Jump to content

Talk:2011 Super Outbreak/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Relief and Recovery efforts

Sooner or later, we're going to have to include a section on the relief and recovery efforts in the aftermath of the outbreak. This was arguably this country's worst disaster since Katrina and there's been an outpouring of aid from around the world. There are several great grassroots relief efforts going on right now. Notably, Toomers for Tuscaloosa has established a nationwide network of donation collection centers that ship to warehouses in Alabama. The response from the American people and the international community has really been quite moving. Japan made a modest donation. Several big names in country music got together for a relief concert called Music Builds that aired on CMT last week. The band Alabama is putting together another concert in June. Actor David Spade donated $20,000 out of his own pocket. I think we should start pooling information and sources into a relief and recovery section. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 21:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, that will need to be through subsections in the aftermath section. This will be one long article when all is said and done. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Good, consolidated info finally coming out

NOAA has finally come out with a death toll: 340 from 8am eastern time April 27 until 8am eastern time April 28, which, by my count, would put the final death toll for the whole outbreak at 353: from SPC 9 deaths before this period, with 4 deaths in VA on the 28th. What do people think about this total?

Secondly, the Storm Prediction Center is beginning to update their 2011 fatal tornadoes page; should really help us break down the deaths, although it looks like they do not have all the deaths compiled yet (only a total of 369, should be close to 400 if the above total for the outbreak is correct, plus they state that "killer tornado numbers for this event are yet to be completed"). -RunningOnBrains(talk) 02:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It is quite possible the actual tornado death toll may be a bit lower. Some of the media/agency reports may have duplicate reports, miscounted reports or actual death reports that were not due to tornadoes but due to other thunderstorm impacts. Hence I added disclaimers in death totals. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
SPC updated their fatal tornado page. They list 360 tornado-related fatalities for the entire year (316 for the April 25-27 period). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Still, they say it is not a final list. They only list 59 deaths for the Tuscaloosa tornado, while NWS Birmingham lists "at least 65". I find it interesting that it is not the deadliest of the outbreak apparently: the Hackleburg EF5 killed 71 by the current count. I think the way the article is phrased now is good (354, exact count is uncertain, some may be non-tornadic), although we can probably remove the "+" at this point, since uncertainty is already implied and I doubt it will go up much further. Any other opinions? -RunningOnBrains(talk) 16:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Holy hell, where did that number come from for Hackleburg? NWS Huntsville just says "unknown" and NWS Birmingham has actually lowered their total from "at least 25" to "at least 18". While I know that number is higher, 71 is insane. I need a reliable source for that before I believe it. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 03:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's unreasonably large...our table before that came out said 66+ deaths, and I seem to remember Huntsville releasing a death toll of 40+, though I can't seem to find the link. I'll just be glad when someone finally tabulates the final numbers; I'm starting to wonder if maybe we didn't break the Super Outbreak's death toll after all. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 05:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

NWS tornado map just updated. Some confirmed tornadoes are missing, others are tweaked and many new ones have been added. Of note, I've found 16 new Texas tornadoes. I've been keeping my own charts of the outbreak (splitting it by state rather than day) and I've found 30 confirmed tornadoes in the state (21 EF0, 7 EF1, 2 EF2). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Strangly, the Bridgeport, AL EF4 has not been added to the map yet. It's Tennessee portion has, but not the Alabama portion. We're up to 15 EF4 or greater tornadoes. That is incredible. And NWS Birmingham mentions another tornado in the early morning hours that followed almost the same track as the Cordova EF4 that may have also been an EF4. They're looking closer at the damage to a particular house on Pleasantfield Road. If that gets upgraded, we'd be at 16, just one short of Palm Sunday for second most all time. This is some rarified air we're getting into here. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 16:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Yea, it's just incredible how many violent tornadoes are being confirmed. The mess of tornadoes in Tennessee is quite interesting. Near Madisonville, three EF1 tornadoes tracked almost over the same exact spot within two hours of each other. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if they were ever going to confirm more NE Texas tornadoes...I personally knew people who saw tornadoes that hadn't made it to this list yet, so I'm glad that info made it out; I was afraid we'd have to wait for Storm Data.
Anyone know where 16 violent tornadoes puts us? Is that the second-most in an outbreak behind 1974?-RunningOnBrains(talk) 17:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Ranks as the third-most violent. The 1974 Super Outbreak holds the record with 30 and the 1965 Palm Sunday outbreak is at a distant second with 17. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Most violent is a subjective term. Is it the count of violent tornadoes? Is it the area of violent damage of combined path length and width, is it violent tornado density, etc.? Articles must be clear on what is meant. As for this outbreak in comparison to large outbreaks of the past, it's actually that much more remarkable the number of violent tornadoes given the more stringent rating standards of today. That is, tornadoes today are less likely to be rated higher on the scale now and it was more likely decades ago. It does matter some that these tornadoes hit the Southeast, which is more populated, and indeed many population centers were afflicted, but the continuity and area of violent damage is standout with these tornadoes. The violent (EF4-EF5) and significant (EF2-EF5) tornado counts contrast from the count of all tornadoes (EF0-EF5), in which case there are at least twice as many in the last couple decades. An upward trend that continues, it's a "secular trend" due to changes in the reporting process, not climate. So, again, direct comparisons of violent tornadoes to the past must be made with caution, although to a lesser extent than for all tornadoes. Evolauxia (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

KML Tornado Track File

Local forecast offices have collaborated and compiled this map: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ffc/?n=20110427_svrstorms of tornado tracks. There is some information apparent here that hasn't been officially mentioned by local WFOs, for instance: Smithville has been connected to a track further SE in MS, giving it a total path length of 75 miles (based on the length of the track in the KML file). A few of the unknown track lengths can be estimated from this map as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.119.70 (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Focus

Is it just me, or does there seem to be an unreasonable amount of focus on Ontario? I don't see almost any mention of significant areas such as Virginia and New York from the outbreak, but repeated mention of what sounds to be rather ordinary storms in Canada. I have nothing against things being international... but don't think we should equate minor events with a huge event just to make everyone equal in this case.

Certainly will take some more rewrites, and I guess I could start with helping, huh, instead of complaining? But would think the weak tornadoes and wind event in Canada would merit at most 1-2 sentences throughout the entire article, yes? On the other hand, unless I missed it, particularly the deaths in Virginia have been overlooked. Also, why the specific notice that tornadoes didn't hit DC or NJ?

Overall, keep up the hard work guys, and perhaps I'll come back and work more on the edits if I hear people agree :-) --JeopardyTempest (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Then work on it!!! It probably is focused on where the most Wikipedians are. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Finalizing the death toll

I know a lot of sources have had different numbers. The SPC chart has 322 tornado-related deaths. Of the non-tornadic deaths, here are what we know from sources on here:

All the downburst winds and flooding have been added to the article. Those are all I could find so far. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Current state deaths missing: AR 2, GA 1, MS 4, TN 1, VA 1. Those are listed in the chart and by EMAs but have no backing proof at this point. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Name

I wonder how long "April 27, 2011 tornado outbreak" will survive as the colloquial name of this outbreak, given its severity. Most major outbreaks have developed a nickname of some sort over the years. I wonder if anything will catch on. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 09:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It probably will, and once such happens, the page can be moved there if it catches on. But only if it becomes popular consensus. CrazyC83 (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if the final name is "Super Outbreak II" or "2011 Super Outbreak" (which makes the original one the "1974 Super Outbreak". This storm system is very similar to the first one, only a lot worst. And reports are saying only the 1925 Tri-State Tornado was deadlier (for tornado days since 1900).--Halls4521 (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
CrazyC, I wasn't proposing moving the article yet, you can put away the sword now lol. Yeah, I think with all the comparisons to the Super Outbreak, something like that may eventually catch on, but I think it could be a while before something does. The official announcement of the day's final tornado tally and subsequent historical comparisons may spark something. And note the 337 death toll listed in the article covers the entire four-day outbreak, not just the superoutbreak of the 27th. I know most of those occurred on the 27th, but it doesn't have to fall very far to drop out of second place. The 1932 Deep South tornado outbreak is sitting there at 332 (268 in Alabama). And note that the 317 from May 17, 1840 was all from one tornado. The total for the outbreak was probably higher. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 20:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The National Weather Service is referring to it as the capital-lettered "Super Outbreak" on several pages, such as: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/news/display_cmsstory.php?wfo=hun&storyid=67512&source=0. And NOAA says this will confirm as greater in both number of tornadoes overall and number in a 24-hour period (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/april_2011_tornado_information.html), so a rename seems to be in order.Sqlman (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Due to its significance, there will likely be a storm assessment which provides a name for the outbreak in about a year. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm making the push to request this article be moved to the 2011 Super Outbreak (which in turn would mean the current Super Outbreak would be moved to 1974 Super Outbreak and the term would become a disambiguation page). Multiple sources are referring to it as a Super Outbreak, most notably the National Weather Service whose name for a particular outbreak would be the primary one. Additionally, Fox News ("similar super-outbreak struck in 1974"), ABC (WJLA) (Major news agency), ABC Local (Another part of ABC showing consistency), MSNBC (KJRH) (Major news agency), NBC (Major news agency), Christian Science Monitor, Radio Iowa (shows that it's being used outside of the affected region), Minnesota Public Radio (same as Iowa), Discovery channel. There are also tons of other places calling it the Super Outbreak but I think the above is sufficient. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

After reading the name from NWS Huntsville, it should be seriously considered. I would want to see a second office do so as well before making the move. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd rather keep a descriptive name (such as the one we have now) unless a single name for this outbreak is being used by multiple official sources; we don't want to endorse any one version, since there really is no official method of "naming" tornado outbreaks. If another office terms it the 2011 Super Outbreak, I'd be okay with it, but as a name only. A super-outbreak is not a type of outbreak. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 03:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I generally dislike long-winded names such as what we currently have ("Late April 2011" would be a step in the right direction), and for such a historic, watershed event like this one, I feel like the public needs something to latch on to. And while I have mixed feelings about stealing a name from such a hallowed event, I can't help but feel, with all the comparisons, that one name or another involving the term "Super Outbreak" will become popular, especially once the NWS finally comes out with the official tally. As for the idea of "superoutbreak" as a generic term, note that in older documents, the 1974 event is spelled as one word "Superoutbreak" and I think this is how it was generally thought of; that it wasn't just a tornado outbreak, it was a super tornado outbreak. Because it was the first and only one that was ever really thought of in this way, "Superoutbreak" morphed into "The Super Outbreak". Just my two cents. And also note that another media source, Jim Cantore, referred to this as "Super Outbreak II". I don't want to say it's inevitable, but that's the direction we're headed. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 08:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I have heard more and more references to a "Super Outbreak" as time goes by, so we might as well take the plunge and rename the article to 2011 Super Outbreak, considering that the current title, while descriptive, was also completely made up by us, and is anything but concise. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
NWS Mobile, Alabama is referring to this as a "super tornado outbreak" now too. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
While I do agree on renaming the article 2011 Super Outbreak (since that what it was), I think we should wait before making it official (around 5 to 25 days). The reason is that I want it confirmed by the national branch of the NWS. The 1974 Super Outbreak is confirmed by the national branch but this one is not (yet), only the local branches - and the media - are calling it that. Remember, the 1932 Tornado Outbreak was also called a "Super Outbreak" by the local branches too (and NOT the national branch).--Halls4521 (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
1932 was, really? I haven't heard about that. National acknowledgement probably won't come until a final report is issued in about a year, per thegreatdr. I would be okay with pulling the trigger now, not only because I feel that it's inevitable, but because I think there's a wide degree of acceptance. I agree, official acknowledgement would be nice, but I think the National Weather Service is probably waiting for us, i.e. the media, to establish a popular consensus before they throw their weight behind a name. Also, the NWS doesn't see it as appropriate to christen an outbreak so soon after the event. Several different offices are referring to it as a "super tornado outbreak". That's as heavy an endorsement as you're going to get for the time being, and knowing the NWS, that's a pretty heavy endorsement. They wouldn't use such a term lightly. And honestly, I have a hard time picturing us 5-10 years from now calling it anything other than the "2011 Super Outbreak", referring the the 1974 event colloquially as the "first Super Outbreak" or the "original/old Super Outbreak". -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 21:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The SPC FAQ is calling it the Dixie Outbreak. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the first time I've heard that. Unless I see a bunch of other sources start using that, I'm going to remain skeptical of that name. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Only thing is there are several outbreaks that could/can be called a "Dixie" outbreak. Plus this outbreak went as far north as (southern) Canada, so it too big to call it a Dixie/Southern tornado outbreak.--Halls4521 (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
As is often the case on Wikipedia, our search for a consensus on this issue seems to have stagnated. I've heard more yays than nays, but I don't want to invoke widespread dissent by taking unilateral action. I and others feel that there is enough of a public consensus for a move, but some have expressed otherwise. I think it should at least be mentioned in the header as a popular name for the outbreak. This issue is going to have to be addressed sooner or later, so we might as well address it now. Also, the preliminary count has been released. 226 tornadoes touched down between 8am April 27 through 8am April 28, so it has officially surpassed the 1974 Super Outbreak...by a lot. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
And just to make sure everyone stays good and confused, this National Weather Service Office and The Weather Channel are calling it "The Epic Outbreak". Which I have to say sounds pretty corny, but then again so is The Super Outbreak when you think about it. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 22:42, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
That sounds like a newspaper headline and not an actual name for the outbreak, which at least in the case of the Weather Channel, I think it is. The name for the original Super Outbreak, I believe, originated from the (apt) description of it as a "superoutbreak". This morphed into its name. This time, it emerged from comparisons to the 1974 event. And that's what it was. If you had to define a "superoutbreak" a la 1974, I don't see how April 27 could not fit that description. And it's gotten widespread support from the media and multiple NWS offices (the Discovery Channel's Storm Chasers page refers to it as "Super Outbreak 2011", just to add yet another media outlet to the list). Yeah, there are other names out there, there was bound to be, but I don't see any with nearly the same level of support. At first I was wary of impugning on the sanctity of the original Super Outbreak, but the more I've thought about, the more right it feels. I know I've been really beating the drum on this but this was a historic event and should be treated as such. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 05:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

NWS Nashville is now calling it the Super Outbreak. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Calling it the 2011 super out is not a suitable name because who is to say the might not be tornado out break of a scale like that again because we haven't even gone through May yet which is normally the peak of the tornado season. --93.107.18.228 (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's just a name to give the outbreak so it's not generic. The same thing can be applied to the 1974 Super Outbreak (which has yet to be surpassed in terms of number of violent tornadoes). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, as it has not been made official yet, I'd say wait till at least August-December to consider changing the name of the article. Maybe by then one of these names will become official. Besides everybody is still gathering data concerning this outbreak, and, as another editor said, who knows what could happen in the next few months.--Halls4521 (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I advocate not giving a colloquial name to the outbreak until such a name emerges as a rough consensus from authoritative sources. No name sticks, yet. The service assessment that Thegreatdr mentions is one option, although something may emerge sooner than that. A smattering of local NWS sites won't suffice, it'd have to be prominently displayed as the headline name by most NWSFOs, by national NWS or NOAA, NSSL, SPC, or by a trend among researchers (formal websites, conference presentations, published scientific papers, etc). Basically, it should be clear from formal (as opposed to preliminary) websites or published works that meteorologists converge on a same name. It will take still more time to work out the number of tornadoes and fatalities as well as timing of tornadoes and thus days involved in the outbreak(s). As comparisons to the 1974 outbreak go, an important consideration is that 2x as many tornadoes are reported now than during that period, so the counts cannot be compared directly. There is a significant amount of social science research ongoing and coming on this outbreak, as well, and it's possible a name will emerge from there, or that one will emerge from the popular media and be adopted by scientists/forecasters. Whatever our feelings on what the outbreak "deserves" it's not the place of Wikipedia to make that decision. Evolauxia (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

NWS Greenville-Spartanburg are calling it the "Epic Outbreak". Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
NWS Birmingham is calling it the "Southern States Outbreak Sequence" Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that actually fits for the whole April 25-28 event, which was more of a tornado outbreak sequence while the April 27 superoutbreak (that's what it was people, get over it) was a true singular outbreak. I just think that when we talk about this event 5-10 years from now, we'll be calling it the "2011 Super Outbreak", or at least the "April 27 superoutbreak" within the "(Great) Southern States outbreak sequence" of 2011. If the latter is adopted, I think it'll aquire the prefix "Great" within ten years. Also, NWS Birmingham's main page on the outbreak refers to it generically as the "Historic Outbreak of April 27, 2011". Evolauxia, the Super Outbreak moniker has been widely adopted by numerous media sources (just Google "2011 super outbreak"), however the NWS - being the NWS - is reluctant to commit to such a strong title, particularly one so hallowed historically, with many branches opting for more generic, conservative names, or none at all. It wouldn't surprise me if they go conservative in the official report and simply call it the "Historic Tornado Outbreak of April 25-28, 2011" or some such. The last time the NWS officially endorsed a popular media name for a major outbreak was Super Tuesday, and even with significant media support, I don't know how willing they'll be to endorse "2011 Super Outbreak". I am glad to see that multiple local offices are not afraid of the comparison. I still think that we should at least put two or three of the most popular ones in bold in the intro. This is often done with popular nicknames that lack consensus. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 04:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Agreed the popular names (the 2011 Super Outbreak, 2011 Epic Outbreak, etc.) should be used as sub-names, but for now, the current name should stand for lack of consensus. Due to the large number of outbreaks in April, there is no other name that could be suitably disambiguated. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Even though is all settled, NWS Milwaukee is calling it the 2011 'Super Dixie Outbreak' (this after calling it the 2011 'Super Epic Dixie Outbreak'). Note that they are ONLY counting (wrongly) April 27 - the outbreak (sequence) lasted from the 25th to the 28th of that month.--Halls4521 (talk) 04:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

NWS Milwaukee is "wrongly" just using the one day as the outbreak? The widely-held definition of outbreak is roughly a one day event, where multiple events with lulls (even brief) in between creates an outbreak sequence. This article is discussing an outbreak sequence of multiple outbreaks. The April 27th-28th is the comparable outbreak to the 1974 Super Outbreak. W Scott Lincoln 17:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to throw my 2 cents in, the season is far from over. What else does it have yet to throw at us? I think we will need a good bit of time and history to pass before a good name is known. I think the title should definitely stay as is for a good while. There is no rush. TimL (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed tornado damage totals

I'm putting together a list of known damage totals/estimates stemming from this outbreak. I'll be updating this over time to include other areas. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Overall

ESTIMATE: $3.5 – 6 billion
TOTAL: $1,493.7 million ($1.5 billion) (from values listed below)

Alabama

Total: $1,078.6 – 1,113.6 million ($1,500 million confirmed by FEMA)

Arkansas

TOTAL: >$87 million

Georgia

Statewide Estimate – $75 million

Kentucky

TOTAL: >$34 million

Mississippi

TOTAL: $88.4 million

Tennessee

TOTAL: $57.0 million

Virginia

TOTAL: $73.7 – 93.7 million

Death toll tweaks continue

Newest SPC fatality list update: 78 deaths for Hackleburg tornado. This puts it on the list of 25 deadliest US tornadoes. Also, Tuscaloosa tornado is back up to 61, and the total for the main outbreak (after 12z April 27) is back up to 314. Of course these tweaks will continue, and it's still possible the Hackleburg number is an overcount, but that's looking less and less likely with each revision.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 07:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That would put the total tornadic death toll at 322. The overall death toll moves up to 341 as Alabama moved up. The difference between the EMA figures and the SPC figures for states that either need to be revised or re-checked for other events (probably non-tornadic): AL 0 (all tornadic, was -1 but updated), AR +7, GA +1, MS +4, TN +2, VA +1. I also moved the Louisiana deaths to non-tornadic as no killer tornadoes occured there. Notice one of the deaths was from an EF0 tornado, that has to be the first such occurance in a long time (probably a damaged weak tree hit someone). CrazyC83 (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm still struggling to wrap my head around the shear magnitude of this event. These are just staggering figures. Neither of my parents were even born the last time a tornado killed more than 57 people, and now it looks like we had two on a single day. Last time two tornadoes killed at least 60 in a 24 hour period was Flint-Worcester, and those two were almost 20 hours apart. Tuscaloosa touched down less than two hours after Hackleburg. 78?! Jesus Christ, Udall is sitting there at 82. I know you only have to go back two more years to get to the incredible carnage that was 1953 but dear God. I know SPC is plenty official but I'd like another agency to start endorsing these numbers before I can believe such incredible figures. I'm still not sure how much I trust that table. Note that they still list Ohatchee as an EF3. It was upgraded weeks ago. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 21:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
[1] Hackleburg tornado back down to 71. I had a feeling they might have counted the other EF-5 towards this tornado.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if the two tracks will eventually combine in the final totals? That would be one extraordinarily long tornado (with 93 deaths, before Joplin that would have seen outrageous). CrazyC83 (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Pardon me, I just noticed this discussion right here after lurking this article since the outbreak [although I have updated a few path lengths on the tornado list page as per updated PNS before signing up with an account today] and even though I assume this has already been clarified, I just wanted to add that I can confirm that the two northern EF-5's were indeed from different supercells. Radar loops from NWS offices show the progression of the supercells and tornadoes in Marion county, and the Hackleburg tornado was in the Tennessee Valley when the Smithville tornado moved into the state. BMX notes that the Hackleburg tornado began at about 305PM, and the Alabama segment of the Smithville tornado began at 357PM. Amazing to note, the Hackleburg tornado was still on the ground when the Smithville tornado reached peak, therefore there were two tornadoes rated overall EF-5 on the ground at the same time! Hope this clarification helps in some way. EquusStorm (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
The tracks are parallel and separated by a couple miles in the survey maps I've seen, so I doubt it. I can't wait for storm data, it will make this so much easier.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 21:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
That will probably come out in late July or in early August, but it may take a bit longer for everything to appear given the extreme nature. March should be out soon (the final total for that month right now is 75) but that month had no major outbreaks. It will also tell us the real, final death toll as well. Morristown is especially problematic since they have not much details at all really. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Outbreak's Place in History

I would just like to reaffirm that this outbreak does rank in some of the USA's costliest disasters http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/damage1980.asp One can probably guess, that it ranks probably 15th if you add the Northridge earthquake. However a tornado outbreak ranking even in the 20 costliest natural disasters(for the USA), is pretty startling. Because of how small scale they typically are compared to hurricanes or earthquakes, tornadoes typically cause much less damage. Stating that this outbreak does rank in some of the top, shows how extensive and how destructive this outbreak was both for property and loss of life.

That's fair enough justification I suppose. I just get tired sometimes that everyone is so quick to label something as the "one of the worst (disaster)s in (place) history"; I feel it cheapens the phrase to the point where it doesn't mean anything anymore. This is clearly one of the deadliest tornado disasters in US history (4th?), I felt it didn't need the extra qualifier. Plus, if it ends up being the lower estimate ($6 billion), it might not even crack the top 25 weather disasters. I still think we should hold off on the "one of the costliest" wording until we have a better final damage estimate, but I'm not going to change it.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 02:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Change to 2011 Super outbreak

Since this outbreak has often been refereed to as the 2011 Super outbreak, is it possible to rename this article as such due to its historic significance? Looking for other users' opinions. Stormchaser89 (talk) 10:15, 17 June 2011 (US Central Time)

I'm not really endorsing it yet, since many sources have said it but it hasn't universally clicked. However, once the final reports and the NWS Service Assessment come out, the real name will likely be known then. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Smithville/Shottsville tornado path length?

Is it 15.24 miles, as on the main outbreak page, or 75 miles, as on the tornado list page? So many tornadoes crossed CWA and/or state boundaries during this event that it confused the initial counts and data quite a bit.

174.102.209.228 (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

First Cordova tornado

The rating for the first Cordova tornado still seems to be in limbo. NWS Birmingham still has not addressed whether the damage to the home at the beginning of the track meritted an EF4 rating. Sure seems like it to me. The house was completely obliterated, leaving a foundation swept clean. If that's not EF4, I don't know what is. I'm starting to wonder if NWS Birmingham has just forgotten about it. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 18:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

They likely finished their assessments but are not updating the page until later; however, it's likely that their busy with other tornadoes. Assessments are still ongoing, especially for the most intense tornadoes (Rainsville being the most recent example) and Huntsville seems to be finding new tornadoes every week or so. Either way, you can just email NWS Birmingham and ask about it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Casein point, NWS Huntsville just released info on another EF1 that touched down on April 20 PNS. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Huntsville seems to be a lot more active than Birmingham. I haven't seen much activity at all on NWS Birmingham's end. Every once in a while, they'll add something to their page, but nothing on the tornadoes. A lot of the information on each individual tornado hasn't been updated. Though still better than NWS Memphis, who only ever released a brief Public Information Statement on the Smithville tornado. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 01:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Memphis isn't doing all that bad. They have reports on each tornado in their area. Most recent update to the Memphis page on the outbreak was 6/13. They're more or less done with everything. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:09, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

A few minor issues

I think this article is getting close to B but currently I would say its probably a C class.. Here are a few things I see and if they are fixed I think it will close to GA status as well as B.

  • Still needs some inline citations
  • The lede normally should not have inline citations. The lede only summerizes information contained in the article so if the information is in the article, the source should appear there.
  • I would recommend staggering the pictures out a bit. They are all on the right side and all about the same size. It needs a little more variety.
  • I'm not sure that we need the Confirmed tornadoes section. The whole article's tornadoes are confirmed I would think and this section offers very little content so I would move the link to the list and the table somewhere else
  • It might be a good idea to add a small section about how the info on the tornadoes is gathered and how they track them.
  • If you have a link to an article in the body text there is no need for it to me in a hatnote saying See also or Main.
  • If the article is linked in the article then there is no need to put it in the see also section (2011 Mississippi River floods for example)
  • There are some citation issues: 16, 17, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 71, 72 all appear to be bare references.
  • Reference 70 has an error. --Kumioko (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Still a lot of work needs to be done, I agree. In late July or early August, once the NCDC Storm Data comes in, then the real work can begin. Although it will be time-consuming since the other outbreaks (especially April 14-16) also need to be updated then as well. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Comparison to Super Outbreak of 1974

I think it would be worth noting that while the April 2011 tornado outbreak had more tornadoes confirmed than the Super Outbreak of 1974, I do think it is also worth noting that the Super Outbreak was more severe. The Super Outbreak had more F3 to F5's than the April 2011 Tornado Outbreak had, while the April 2001 Outbreak had more overall tornadoes. I also think we should point out that it is possible not all tornadoes formed during the Super Outbreak were counted because of the limitations of the meteorology technology of the time. With advanced satellite, Doppler, Pulse-Doppler radar and many many storm chasers, the April 2011 Outbreak was tracked more closely than the Super Outbreak was. -Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 04:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to create a comparison section for the two, that's fine. Just make sure it's well referenced. I'm not sure how you'll ever reference that this outbreak was tracked more closely by a reliable source. Thegreatdr (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rainsville tornado listed twice

I noticed that the Rainsville, Alabama EF5 tornado is listed a second time under Dekalb. I would remove it but thought some of the information in it might bu thought some of the information might be added to the Rainsville section. Thoughts? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Calamine, AR/Sharp County... not a tornado.

I'm removing the death listed in Sharp County, AR from April 26. It was from straight line winds, not a tornado.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/lzk/pdf/Stormsof2011.pdf&pli=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.95.2 (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on that, it would still belong in the TOTAL number though as a non-tornadic death. There were at least 14 of them. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Smithville tornado: Five missing?

In the section on the Smithville tornado, it says that five are listed as missing. Does anybody have a source for that? I'm from Smithville, and I've never heard any mention of people still missing. RevTarthpeigust (talk) 04:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Camp Creek/Horse Creek Tornado

As for whoever keeps giving separate entries for tornado damage in Horse Creek and Camp Creek, I would like to ask you to please stop. The NCDC events database lists this as one continuous tornado track through both communities. Please stop using outdated info. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkguy05 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No, these were two separate tornadoes, NCDC is still missing reports on some of the events. I've found the local NWS offices to be more reliable for this particular outbreak. Based off the map provided by NWS Morristown, There were two EF3 tornadoes in that area. First was the Camp Creek tornado which touched down at 10:56 pm and tracked for 16 miles, resulting in 6 fatalities and 33 injuries. Not long after at 12:42 am, another tornado tracked the area for 14 miles, resulting in 2 fatalities. This screenshot shows the two EF3 tornadoes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
You can not always rely on NCDC for tornadoes, you should always check with the NWS pages for the areas to be sure. I have found several tornadoes that were not on NCDC. If someone combines them again it will be erased again. United States Man (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Chronology edits/citation needed?

I did some editing of the timeline for April 27, trying to reorder it so talk about the morning complex of storms came before the talk about the afternoon tornadoes. I didn't see the reasoning behind the out-of-order text in the first place, but if there was one, we can revert it (though I would be curious to know what it was).

Additionally, the paragraph stated that the power and NOAA radio transmitter outages caused many not to get warnings of opposing tornadoes. I've heard that stated in speeches by various people and personally believe it to be true, but haven't found it in any articles; is a citation needed tag appropriate? I put one there to be safe. Thanks. 74.192.224.182 (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-order Most Significant Tornadoes

Any interest in re-ordering the "Most Significant Tornadoes" to put them in the order that they happened? Mrwasatch (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)mrwasatch

Article for the Tuscaloosa-Birmingham tornado?

It seems to me that the Tuscaloosa-Birmingham tornado was significant enough to have its own article as well as a section in this article. This is not without precedent, as the 1999 Bridge Creek – Moore tornado has both its own page and a section on the page of the larger outbreak. The Joplin tornado also has its own article separate from the article on the outbreak sequence. And in terms of death toll, injuries, and cost of damage the Tuscaloosa tornado was far worse than the Moore tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. That one tornado was pretty significant in its own right. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I also agree. It would take a lot of time and effort to make it a good one however. I think there should also be an article for the Hackelburg, AL tornado considering it is among the ten costliest USA tornadoes on record. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Not only is this not prevented by policy (Joplin and Moore OK were both part of a larger outbreak with an article), but I think it should be encouraged, for several reasons: It allows us to have a full meteorological history of the individual tornado, which would just not fit in the larger outbreak article, and allows us to point to an article rather than a section of the outbreak page from other pages when we talk about records (the 10 costliest tornadoes page, for instance). There are more than enough sources available to make a rather detailed article, at least for the Tuscaloosa Huntsville tornado, so I say go for it! -RunningOnBrains(talk) 19:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Name Change to 2011 Super Outbreak

The outbreak is now being officially called the 2011 Super Outbreak by various weather organizations in the US. Based on this I'm calling for an official name change to this article. Stormchaser89 (talk) 2:34, 27 October 2011 (US Central)

Neutral I'd prefer wait and see what the NWS calls it in their (most likely) upcoming service assessment. If there's any "official" name, they'll reflect it there or in press releases associated with it. I'd be willing to be persuaded if high-level (higher than local NWS offices) sources call it this already though. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I know that Dr Greg Forbes of The Weather Channel and other TWC scientists have decided that the outbreak qualifies as a Super Outbreak, and based on the information he used, likely from the NWS, his declaration I'd consider credible. But yes an official declaration from the NWS would be the best time to change it. Stormchaser89 (talk) 4:03, 27 October 2011 (US Central)
I don't even consider TWC a reliable source, to be honest. Their climate data I have found to be horribly incorrect at times, and between that and their tendency to sensationalize everything I'm pretty burnt out on them. Of course they'd call it a "super outbreak"...it's sensational and it gets them higher ratings. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I listed a bunch of NWS sources in the previous move attempt that referred to this as a super outbreak or the super outbreak. I still support moving it Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Well I know that Dr. Forbes does do stuff beyond The Weather Channel and other scientist were actually reluctant to call it a super outbreak until they looked at the data. Also if TWC really wanted to call this a "Super Outbreak" to sensationalize things it would have been done a long time ago. Also in the article I read the two Super Outbreaks had similarities and differences, but in terms of overall severity they were quite similar overall. Stormchaser89 (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2011 (US Central)
Well, like I said, I'll be convinced by multiple high level official sources, and I think our fundamental source for what the name of this should be is the to-be-released service assessment. Whatever that thing calls it is the actual official name of this outbreak, and I think any judgements would be best left until it is released. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 03:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just a thought, and it might have already been done, but how about we keep it at the current name until the final report comes out, but put in a redirect from 2011 Super Outbreak? rdfox 76 (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we already have that redirect TornadoLGS (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that just after hitting save. *looks embarassed* Well, I put a hatnote on Super Outbreak to disambiguate it in the event of someone who didn't know about it searching for it; beyond that, until the final report comes out, let's leave it as is. rdfox 76 (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Super Outbreak would need to move to 1974 Super Outbreak if this is moved. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
As I expected, the NWS did not take a position for it's official report: [2], referring to the event simply as the "Historic Tornadoes of April, 2011". NWS has shied away from nicknames in recent years, for whatever reason. The most recent nickname for a tornado outbreak to be officially endorsed was Super Tuesday in 2008. The "Good Friday" nickname for the April, 2009 outbreak was nixed despite widespread use by multiple NWS offices. As far as I'm aware, the NWS did not issue an assessment on that outbreak, but official use was so widespread I consider the nickname warranted. The reason typically given for not changing it was that the destructive Mena, AR tornado happened the previous night (Thursday). Why this mattered is still beyond me. I feel just the same about this outbreak. I will continue to support naming it the 2011 Super Outbreak, but because of NWS's neutral stance, this outbreak will probably remain officially nameless. NWS Huntsville has officially adopted the nickname: [3], as has NWS Nashville: [4], NWS Morristown: [5], and NWS Mobile: [6]. The Birmingham, Memphis, Jackson, and Peachtree City offices did not adopt the "Super Outbreak" moniker. Most official NWS documents refer to it simply as the "Historic Tornado Outbreak of April 2011" or something similar. NWS Milwaukee has a page referring to it as the "Super Dixie Outbreak": [7]. Our friends over at Encyclopedia Britannica have also adopted the nickname: [8], as have most private websites. But officially, the outbreak is nameless. My opinion always has been that popular and common usage is official enough. As far as the NWS is concerned, the task of assigning nicknames falls to the public, not them. Note that many nicknames of past outbreaks were adopted by the NWS long after the fact, after the nicknames had become popular with the public. So I don't think you're gonna get any more official endorsement than what's already out there, and in my opinion, that's good enough. But I have a feeling a lot of people aren't going to see it that way. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 07:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
At this point, I would consider this to be a perfectly valid argument for changing the article name. I wouldn't support changing the infobox--I like the idea of a more formal/systematic name in infoboxes--but the main article name would be fine. However, I'd also recommend then changing the lead to indicate the alternate names used by the NWS and the Milwaukee WFO, to assist readers in finding official information on it. Maybe have it be something like, "An extremely large and violent tornado outbreak, the largest such outbreak ever recorded, occurred from April 25 to April 28, 2011. Popularly known as the "2011 Super Outbreak" (refs), it has also been referred to as the "Super Dixie Outbreak," (ref) while the National Weather Service officially refers to it as the "Historic Tornado Outbreak of April 2011" (refs)."?
Also note that if we do rename it, we will probably have to move Super Outbreak to 1974 Super Outbreak and adjust its disambig template, too. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
EXTREME SUPPORT due to WP:COMMONNAME, and the fact that SINCE WHEN did the National Weather Service start assigning names/nicknames to weather phenomena. Half the people looking this up won't even know the exact start and end dates. Heck, sometimes I don't even remember the start and end dates of the first superoutbreak. NWS's not using it officially in HQ offices means nothing. Many reliable sources including NWS offices, independent weather agencies, mass media, Greg Forbes (who was around for the first one), Weather news channels such as The Weather Channel, and the general public use the term and I have NEVER seen it refereed to as "April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak" since over 6 months ago. There is no "official" in tornado outbreak nicknaming, but there sure is widespread common usage.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Chat Me Up 09:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak → 2011 Super Outbreak – The term "2011 Super Outbreak" or similar has widespread and common usage, including among several official institutions such as National Weather Service offices. This move was discussed at length on the talk page on multiple occasions. I attempted this move but received an error message. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 06:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose on two counts. First, a more recognizable title results from including the word "tornado". Second, the term "super outbreak" is generic, and shouldn't be capitalized. See for example this book where it's capitalized in headings, but lower case in sentence context. If you look in news, "2011 tornado outbreak" is much more common than "2011 super outbreak" of either capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
That is due to the fact that "2011 tornado outbreak" encompasses all tornado outbreaks from 2011: April 4, April 14-26, April 25-28, May 22-25 and so on...you need to be specific like "April 27 tornado outbreak". Many more results come up, describing the event as historic. Additionally, a few NWS offices refer to the outbreak as either historic or Super Outbreak. To cover the capitalization problem, it would indeed be uppercase. Just search up the 1974 Super Outbreak for instance...it is all capitalized. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I also oppose it being moved from its current name. I did agree to it yesterday because everyone else had, but I never really thought the page should be moved. United States Man (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support well I support this move. Reason being is that, on April 27 alone, 208 tornadoes touched down within a 24-hour period. During the April 1974 outbreak, only 148 tornadoes touched down during a 24-hour period. April 25-28, 2011 tornado outbreak is pretty mundane if you ask me, and doesn't really reveal the scope of the event. As I mentioned above as well, a few select NWS Offices (Nashville for example) and countless media outlets refer to the outbreak as the 2011 Super Outbreak. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If there is no common name (and there isn't) we must stay with the descriptive title. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 19:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose per my comments here and my comment two sections above ("I think WP:COMMONNAME is one of the stupidist things we can do on Wikipedia regarding weather event articles (for an example of why see Hurricane Bawbag) and the reason I'm not wholeheartedly opposing this is because 2011 Super Outbreak has usage within the NWS.") Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Outbreaks less significant than this one have received names that do not simply refer to the date(s) on which they occurred. I also agree with E.Brown that the current title is cumbersome. While such a systematic name would work for a smaller outbreak that few people will remember in the long run, I don't think it's appropriate for one of the most significant outbreaks in U.S. history. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, in accord with the arguments presented above. NoeticaTea? 23:14, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support I have always supported this move. We've discussed this extensively and I've already presented numerous arguments in favor of this. The term "2011 Super Outbreak" has widespread and common usage. The National Weather Service offices at Huntsville, [9], Nashville, Morristown, and Mobile have all used the term "super outbreak". Encyclopedia Britannica has adopted the nickname. FEMA has used it. I've been a meteorology student at the University of South Alabama for four years. I just watched professors and graduate students from UAH give presentations on the "April 27, 2011 Super Tornado Outbreak" at an on campus meteorology conference. A Google search for "2011 super outbreak" returns over 7 million hits. Countless businesses, weather stations, weather blogs, and forums have all adopted the nickname. Everybody in meteorology I've run into refers to it as "last year's Super Outbreak" or simply "April 27". What more do you people want? I simply don't understand you guys' arguments against this. How is the current name more identifiable? I can hardly remember what it is. It's so cumbersome and utterly unsearchable. Every time I want to search for it, I simply use the "2011 super outbreak" redirect because I don't want to type the thing in. I hate it. I'm not wedded to "2011 Super Outbreak" letter for letter, but I can't stand the current name. You have a problem with the upper case? Fine, then call it the "2011 Super tornado outbreak", but the word "super" deserves to be in there somewhere. And on top of everything, I find it simply absurd that arguably the greatest tornado outbreak in history is utterly nameless, at least to Wikipedia. Do I advocate creating a name for the hell of it? Absolutely not, and that's not what we're doing. The only organizations I know that refer to it as "April 25-28, 2011 tornado outbreak" are NOAA (and only one article of theirs that I know of) and Wikipedia. That's it. NWS as a whole refers to it simply as the "Historic Tornado Outbreak" of April, 2011. You're not gonna get an official endorsement from them. We shouldn't need one. I don't see how a nickname could have more public support, if not official support, than this one does. I don't understand the strong stance you guys have taken against nicknames in recent years. You don't need an exceptionally descriptive title. Given how widespread the term "2011 super outbreak" is, most people probably know what you're talking about and even if they don't, that's what the article's for. I simply don't understand this anti-nickname policy, I just don't get it. More links: An abstract from an academic paper by a couple of PhDs from FAMU, Farmer's Almanac, NWS Milwaukee, conference at the University of Oklahoma, note that one of these talks was given by someone from NOAA/NWS, using the "Super Outbreak" moniker. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 03:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I am still against moving the page because I think a tornado article on wikipedia should have a descriptive title. Wikipedia is not like facebook or something where half the users just type in some half-spelled lower-case slop that you can't even read or where people just use an easy name to an event (such as 2011 Super Outbreak). I know this next comment is a bit out of line but we are not going to rename a page just because E. Brown is too lazy to type in the correct name (or at least use a Shift button) when he is searching for an article. The only reason the name of the 1974 event is Super Outbreak is because it has been officially named that by the NWS and it is called by that name by pretty much EVERYONE. This outbreak isn't like that, some call it one name while others call it another. I have heard many different names (I don't care which one is used the most) and I just don't think we should settle for just one of the many nicknames (even if that nickname is used more). Descriptive names are more official and they sound better than a silly nickname. I do not mean for anyone to take this comment the wrong way (sorry if you do) but I need to get a point across. United States Man (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support I support the title 2011 Super Outbreak because it gives a better description that this was a super outbreak like it was, not just another outbreak. Nhlarry (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Forgive my nitpicking, but even if the move passes, I don't think it should be 2011 Super Outbreak, but rather 2011 Super outbreak. Per WP:TITLEFORMAT, "The initial letter of a title is almost always capitalized; subsequent words in a title are not, unless they are part of a proper name..." In this context, "super outbreak" is descriptive, not a proper name or official title. The references given above all use some variation of the words super and/or outbreak, but use them in a descriptive sense, not as part of a proper name. With that said, I don't see any evidence that 2011 Super outbreak is the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject. The references E. Brown gave above, for example, all call it something slightly different. This link refers to it as the "April 25-28, 2011 Tornado Outbreak" (possible reflecting this article's title). I can't view the PDFs at the moment, but I don't see a single link above that refers to it as simply the "2011 Super outbreak". - SudoGhost 15:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
All links in Watch for Storm Surge's post referred to the event as a Super Outbreak. I really do not see the basis for the people opposing this move. Many NWS offices use it, local media, national news outlets, universities, and even FEMA uses it. What more do you guys want? It was the largest tornado outbreak in USA history for gods sake. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
There's a difference between calling something a super outbreak (this is not the only descriptor these links used to describe the article's subject, most of the time it wasn't even the primary descriptor) and calling it the "2011 super outbreak". Not one of the links above refer to it as "2011 super outbreak", not once. - SudoGhost 18:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

...In other news, I found NCDC calls it the "Tornado Super Outbreak". TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment - I removed the wording in the lede that said "popularly known as the 2011 Super Outbreak." No evidence has been given to support that, none of the sources provided above refer to it as such, and most reliable sources I'm finding seem to refer to as as some variation of "2011 tornado outbreak", with or without a more specific date beforehand. I don't see many reliable sources referring to it specifically as "2011 super outbreak", and certainly not enough to (1) refer to it as such in the lede, and (2) say it is "popularly known as" such. - SudoGhost 00:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
EXTREME SUPPORT due to WP:COMMONNAME, and the fact that SINCE WHEN did the National Weather Service start assigning names/nicknames to weather phenomena. Half the people looking this up won't even know the exact start and end dates. Heck, sometimes I don't even remember the start and end dates of the first superoutbreak. NWS's not using it officially in HQ offices means nothing. Many reliable sources including NWS offices, independent weather agencies, mass media, Greg Forbes (who was around for the first one), Weather news channels such as The Weather Channel, and the general public use the term and I have NEVER seen it refereed to as "April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak" since over 6 months ago. There is no "official" in tornado outbreak nicknaming, but there sure is widespread common usage.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Chat Me Up 09:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I did check my facts, and it isn't an issue of the "author being wrong", but the wording of the article being inaccurate. See WP:BURDEN, the sources you provide still do not demonstrate that it is "popularly" called "2011 Super Outbreak". You inserted an inaccurate wording that is not supported by reliable sources, so it was again reverted. That it's a possible descriptor and a single photo gallery is given that uses this title does not mean that it suddenly becomes popular, and certainly doesn't mean that it's a common enough descriptor to use in the lede, formatted as though it were the title against the MoS guidelines. It isn't the common name, as the sources provided above demonstrate. Searching online for that term yields no real reliable sources to speak of, only a photo gallery for a television show. Aside from that, the only things that seem to use it are storm chasing and weather blogs, which are not reliable sources and do not establish the WP:COMMONNAME. - SudoGhost 12:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, if you've never seen it referred to as "April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak", have you tried looking? NOAA in particular uses the descriptor, as does news websites. - SudoGhost 12:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Since Bowser423 can't seem to figure out how to make a constructive edit instead of arguing over something that doesn't even need arguing, his edits to this page will probably keep being reverted unless he can make edits that make sense. United States Man (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
May I ask why you're fighting so hard for this systematic name anyway? Those documents were originally written before October, which is longer than how long I said. I said over 6 months. Severe Storms experts who were around during the last superoutbreak agree that this was another one, on numbers alone this equals or exceeds the other one, did you dig through the dozens of pages that come up of results for "2011 super outbreak" on google?, the name is common. common in the sense that the random guy picked off the street is significantly more likely to say "2011 Super Outbreak" than "April 25-28, 2011 Tornado Outbreak". For commonality, the google search itself could be cited as a source to demonstrate popularity.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Chat Me Up 21:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
No, the google search could not be cited as a source, per WP:GHITS. The "random guy off the street" does not determine the name of the article, article titles are determined by reliable sources. The reliable sources presented on the article and this talk page do not demonstrate even a common usage of "2011 super outbreak", let alone it being the WP:COMMONNAME or "popular" in any way. - SudoGhost 21:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a note that because of Bowser423 consistently trying to move the page while this discussion is in progress I have move protected Super Outbreak. Note that this is not due to my opinion on the move discussion; I'll gladly unprotect it when this discussion is closed. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
SudoGhost, your arguments make no sense. All the sources I linked to DO refer to this event by some form of "2011 Super Outbreak". Just because every one of them doesn't have the exact same title verbatim makes no difference. Every one of them calls it a "super outbreak", we should do the same. There can't possibly be a stronger argument for changing the title. And I will ask the question again: What the hell would it take for you to change the title? A rally of thousands around Wikipedia headquarters? What would qualify as "popular support" if this doesn't? It's funny you guys have never given me a straight answer to that. Using this cumbersome, over-elaborate title for the greatest outbreak in history is absurd. You don't need a descriptive title for everything. What do you think the article is for? But I've been fighting these stupid arguments for a fricking year. I'm sick of it. You call it whatever the hell you want to. Meanwhile, me and the rest of the known world will call it what it actually was, the 2011 Super Outbreak. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 21:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
And Ksostm, why the hell did you unmove Super Outbreak? It breaks every common name rule on Wikipedia. All outbreaks are preceded by the year...except for the Super Outbreak. And all reliable sources use the year as a qualifier, referring to it as the 1974 Super Outbreak, Super Outbreak of 1974, etc. We should've moved it years ago. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 21:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is really no reason that it Needs to be moved to a new name. It's not like the world will blow up if the page is not moved. I vote for keeping it the same because you would have to change the name of the Super Outbreak. It has always been called the Super Outbreak and a name change would just confuse people. Also, when someone searches for 2011 Super Outbreak it just redirects them to the April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak anyway. It's not like people can't find the page without having to type in the correct name. The names of both articles are fine the way they are now. United States Man (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to agree here...there's no reason it needs moving, although one could make a logical argument that this is widely enough known as the "2011 Super Outbreak" to warrant it. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. The current name is cumbersome, it is most frequently referred to by some form of the "2011 Super Outbreak". We are already having to distinguish 1974 and 2011 anyway. It's becoming confusing as to which "Super Outbreak" one is talking about. Also, the 1974 event needs to be moved anyway. Wikipedia convention for naming tornado outbreaks states that the year comes first, especially for names that aren't exceptionally unique. The latter was the reason why the 1974 event was able to get away with it. The term "Super Outbreak", however, is no longer unique. I vote for changing them both. A search for "Super Outbreak" should direct you to a disambiguation page (that's what they're for). Referring to this historic and incredible event as "April 25-28, 2011 tornado outbreak" is just silly. Nobody on this planet calls it that except for Wikipedia. The only reason I haven't moved it yet is because I have no desire to start a violent "move war". We've gotten extremely picky about nicknames for outbreaks in recent years. It seems clear to me that "2011 Super Outbreak" has widespread and common usage, including among multiple NWS offices. That is plenty good enough. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 06:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree 100%. The previous Super Outbreak was able to stay that way because it had only happened once. Well, with 2011 being the second time it has been widely used by the public, I think both pages need to be moved. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough for me, but just let me go on record here saying that I think WP:COMMONNAME is one of the stupidest things we can do on Wikipedia regarding weather event articles (for an example of why see Hurricane Bawbag) and the reason I'm not wholeheartedly opposing this is because 2011 Super Outbreak has usage within the NWS. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 15:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I did some searching on Google and other search engines and found that most, but not all, NWS stations and NOAA still call it the April 25-28, 2011 tornado outbreak, but most all other sources (discovery channel, britannica, accuweather, wunderground, various news sources, etc.) call it the 2011 Super Outbreak. Although there is no absolute reason that it needs to be moved, I guess it can be moved. But, if this and '74 are moved then all of the other pages with mention of these pages will need to have the name changed on them as well. United States Man (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, we will need an admin to move this page as it already has gotten a redirect page. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I support a move to the 2011 Super Outbreak. BTW, this should have been moved a long time ago. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Now that everyone agrees, it can be moved as soon as possible. United States Man (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I attempted to move it but received an error message. I have no idea why. It must have something to do with the redirect. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 06:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
EXTREME SUPPORT for the move due to WP:COMMONNAME, and the fact that SINCE WHEN did the National Weather Service start assigning names/nicknames to weather phenomena. Half the people looking this up won't even know the exact start and end dates. Heck, sometimes I don't even remember the start and end dates of the first superoutbreak. NWS's not using it officially in HQ offices means nothing. Many reliable sources including NWS offices, independent weather agencies, mass media, Greg Forbes (who was around for the first one), Weather news channels such as The Weather Channel, and the general public use the term and I have NEVER seen it refereed to as "April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak" since over 6 months ago. There is no "official" in tornado outbreak nicknaming, but there sure is widespread common usage. The redirect is taking up the pagename space and thus must first be deleted.  --Bowser the Storm Tracker  Chat Me Up 09:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm late (been busy), but I have weak support, as it seems to have common - but not universal - usage. However, that would be a bold move. Such would require moving Super Outbreak to 1974 Super Outbreak anyway. The reason it has the long name otherwise is there is no other way to isolate it from April 14-16 (itself a very large outbreak) and the numerous smaller - but still significant - April 2011 outbreaks. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

COMPLETELY DISAGREE with the quote and decision to remove wording as follows " I removed the wording in the lede that said "popularly known as the 2011 Super Outbreak." No evidence has been given to support that, none of the sources provided above refer to it as such, and most reliable sources I'm finding seem to refer to as as some variation of "2011 tornado outbreak", with or without a more specific date beforehand." It is referred to as 2011 Super Outbreak by numerous sources, and you don't have to go far to find them. This isn't difficult, we need a 1974 Super Outbreak and a 2011 Super Outbreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwasatch (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tuscaloosa Tornado Redirects.

The links 2011 Tuscaloosa, Alabama Tornado and Tuscaloosa Tornado of April 2011 still redirect to this article. However this tornado has its own article now. Can someone please change these redirects and perhaps any others pertaining to the Tuscaloosa-Birmingham tornado so that the link to the tornado's article? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have done so, but in the future, remember WP:BOLD; if it's uncontroversially obvious that it would help the encyclopedia, do it! -RunningOnBrains(talk) 19:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know ordinary users could do that. I thought it was like on WikiAnswers where only supervisors can create and change redirects. I wasn't sure anyway and the page on redirects doesn't only says how to make a new redirect, not how to change an existing one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TornadoLGS (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised by that! I have now edited the page WP:Redirects to explain how to do this. Let me know if you have any more questions! -RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"also known as the 2011 Super Outbreak"

I don't want this to become an edit war, so let's discuss it here as to whether the note "also known as the 2011 Super Outbreak" should be retained before any further edits on the matter are made. I personally agree with ‎184.58.26.140 in that the issue of the note at the beginning is separate from the issue of the title. While it appears there is not enough official consensus to dub this the 2011 Super Outbreak, it still appears to be a notable colloquial name that deserves mention. The mere fact that the renaming of it was discussed and that we have 2011 Super Outbreak as a redirect are indicators of this. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that use this term? - SudoGhost 20:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The Britannica Online refers to it as the "Super Outbreak of 2011". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TornadoLGS (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
While it seems like nitpicking, there's a difference between "2011 Super Outbreak" and "Super Outbreak of 2011", and a single tertiary source doesn't warrant inclusion in the lede of the article. It may be referred to as such by someone, but unless the past discussions have missed some reliable sources somewhere, or new ones can be shown, it's not enough to make it relevant for the lede sentence. - SudoGhost 20:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay. It will stay as it is for now, without the note, but if I find something more substantial I will be sure to post it here.TornadoLGS (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Please do, and I'll check again as well. It's not that there's some evil aversion to it being called such, but it does need to be reliably sourced. - SudoGhost 20:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have found multiple reliable sources calling it that, including the NWS in Huntsville (first link), Wunderground, Georgia Emergency Management, and a radar company. Slight wording variances are fairly trivial. I mean you will find the 1974 event being called "The Super outbreak of 1974", "The April '74 Super outbreak", "The Spring of 74 Super outbreak", and so on. Generally, it refers to a outbreak of "super" intensity that occurred in 1974. Same applies to 2011. Anyway, here are a few examples: http://www.hsvcity.com/cyber/DardenApril2011SuperOutbreak_Overview_CityMeeting.pdf, http://www.wunderground.com/resources/severe/severe.asp#06, http://www.gemainfo.com/go/doc/759/1372591/The-April-2011-Super-Outbreak-One-Year-Later, https://www.baronservices.com/sites/default/files/brochures/CaseStudy_2011SuperOutbreak.pdf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkguy05 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me, especially since we have an NWS office in there. I personally agree that the fairly small wording differences are trivial, though I would like to see what others think since this seem to be some strong opinions on the matter. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Search for something and you're likely to find it, but the sources above don't show a commonly used title, they show the opposite in fact. Those sources don't show a commonality of "2011 Super Outbreak", and there are a dozen variations of "Super" "Tornado" "Outbreak" "April" "2011" and other terms used interchangably, as the sources provided above show. Some of the sources disambiguate it down to the month; those don't support calling it "2011 Super Outbreak". There are sources that use this term, but not enough to narrow it down to this one term, in fact it seems to be a significant minority of sources that use "Super Outbreak of 2011" or "2011 Super Outbreak". It might warrant some mention in the article, but it doesn't belong in the lede, which is a summary of the article, not a place for new content. - SudoGhost 00:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out that all 4 of those sources all specifically say "2011 Super outbreak", exactly so. If the National Weather Service calls it that, in my opinion, that is as official as it gets. There are several variants of naming with this event, and the 1974 one, but they all contain the year that they occurred and that they were "super" outbreaks. The exact order you put the words in will vary from source to source. I have heard this event referred to more often than not as "2011 Super Outbreak" or something along those lines, much more than "April 25-28, 2011 tornado outbreak", which in turn would make the prior relevant for inclusion. I say we wait for further opinion from more than just 3 people though. Sharkguy05 (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Sharkguy05

I don't know where you're seeing NWS in those links above, but they refer to it as the April 26-28 Super Outbreak & Flooding Event April 24-27. - SudoGhost 00:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Top of the page, clear as crystal http://www.hsvcity.com/cyber/DardenApril2011SuperOutbreak_Overview_CityMeeting.pdf, Sharkguy05 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Sharkguy05

Next time, please read before you reply. That is exactly the point I made previously. That does not say 2011 Super Outbreak. It has an April disambiguation preceding it: "April 2011 Super Outbreak". They aren't the same, and that doesn't support what you're saying. - SudoGhost 00:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The addition of the word "April" is trivial at best in my opinion. I am done with this debate for the night. I'll wait for some other opinions.

Sharkguy05 (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)Sharkguy05

A disambiguating term is not trivial, it clarifies the term being used. April implies the month, i.e. it is the "super outbreak" of April 2011. Just using the year implies a different meaning, the "super outbreak" of the entirety of 2011. Your source does not refer to the entirety of 2011, but specifically uses April. There are too many variations of an undefined term "super outbreak" with a dozen variations to be able to say that it's called one thing specifically. - SudoGhost 03:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you're right there. It seems like nitpicking at first glance but adding terms to make the name more specific do technically make a difference. However, the articles cited above as well as others linked in a previous discussion do refer to it as a "super outbreak" in some way or another, and I think that should be noted somewhere in the article, though perhaps not in the lede. Something along the lines of "The size and severity of the outbreak has led some articles to refer to it as a "super outbreak." I realize thats a rough version, but that's the basic idea I have. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
The sources do reflect that it is occasionally referred to as a super outbreak, but what I'm opposed to is saying that it's referred to in a specific manner that makes it seem like it's a title as opposed to a descriptor (complete with Capital Letters, i.e. Super Outbreak as opposed to super outbreak). I don't think it belongs in the lede sentence, but if the lede paragraph (or preferably the article proper) were to say something about it being also referred to as "a super outbreak" as opposed to "the 2011 Super Outbreak" that would be accurate, perhaps with a link and sentence or two comparing it to the previous (and titular) Super Outbreak. - SudoGhost 04:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Super_Outbreak/Archive_2&oldid=1140132155"