Talk:2021 Western Kentucky tornado

If the tornadoes ARE connected...

If the survey finds this tornado was indeed the same tornado that went AR-MO-TN with a continuous damage track (that is uncertain at this point), the article name would change to 2021 Quad-State tornado? CrazyC83 (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think just Quad-state tornado would be sufficient, as there are no others. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes that was my thinking as well. United States Man (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I also didn't name it "Mayfield, Kentucky tornado" because obviously that wouldn't be representative of the entire track. United States Man (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, though that could be a redirect. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless there are other significant tornadoes that have hit Mayfield in the past. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I redirected 2021 Mayfield, Kentucky tornado already. I think an EF3 hit there a few years ago. United States Man (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak of May 7–10, 2016 Yep. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Mention of "Quad-state tornado"

While a quad-state tornado has not been confirmed, I think there should be a mention of the possibility of it and a record-breaking path length until we have confirmation otherwise. Reliable news outlets are discussing the possibility. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This tornado potentially was only in one state (or slightly in a second), so I don't think mention of it is warranted. United States Man (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay. It is still uncertain. But I'm fine either way. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Worth noting, NWS Paducah did use the "Quad State Tornado" hashtag in a tweet earlier today Link. The term has gained reasonable circulation recently and may ultimately be worth revisiting at some point. Even if it ends up being a tornado family, this article may end up covering the lifespan of the cell, which would keep it relevant. Just my 2 cents. - Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 02:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC) (mostly retired from Wiki, but I check in every now and again ;) )

We also do not know if the tornado is NOT connected

Either way this article is premature. The analysis needs to be conducted first, and when conclusions have been made by reliable sources, then we should decide if this is one article or two. I tend to believe this article should remain merged with Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021 until we know one way or another. 2001:558:6017:107:8D43:BEE6:70A4:BA3C (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

We will expand this page to include other areas affected if they are confirmed. It was indeed part of the outbreak, but it is notable enough for a standalone article. We have split individual tornadoes from outbreaks before (e.g. the 2013 Moore tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, the article will stay and be expanded. If this article was premature, so was the outbreak article when it was created. United States Man (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The immediate deletion of my edit

Hi User:United_States_Man I see that you immediately deleted my edit and described it as "irrelevant" and "unnecessary"". I think that a factory owner telling factory workers they cannot leave, prior to their deaths from the Tornado, is relevant on an article about the Tornado. The Tornado is not simply a weather or meteorological event, its impact was fatal for multiple people and that consequence is notable, and my edits were sourced. Before writing this comment, I checked WP:Relevance and I think it supported my stance. I'm not sure who you are saying I should not have named, was it the deceased (he was named in the article) or the factory owner (it's widely reported as the Amazon factory). I'm somewhat new, so maybe I'm missing something, but please say why you think this is not relevant to the article. And please consider letting my edit stand CT55555 (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose mentioning it for the candle factory, but it doesn't warrant a section all to itself. The note about the Amazon warehouse is not relevant, since that was from a different tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The application of that to the article was less than desirable, so it was reverted. That should definitely not have its own section, and I would not mention anyone by name in the article that doesn't meet the notability guidelines. If anything is included, it should be in the aftermath section. United States Man (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think "desirable" is a matter of opinion and perspective, so I'll avoid commenting on that. I think we at least have consensus that the candle factory management owners actions should be included and as the naming appears to be associate with the wrong tornado, it's a moot point. I'll start over with the candle factory and trust that you support that. CT55555 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Add current template?

Do we add the {{current}} template to the article? It just happened a few days ago and there is still a lot of changes. --The Tips of Apmh 00:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The event is no longer current, so I removed the template. United States Man (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The {{current disaster}} template has a "recent" parameter that would fit. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2021

Storm Updates (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I want to edit I’ve been a weather fan for a long time I study storms and try to give out the public the latest information and as of now on the Kentucky Violent tornado it has a estimated 15k buildings are destroyed and with a 3.5 billion in damages this could be the most expensive tornado since Joplin, Mo 2011 source: 60 min and cbs news

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. —Sirdog (talk) 07:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Tornado formation?

Hello, I captured a GIF marking the possible formation of this tornado. Is this Ok to add? Image: Severestorm28 15:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Kentucy tornando.webp

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Academic Paper - Extended Edit Summary

Writing this as an extended edit summary to this edit where I did a good faith revert of United States Man. So we should have a discussion about this. I personally am neutral on the need a separate section for the EF5 intensity (leaning more toward not needing it), however, I think the information should be included. Many articles have information about discrepancies with NWS ratings, hence why the list of possible F5/EF5 tornadoes exist on List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. Just to name one example like of this notability would be the 2014 Mayflower—Vilonia EF4. The Wikipedia section on that includes information from Timothy P. Marshall about rating differences from NWS. Dozens of other tornadoes have this as well in their respective Wikipedia sections. It isn’t “NWS bashing”. And yes, any scientist can write a paper, but Wikipedia generally accepts two types of academic papers as reliable sources. Peer Reviewed & Expert opinions. Timothy Marshall is considered a tornado damage expert (former QRT for NOAA) and the other two authors of the paper were in fact NWS meteorologists, so they can be considered experts as well. I think having a mindset of “NWS bashing” doesn’t really work here since two authors are NWS. Either way, that’s my super extended edit summary. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Possibly useful research paper that could be used

Just dropping a link to a somewhat newer research paper MESS0019: Electrometeorology 2.1 -The 2021 Mayfield, Kentucky Tornado Track and the New Madrid gravity & magnetic anomalies which was posted on Academia.edu. I do not have time to read it now and I probably will just end up forgetting about it. If anyone takes the time to read it, check to see if anything in it might be useful for the article. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Skimming the author's papers and the rest of his internet presence he appears to be a bit of a crank (lots of 'dark matter anomaly' vibes); I'd recommend forgetting about this one. Anyone can upload their own papers to Academic.edu, it's not like submitting to a journal or anything. Penitentes (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Got it! Yeah, I know anyone can submit their own things to Academia.edu, but sometimes, valuable papers can be found there (Like the Tim Marshall/NWS paper for the EF5 intensity). I’ve come across at least 7 papers (some peer reviewed others not) about this tornado, but the Tim Marshall/NWS paper is the only one that had valuable stuff for the article. I just posted it since I didn’t have time to read it and as the day went on, I probably would have (and did) forget about it. Your reply here is the only reason I even remembered it. Lol. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Commonly known as

There is a disagreement between editors as to whether or not the phrase commonly known as the Mayfield tornado is appropriate for the lead of the article.

• Yes/Add - The editor in disagreement stated that "this tornado may be referred to by any town it hits, as is the case with every tornado", and while that statement is true, this tornado specifically is very well known as the Mayfield tornado. Several news articles call it the "Mayfield tornado" (Fox Weather article titled, "Mayfield tornado 1-year anniversary: A look back at the deadliest tornado outbreak in Kentucky's history", WHAS-11, WPSD, WLKY, Washington Post, NBC News). There is a paper on academic.edu that also calls it the Mayfield tornado. A search in the Google news tab of "Mayfield tornado" (in quotes) yielded 300 results - 30 pages. So while it is true that the tornado can be referred to by any town hit, the most commonly known name seems to be Mayfield, so I support the addition of that phrase to the lead. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
• No need – All tornadoes are commonly referred to by the town(s) which they struck (or sometimes even miss by a few miles). Nothing special and/or different about this case. United States Man (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, this tornado does have a special case, since the title of the article is Western Kentucky tornado, not Mayfield tornado, due to how long tracked it was. Most tornadoes on here are titled by the well-known town/towns hit (2013 Moore tornado, 2011 Smithville tornado, 2011 Joplin tornado, 1974 Xenia tornado as examples). I think this is a special case, given that several reliable sources call it the "Mayfield tornado" and we call it the "Western Kentucky tornado". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose – If we weren't moving away from doing stuff like this for tornadoes, I would support it. However, I'm one of the editors who are removing such titles from the lead, so I have to say no. ChessEric 17:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes/add – perhaps phrased as "sometimes known as" or "also known as" or "sometimes called" rather than "commonly known as". If a name is commonly used for a topic in independent reliable sources, it should be mentioned in the article, and if it is very commonly used, it should be mentioned in the lead and boldfaced, regardless of our opinion about its validity or neutrality. Currently, that name is not mentioned in the article at all. Wikipedia should not be intentionally withholding accurate information about a subject (unless it gets to a level of WP:UNDUE detail). No particular category of topics should claim some special exemption from this general Wikipedia convention. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Mayfield KY State Farm CRU -23.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 10, 2025. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2025-12-10. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 03:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

On the evening of December 10, 2021, a tornado struck Western Kentucky, killing 57 people, and injuring more than 500. Mayfield, Kentucky was one of the hardest hit, with 22 deaths. The town was also mostly leveled and most of the infrastructure was destroyed. Today marks 4 years since the disaster.

Photograph credit: State Farm

Recently featured:

Requested move 2 November 2024

2021 Western Kentucky tornado → 2021 Mayfield tornado – The new copy-edited lede changed by @Baffle gab1978 brought to me the realization that Wikipedia is one of the few places on the web referring to this event by this name. As the majority of coverage was in Mayfield, it has informally become known as the Mayfield tornado by sources, and as such Wikipedia should in theory call it that too per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, per WP:Naming conventions (events), [i]f more than one name is in common use, the name used by NOAA or an official weather agency should take precedence except in extraordinary circumstances, and there should be redirects from any other names. This source from the NCEI, a roundup of December 2021 events, states [t]he historic “Mayfield tornado,” as its commonly called, was on the ground for 165.7 miles, had peak winds of 190 mph, and resulted in 55+ fatalities, and as far as I'm aware there's no NOAA/NWS sources calling it the "Western Kentucky tornado" (p.s., I'm using this usa.gov search tool to query this, and that returned 0 for "Western Kentucky tornado"). Strictly off policy, I would boldly move this, but as this is one of the most important tornado articles in today's Wikipedia, I thought I'd start a discussion. Departure– (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose – There was a discussion regarding this exact thing a back in 2022 if I recall correctly. Anyway, there is a key reason it isn't "Mayfield tornado" and "Western Kentucky tornado". Mayfield wasn't the worst-struck town. In fact, peak intensity occurred over Bremen, not Mayfield. The only reason "Mayfield" became the "main town" known was part of the Governor's family was killed in the town (leading to a lot of politics regarding the town) as well as the Candle factory and subsequent lawsuits (leading to legal debates). Only 41% of the tornado's deaths actually occurred in Mayfield. There isn't a really "clear" naming process we do for these type of tornadoes. Thankfully, most of the strongest tornadoes only really devastate one main city (Examples: 2011 Joplin tornado or 2011 Smithville tornado, or the 2013 Moore tornado, which hit more than 1 town, but over 75% of the damage was in Moore itself). In cases of two "main" towns, those are in the name (Examples: 2011 El Reno–Piedmont tornado or 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado or 2024 Elkhorn–Blair tornado or 2011 Hackleburg–Phil Campbell tornado). For the few tornadoes with more than 2 main towns, they are typically not with a "town" name (Examples: 2021 Tri-State tornado or 1973 Central Alabama tornado or March 2019 southern Nepal tornado or probably the best example, the 2021 South Moravia tornado). The 2021 South Moravia tornado struck devastated five main towns in the South Moravian Region (equivalent to a state) in the Czech Republic.

So for me, it would have to be an extremely clear instance of a ton of sources directly saying "Mayfield tornado" for me to personally consider renaming it. NOAA saying it isn't enough for me to turn "precedent" (per se) over. Also, a few RS do say "Western Kentucky" or just "Kentucky": (National Weather Service web page for the tornado = "Long-Track EF-4 across western Kentucky" along with (titled "2021 Tornado Western Kentucky")(titled "Six months since deadly western Kentucky tornado outbreak")(titled "Western KY still recovering after devastating 2021 tornado")[1][2]. Since NWS + some RS media mentioned "Western Kentucky"/"Kentucky", I do not see any overwhelming coverage for us to say "Mayfield" is the main town, given "precedent" for three or more main towns is to name by region over town names. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment I just want to quickly point out that source #1 doesn't name the tornado itself, and #2 you linked states "western Kentucky tornado outbreak" as an outbreak in western Kentucky. I might assemble some sources for the use of "Mayfield tornado", but I do know that Wikipedia typically prefers coverage over impact and Mayfield had the biggest impact out of any of the towns and therefore the most coverage. As far as I know, politics doesn't change whether or not coverage should exist, especially given how this isn't directly related to politics. Departure– (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm still going to oppose. After seeing the precedent, I do not see a reason for us to call one town the most important town from the outbreak, especially when nearly 60% of the deaths caused by the tornado occurred outside of the that town. Also, check out the NWS ArcGIS StoryMap, which does not say "Mayfield tornado", but in the summary section, rather, "The EF-4 tornado that trekked across western Kentucky was only the 5th EF-4 in the state of Kentucky since the April 3, 1974 tornado outbreak." (emphasis mine) You are free to build a list of sources, but based on WP:CONSISTENT, "To the extent that it is practical, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics. This was a regional tornado, not even mainly in Mayfield. So I'm sorry, but no amount of sources is going to change my !vote, given precedent in naming tornado articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• Quick comment Departure–, you should look two discussions above this one. There was a discussion started (actually by me) to have "Mayfield tornado" as a bolded alt-name to the tornado, which had consensus (2-1 editors) opposing it. I'm not opposed to that idea if the rename does not succeed, but I wanted you to be aware consensus previously was against even having a bolded "Mayfield tornado" in the lead. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose This tornado obliterated several cities and moved across an entire state, naming it after one singular city it hit is a complete understatement. EF⁵ 20:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support and suggest relisting. The above discussion is almost entirely about what this tornado should be called. But what we want to know is what it is called in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not the place to persuade others what this tornado should be called. Andrewa (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Andrewa, you want secondary reliable sources?

1. Fox56 - “Video shows the deadly western Kentucky 🌪️ that left residents without homes”
2. Kentucky Lantern - “Ten families who survived the 2021 tornadoes in Mayfield received keys to new homes on Friday thanks to $1 million from the Team Western Kentucky Tornado Relief Fund, Gov. Andy Beshear’s office announced” (i.e. an official state-sponsored funding is not “Mayfield tornado” but “Western Kentucky tornado”).
3. WOMI - “The western Kentucky tornado appears to have tracked an even longer distance.”
4. Spectrum News 1 - “Although the western Kentucky tornado is over, the lasting impact it has on people will stay for far longer.”
5. Fox19 - “NWS classifies historic western Kentucky tornado as EF4”
6. Tennessee Lookout - “Biden inspects Western Kentucky tornado damage”
7. Kentucky.com - “Nearly 70 school buses, trailers, and vans from over 30 school districts full of donated items for western Kentucky tornado victims gather in the morning at Winchester Board of Education lot in Winchester”
8. 14News - “NWS release preliminary data for Western Kentucky tornado, confirmed as EF-4”
9. Fox Weather - “More than $4 million has been donated to the Western Kentucky Tornado Relief Fund.”
10. Lexington Herald - “How far did deadly Western Kentucky tornado travel?”
11. WOWK-TV - “Western Kentucky tornado rated EF4”
12. Spectrum News 1 - “There wasn’t really any debate on the Western Kentucky tornado relief package lawmakers passed on Wednesday, but several lawmakers expressed their gratitude to those who helped the area.”
13. Courier-Journal - “Rain pours down on Western Kentucky tornado victims, soaking their possessions and homes”
14. WKRC - “Governor Beshear has established the Team Western Kentucky Tornado Relief Fund”
15. Kentucky.com - “A tornado that traveled through parts of Western Kentucky”

I urge you to reconsider your support, since I just provided a ton of RS media for “Western Kentucky”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I notice a lot of these don't capitalize the W in "western Kentucky", potentially implying that they are simply using a secondhand name as a single name isn't easy to come by. Except as far as tornado naming conventions I know of this NCEI source stating The historic “Mayfield tornado,” as its commonly called beats the other RS per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) as far as I can tell. Also, plenty of those are about "Western Kentucky tornado relief" or "Western Kentucky tornado damage" - remember, it was a whole outbreak. Mayfield wasn't the only tornado in Kentucky that night, Bowling Green got hit pretty hard too by a different one. At least I think "Mayfield tornado" should be stated in the lede as a bolded name. Departure– (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That is where you are wrong. Actually, primary sources (which is what NOAA/NCEI is) do not “beat” secondary reliable sources. That was actually directly proven in and summarized at WP:VNTIA, where NOAA stated different information from secondary sources, and after an RFC, the secondary source trumped NOAA’s information as NOAA/NCEI is a primary source, not secondary source…which is why the Tornadoes of 2022 article has factually incorrect, but verifiable information and the factually incorrect information was upheld to remain in the article at that RFC. So sorry, that NOAA source, bluntly, means nothing in this discussion, as secondary reliable sources should be mentioned. I’m not opposed to “Mayfield tornado” being a bolded alt-name in the lead, but I am opposed to “Mayfield tornado” being the name…given most of the damage and actually more than half the deaths occurred outside Mayfield. Remaining would basically be like trying to rename the September 11 attacks to September 11 New York Attacks, just because 90% of the media coverage nowadays is on the towers (which also had the most deaths) and not the Pentagon/PA flight. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree that "Mayfield tornado" should be stated in the lede as a bolded name. And that is true regardless of the result of this RM. And there should be a a redirect from the name which is not chosen, either as the existing one or as the one resulting from the move if that occurs. Andrewa (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! This is progress. But it's still only half the story. What we want to know is whether it's more likely to be called the proposed name than the current name. So we look at measures that indicate this. Citing only sources that use one name is sometimes called cherry-picking.

So this is progress but still not enough. Andrewa (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The main issue I have is the fact it did not just hit Mayfield. More damage, more deaths, and stronger intensity, occurred outside of the town. The tornado was over 160 miles long. Honestly, saying "Mayfield tornado", to me, is like cherry-picking a single town and saying Boom! This is the reason this tornado is known! Screw every other town hit! Mayfield is the most important! That is the basic reaction I have to it being renamed to "Mayfield tornado". It is true some sources say "Mayfield tornado", which is why I am not opposed to it being a bolded name. But, the standard naming process for tornadoes very similar to this are to name it by the region, not a singular town. 2021 South Moravia tornado is not a town-named article, but a regional article due to a tornado that destroyed 5 towns in the Czech Republic's South Moravia providence. Another example is the 2021 Tri-State tornado, which impacted three U.S. states. If you go strictly by secondary sources, there may be an argument to rename it the Leachville tornado, since some media actually call it that, despite the EF4 tornado being only at EF2 strength in that area. That tornado was on the ground for 81 miles. Just because RS media say a term, bluntly, does not mean the Wikipedia article should be renamed. Those should be bolded terms to help keep the article from, well...POV'ing towards a singular town being "the most notable". Hopefully that explains why I will always be opposed to a renaming of this article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Understood. But that is contrary to Wikipedia policy. You seem to want us to rank the importance of these tornadoes, and decide their article naming according to our own opinions on this. But our policy is to follow usage, even if we personally disagree with that usage, and however good we think our reasons are. We do not promote these opinions in any way. Andrewa (talk) 21:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

How am I wanting us to rank the importance? I'm not. I'm saying that if we rename the article to "Mayfield tornado" we would be ranking Mayfield as the most important. That is exactly what I am against. We seem to be agreeing on the same thing, that we should not rank a town/tornado's importance. To prevent that, no single town should be the article title. Simple as that. That is why I am opposed to renaming the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not follow the logic of this.

No, we would not be ranking Mayfield as the most important. We would simply be trying to follow common usage, without deciding either way whether or not this storm should be named after Mayfield. If we were to try to decide this we would be violating Wikipedia policy. The policy is that we look at what it is called, not what we think it should be called.

However, if we follow your arguments expressed here we would be assessing the importance of this storm, relative to others. That's what I mean by rank the importance. And that's not relevant under our article title policy.

Does that help? Andrewa (talk) 08:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Therefore, based exactly on the “common name” usage, most sources for “Western Kentucky tornado” have been listed than “Mayfield tornado”, so the most commonly-used term, based on every source listed in the requested move discussion is “Western Kentucky tornado”. Simple as that. To have any hope of a common-name usage, more than 15 sources for “Mayfield tornado” should be listed here to prove it is the common name. You have one, NOAA/NCEI right now. List at least 15 more to prove more sources say “Mayfield tornado”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done See below Departure– (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

P.S., the only source listed in this discussion thus far for "Mayfield tornado" is the NOAA NCEI primary source. Just pointing that out. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Re "the only source listed ...", didn't you yourself identify seven such sources in the discussion above in the section entitled "Commonly known as" at 00:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That discussion from last year =/= this discussion, which was started with listing a single source, with that source itself saying "Mayfield tornado" is a common name for it. I.e., for the statement, "As the majority of coverage was in Mayfield, it has informally become known as the Mayfield tornado by sources, and as such Wikipedia should in theory call it that too per WP:COMMONNAME", which started this discussion, only a single source has been mentioned. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

That is this edit I think? Andrewa (talk) 08:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I gave the timestamp. I was referring to this (which I think cited seven sources calling it "Mayfield tornado"). By the way, I am not advocating that name for this article. I was just confused by the comment that said only one source had been cited. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The timestamp you gave here was 00:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC). It didn't seem to match any edit, hence my question. The edit you now cite is timestamped 00:36, 25 September 2023. Maybe the Wikipedia software considers that close enough but my computer didn't. Yes, that post by Weather Event Writer which they marked as a minor edit (improperly in my opinion, and not for the first time) did cite several sources. Andrewa (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

My diff above linked to a sequence of two edits. The timestamp I quoted was for the first one, shown here, which is what appeared in the signature. The second one refined the comment, so I linked the result of the two. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the clarification. It certainly wasn't your fault, perhaps I was not sufficiently diligent in my investigation, but the habit Weather Event Writer has of marking edits such as this one (which is one of those involved) as minor didn't help. I will take that up on their talk page and possibly at ANI. Andrewa (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The actual fact you may be considering AN/I for a mistake I made a year ago is, bluntly, absurd. Until Andrewa brought this up on my talk page and I took the time to review WP:MINOR, I did not realize no talk page changes should be marked as a minor edit. I do realize that now. But really? An edit from over a year ago, on a talk page discussion which did not have any messages in it from September 2023 to November 2024, and you even considered (or are still considering AN/I) is a concern to me. I’m not a newcomer at all, but for a mistake over a year ago, even considering AN/I feels like an attempted bite…I’m going to keep considering good faith here, so I’m not going to mention it any further hoping y’all take my word that I will no longer mark talk page comments as minor edits at face value. Aka, let’s all leave it and assume good faith here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Chill down a little, we all make mistakes; ANI over a few improper tags does seem over the top. E_F⁵ 22:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

(And let's just leave it there, assume good faith, and move on). E_F⁵ 22:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Have a look at User talk:WeatherWriter/Archive 8#Minor edits. Despite both you and they citing wp:stick, it seems a useful discussion to me, and one that they show no sign of wishing to drop. I do make mistakes and have made some in this very discussion, but doesn't WP:AGF apply to me too? Andrewa (talk) 06:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but you don't seem to be AGFing his "minor edits", they're irrelevant to this discussion. E_F⁵ 13:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we all (and I mean all of us) drop it? I guess answering a question on my talk page, but actually not replying here at all until now means I “show no sign of wishing to drop”. For real, let’s all drop the discussion. Move on. Capeesh y’all? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Academic as it has been amicably resolved without these comments being needed, see User talk:WeatherWriter/Archive 8#Minor edits. Andrewa (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't actually see a clear statement at WP:MINOR saying that no talk page changes should be marked as minor edits. A small refinement of a larger talk page comment seems like a good case for "minor" status to me (although I almost never mark my edits as minor). It says not to mark as minor "Adding comments to a talk page or other discussion", but that could be interpreted as the initial addition of a comment rather than its later refinement. It cautions that "If, for example, you mark your talk page comments as 'minor', then fewer editors are likely to notice your comment," but that's just a caution, not a prohibition. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

All true, but have you looked at the contribution history of the editor concerned? Andrewa (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's some reliable sources for "Mayfield tornado":

1. Fox Weather: Mayfield tornado survivors struggling to rebuild 2 years after deadly twister
2. University of Kentucky: Mayfield Tornado Oral History Project commemorates loss, celebrates resilience of Western Kentucky community
3. WPSD6: 'Twisters' scene partially inspired by viral Mayfield tornado photo
4. NWS LMK: This tornado is a continuation of the western Kentucky (Mayfield) tornado This could go either way.
5. kentucky.com: The same location of the image shown above, about a year after the Mayfield tornado, Sunday, Dec. 4, 2022, has debris from destroyed buildings removed.
6. WKMS has a whole category explicitly titled Mayfield Tornado
7. ABC has a video feature titled Mayfield tornado survivors speak out
8. Mayfield Messenger: Documentary premiere highlights Mayfield tornado heroes
9. KFVS: 26 homes destroyed by Mayfield tornado to be rebuilt with $5.2M in relief funding
10. Lane Report: 10 Mayfield tornado survivor families get keys to new homes
11. FOX23: KY Gov. Beshear hands keys to new homes to Mayfield tornado victims
12. WSMV: 16 families receive homes after deadly 2021 Mayfield tornado
13. Washington Post: The Mayfield tornado, part of the quad-state storm...
14. Axios (2024): it followed a similar path to the deadly Mayfield tornado in 2021, which killed 24 people...
15. ESPN: Mayfield tornado recovery gets boost from sports figures returning to help
16. An unspecified meteorologist in a 2021 study stated but you may have a cone with, the Mayfield tornado would have had a 100 percent chance...

There's almost certainly more out there, but "Mayfield Tornado" is hardly a stretch. Departure– (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per WeatherWriter. This tornado impacted numerous towns across Western Kentucky. Renaming the article to only one of them could cause confusion that it only impacted Mayfield. This also would appear disingenuous to every other town than Mayfield impacted by the tornado. Cutlass^Ciera 13:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)