Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of May 19–27, 2024

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 June 2024. The result of the discussion was keep.

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather.

United States: Iowa / Kentucky / West Virginia

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa.
	Kentucky portal This article is supported by WikiProject Kentucky.
	West Virginia portal This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia.

Greenfield wind speed

In the DAT the maximum wind speed of the tornado is 180 mph, but in the article it's 175-185 mph. Should we keep it at that or revise it to 180 mph? Poodle23 (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dat description actually says 175-185 mph 2600:1014:B14B:959B:0:20:42AF:B101 (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a comment. The actual wind speed is listed as 180 mph. Poodle23 (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The maximum windspeeds based ob damage are 185 mph Unbannable user (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the wind speeds, the article is now citing DOW7 as having gotten 309-318 mph wind gusts at 44m AGL, but the cited sources are the same old ones from Josh Wuhrman that said "270, possibly as high as 290." Am I missing something somewhere, or has the data been reanalyzed to give the higher results? If it has, then can someone actually cite a source for the reanalysis? (I'm not looking at BOLDly correcting it partly because apparently Reed Timmer mentioned something along those lines in a video recently, so I figured I'd ask if there was any other source for that number.) rdfox 76 (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC) EDIT: OK, just checked it out, and apparently someone changed the link in source 75 (Wurman's initial tweet about it) to a new one from the 22nd, but didn't update the rest of the fields in the citation template to reflect the change. I'm so rusty with templates I'm afraid I'll break it if I try to update it; could someone do so for me? rdfox 76 (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it was 300 mph winds, then shouldn't it have been an EF5 TORNADO? 212.164.64.148 (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EF rating is determined by damage, not windspeed. SalmonSalmonSalmon (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that is not how the EF scale works, it could help the survey in someway though but probably not. 67.58.252.227 (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I've adjusted the exact verbiage in that area, including both the initial (250-290) and final (309-319) winds Wurman reported. I restored the initial data to give a little more context to the following comment about the IF-scale rating (since it might be confusing that he's discussing 250 and 290 when we're only mentioning winds higher than both figures!), then added a bit with the updated figures after. I also think I got the citations corrected for both figures, but someone else may want to go and see if they can find an archive link for the June tweet (which is currently source 80). rdfox 76 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the greenfield tornado to its own article

is there any chance that we could move the greenfield tornado to its own article? 67.58.252.227 (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's likely. Poodle23 (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2024 Greenfield tornado theres one already Hoguert (talk) 03:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The draft still needs work before being moved into mainspace. Unbannable user (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield was EF5

NWS missed a lot of damage and this tornado clearly caused EF5 damage and if you say it didnt i hope you get banned permanently for spreading false information 2600:1014:B120:C31D:0:53:2587:9901 (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to have a source for the “EF5” rating. Wikipedia cannot add original research to the articles as everything must be sourced by a secondary reliable source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should get banned for saying that 2600:1014:B120:C31D:0:53:2587:9901 (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VNT and WP:VNTIA. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WeatherWriter is 100% right, you can't just go on Wikipedia spouting false information (even if you believe it to be true). Also, you are the one spreading false info here. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 15:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2600:1014:B120:C31D:0:53:2587:9901 — To not be reverted, all you need to do is add a reliable source along with the new information. Simply put, just add the URL to where the information came from. Unless you can add a source for the information, it is classified as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]