as a heads up to editors who edited this, I started Draft:Late March 2021 tornado outbreak. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)