Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023/Archive 1

Archive 1

Long-track supercell or outbreak?

As it has been evident, this has been a pretty intense day, though pretty much most or all of the tornadic activity can be attributed to a powerful, long-tracked supercell that has crossed Mississippi almost completely. I'm not aware of any tornadoes that have occurred from any other storms (maybe some within the QLCS line in Tennessee), but other than that, its all the work of this monster storm. So, should this be an outbreak article, or should we make it exclusively from this supercell? I believe it's an interesting subject going into the future.

Mjeims (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. The supercell was pretty significant, though I would make this an outbreak article, as you've got the Texas tornadoes and others. And by now, the supercell's crossed into Alabama and it's gone! Tails Wx 04:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It is 3am and the supercell is still here in Alabama. Fairlydaisy04 (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

In the Long-Tracked Mississippi Tornado 14 people are dead. Fairlydaisy04 (talk) 08:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Move the Page?

This outbreak continued into the early morning hours of March 25th, with multiple tornado reports across northern Alabama after midnight. In addition, supercells and a few additional tornadoes are possible across southern MS/AL tomorrow (March 26th), so the outbreak article may need to be extended even further if that verifies. Thoughts? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12!

Tomorrow is a separate system and wouldn't be part of this particular outbreak if it verifies, but today seems to have had some straggler tornadoes. I'd be OK with that move. Penitentes (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Penitentes To clarify if this is the same storm system or not, according to Weather Prediction Center map it looks like this is the same storm system that produced yesterday's tornadoes, not a separate storm system. If you go back to March 24 at 18Z (Which was a few hours prior to the tornadoes in Mississippi) and follow the low-pressure system up to the latest update of the map it is the same storm system. But yes, I agree with you we should wait to see if this storm system produces a tornado today or any other severe weather events then it will be valid move the article. Cyclonetracker7586 (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It is a slow mover and indeed the same storm system per SPC. The initial replyer is not correct, as separate storm system means a different parent low, and that will be the same low. But yeah, let's wait and see.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

23 is the current OUTBREAK fatality total

Someone changed the death toll back to 23 for Rolling Fork and that is not accurate at this time. 19 fatalities were confirmed in that area per last update. The current OUTBREAK total is 23. I'm sure the news is saying "Mississippi tornado kills 23" and stuff like that, but that is not accurate. We're probably gonna have people watching the news and changing it back, so lets keep an eye or restrict editing if need be. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

EF? does not mean EFU

If anyone (IPs, users, etc.) visits this talk page, I'd like to say this: EF? does not mean EFU. EF? is simply a placeholder rating until an actual, official rating is released. Plus, we haven't gotten any reports of EFUs yet, so that just adds to it. Poodle23 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The edit war over whether it should be listed as EF2+ because of the DAT or EF3+ because of an off-the-cuff comment on Fox Weather isn't helpful, particularly when people are going to see one of those two and assume it is a final rating. I would just keep it as EF? until the NWS has a clearcut, written, and citable statement—that's what reflects reality most accurately until the preliminary survey is complete. Penitentes (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The rating is actually EF4, but the information hasn’t been released publicly yet. United States Man (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

How do you know, huh? Poodle23 (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

EF3+ Confirmed

In this article, it states that it was at least an EF3 based off of damage 174.170.1.66 (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Unless its from NWS Jackson directly, the statement is meaningless. Since one has been issued, its unknown how strong this is official no matter what we personally think HavocPlayz (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The rating is actually EF4. Would expect an official statement to that fact to be released soon. United States Man (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The edit warring

Since HavocPlays decided to start up some trouble and they and Elijahandskip broke 3RR, as well as vandalism from other editors, I had to send this article to WP:RFPP. This is the worst few minutes of edit warring/vandalism I've seen in my few months here. Poodle23 (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Then i would recommend you learn how to not use a single DI that useless to use on the article given its highly unreliable given DIs change on a whim. If you guys want EF2s, we have one in TN and a confirmed one in MS seperate from the Rolling Fork supercell (Im also a male fyi) HavocPlayz (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Im waiting for the respective WFOs to drop statements on both EF2s before i go ahead and add em so we have an source HavocPlayz (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Lemme give you a reminder: this is preliminary, which means it can change over time. Doesn't matter if a DI goes from EF3 to EF4; we add it to the rating. Also, we've done this before with other articles. Poodle23 (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Well you shouldn’t. They aren’t a good metric to use for ratings early on. Its best its waited that the respective WFO has made a clear cut statement regarding the rating. Of which im waiting from NWS Huntsville regarding one of the 2 new EF2s HavocPlayz (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The DAT is very error-prone. Penitentes (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Listen here. The DAT is not "error-prone", it is a reliable product that is updated frequently and is a direct feed of information from ongoing surveys, so what you see one day may change the next, and we will change the information on this page to reflect the updates. Just because one rating there now, doesn't mean it won't change (Rolling Fork WILL be upgraded). It's a great source of information if you understand how it works and if you understand it's limitations. Let more experienced users handle it, ok?

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12!

Speaking of the literal devil storm, we finally got our official prelim rating that we all were rating for. Shockingly an EF4. HavocPlayz (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a pretty condescending comment and I don't appreciate it at all, nor is it true. I understand exactly how the DAT works. It's an incredibly helpful tool for many purposes and it also contains frequent errors in terms of parameters like time and windspeed for specific damage points and polygons, which is completely understandable given the workload involved in surveying. Please be kinder. It's an unpleasant enough situation as is. Penitentes (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. DAT may be a good tool for look at tracks and such but its use as a reliable source of ratings without a corresponding statement from the WFO makes it highly questionable(in this case, NWS Jackson released a tweet saying they went prelim EF4, which should be on DAT). We should wait for similar cases like these where we have a supporting statement of some sort that goes with the DAT rating before we add it HavocPlayz (talk) 01:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Carry on and sorry for the contention.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Come on guys. After the whole February AfC debacle, we were all doing so well. Please lets just leave the rating as EF? for as long as an official rating has not been assigned by the NWS. The "preliminary" EF4 is fine as it was issued by the Jackson NWS office, but the rest should not be given ratings just to eliminate that EF? connotation. Also, gotta agree with the DAT part, I personally love it, even when it presents some mistakes. It can be used and understood by anyone, so I don't get why there would be some kind of "barring" some people from to trying to use it because they aren't "experienced", though. Just my take, but glad TornadoInformation12 rectified that. Mjeims (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Outbreak May Continue Today

So I brought this up earlier and it got kinda buried, but this outbreak may not be done yet. The parent storm system that produced the 24th/25th tornadoes has stalled out, and a stationary front is now in place across much of Dixie Alley, with lots of CAPE and shear present. SPC has upgraded to a 10% hatched tornado risk area, with strong tornadoes possible. If this verifies, this will become a three-day outbreak and we will have to move the article again. I know we’re still awaiting surveys from the initial round, but we need to keep todays event in mind. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

It's early in the morning and we've already had a PDS tornado warning with a very deep CC drop/debris signature near Pine Mountain, GA. Tornado Watch is about to be issued too. We are absolutely going to have to extend the article to include today's event.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

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:

• The Rolling Fork, MS EF4 Tornado.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The picture in question is quite impressive and it would be great if it could be used on Wikipedia. I have a couple of questions though regarding COMMONS and licensing.

• Is it possible for the image to be licensed solely for use on Wikipedia?
• Has anyone reached out to the supposed author for proper licensing?

Sorry for the noob questions. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 Rolling Fork–Midnight–Silver City tornado has been nominated for deletion

The following article, 2023 Rolling Fork–Midnight–Silver City tornado, has been nominated for deletion and it pertains to this article. You can participate in the AfD discussion here. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Name

It's absolutely stupid that we rename the article many times. Why can't we just call the article "Tornado outbreak in March 2023" or "Late-March 2023 Tornado outbreak"? ---- 212.164.39.123 (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Consistency with past tornado outbreak article titles is one reason, but another is that another possible severe weather event is currently forecast for a multiday period beginning March 31. If it comes to fruition we'd have two late March 2023 events and we would need the dates anyway. Penitentes (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

And if it doesn't happen? And why is it sometimes written that the outbreak began on March 23 and sometimes on the 24th? ---- 212.164.39.123 (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, if it doesn't happen then this article's title is still correct, because it uses dates. That's an advantage of dates over relative descriptors like 'late March', they're more future-proof.

As for the 23rd/24th conflict, that's likely because the severe weather event began on the 23rd (with a hail-driven slight risk) but no tornadoes occurred until early in the morning on the 24th. Penitentes (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

And by the way, I looked at Category:Tornado outbreaks and there are not all tornadoes with dates, sometimes a month is just written; I have no idea how it is defined. ---- 212.164.39.123 (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

But then I still don t understand why some tornado outbreaks, such as the Tornado outbreak of April 1977 and Early-March 2023 North American storm complex, are named without dates, and some with dates. I have a guess that maybe it's because there were no other tornado outbreaks in April that year in thas city, but that's just a guess. 212.164.39.123 (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I'm starting to think Late March 2023 North American storm complex is a more appropriate title here. ChessEric 16:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

ANOTHER moderate risk!

This storm system is something else. Yet another tornado-driven moderate risk has been issued for an elongated corridor in Mississippi and Alabama. We've got another long day ahead of us, folks. This is insane. I had never seen a storm system stall and reintensify like this before. Mjeims (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

not the same system btw Lolkikmoddi (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually it is. The front just stalled. ChessEric 19:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@ChessEric It was crazy how the front stalled. I hope everyone in this general area stays safe tonight. Fairlydaisy04 (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I just learned yesterday that someone I know had family that lived in Rolling Fork. They said that much of the community was poor, but they were proud of what they got. However, they now have nothing. They had 90 seconds to take cover, which is even less than the two minutes thing I have been hearing. This is why I'm taking Sociology and Meteorology; I'm trying to understand where the disconnect in communication came in. ChessEric 14:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry for their losses. It sounds as if many had less than two minutes of warning before it struck and over 30 minutes before ambulances arrived; I wish those numbers had been switched.

Rolling Fork has gotten a decent amount of national attention this weekend and we'll see if that eases now or if there's further interest in what happened and what can be done, and if there's enough content for an individual article... certainly it was a socially impactful tornado. Penitentes (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I hope things get better for them and I have family in Mississippi that I'm hoping anything didn't get bad where they live. Fairlydaisy04 (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

MORE surprise early morning tornadoes (3/27/2023)

I'm going to have to move the article one more time, but I PROMISE this is the end of this incredibly slow-moving system. There have been at least two more surprise tornadoes early this morning from the stalled front. One has hit the community of Milstead, AL, where there was a significant debris signature and reports of buildings destroyed. The other was near Woodbury, GA and also produced a debris signature, though I don't have any damage info as that one happened literally just a few minutes ago. In a nutshell, this has turned out to be a four-day outbreak, so we will have to make sure the article reflects that. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

EF2 confirmed in Milstead, AL and more tornado damage is still being surveyed. Moving to 27th.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Death toll is 23 not 26?

Every recent source that I can find online lists the tornadic death toll as 26. So why is it that the NWS surveys only add up to 23 when every other online source says 26? Why is the NWS the gold standard for sources when they are the only ones listing the death toll as 23? Undescribed (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

...because the NWS also diversifies tornado damage from straight-line wind damage as well as account for miscounting. Its entirely possible that some of those deaths could have been non-tornadic or were miscounted altogether. If the NWS confirms that the three other deaths are tornadic, they will be put in. Until then, the count should stay at 23. ChessEric 20:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

...even if that is the case then why aren't those three non-tornadic deaths counted for? The only non-tornadic deaths counted for are the two from flooding in Missouri. The numbers just don't add up. The only other possibility is that they were miscounted but then if that is the case, how would you explain every other source miscounting them except for the NWS? Undescribed (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the media typically miscounts them, then copy each other without verifying the info. When it comes to tornado death tolls in news sources, they are very unreliable and don't separate tornadic from non-tornadic deaths, are slow to correct or update, and they get it wrong almost every time. Please use NWS sources only. This created major issues after the Easter 2020 Outbreak. NWS is the only reliable source for tornado deaths, period.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Well this is new to me, and I'm not exactly a novice to wiki severe either. It makes sense to use the NWS figures since they are the official agency, but I can't think of any other instance with an outbreak where the NWS had a completely different death toll than every other source. It just raises some eyebrows that's all. But since they are the official agency that what we go by. Undescribed (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. If the discrepancy persists then we can just note it in the article. Penitentes (talk) 20:55, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It literally happened with Easter 2020. Every single media source had a higher death toll that didn't match the total of the NWS tornado deaths. There's been several other examples too.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

It also happened with the 2013 Hattiesburg, MS EF4 tornado. The injury count for the longest time was 83, but when I checked the final report, it said 71. That discrepancy was there for years before I corrected it. ChessEric 21:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

---

This event really hasn't lived up to the tornado outbreak label, but the event as a whole is notable. Hence, I think a rename to this is more appropriate. ChessEric 17:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hmm—I'm split on this one. The hail and flooding impacts are likely to be significant, but the tornadoes have caused the vast majority of the deaths so far and garnered national media attention. Rolling Fork's article has gathered many, many more views than this article already and this retitling would further abstract the event from people's common search terms. Penitentes (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Disagree. This event classifies as a tornado outbreak (at least six) and includes arguably the most notable tornadoes since December 10th, 2021. Blizk2 (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Completely disagree with the initial post. Surveys are still ongoing, more strong tornadoes happened this morning, and when all said and done, the tornado count will easily exceed 20. The comparatively deadly 2020 Nashville/Cookeville outbreak back in 2020 produced only 15 tornadoes. This has produced at least 16, some of which were strong to violent, and the count will only increase from here, including strong tornadoes that haven't even been rated yet (Milstead, AL and West Point, GA). Precedent from other articles shows that it is totally fine to call this an outbreak. ALSO this proves my theory that you guys are using the "Storm Complex" moniker to prop up articles that don't meet the noteable outbreak criteria (even though this one absolutely does), and that is NOT ok. I'm nipping this in the bud right now.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Partially agree. I agree with the name "Late-March", but I do not agree with deleted of the words "Tornado Outbreak". I really think this is first of all known because of the tornado and this word should be in the name. 212.164.39.123 (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

We haven't used the "Late-month" title format for tornado articles for years, and we can't just go back to that on the flip of a coin. The title will have to include the specific range (24th to 27th) of dates.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I'm sorry i'm just flabbergasted trying to understand how this doesn't meet the criteria for a significant outbreak? This is THE definition of a rather small but devastating outbreak. We've had at LEAST 7 strong tornadoes (Milstead, AL and West Point, GA haven't been rated yet), plus a violent tornado that was the deadliest in Mississippi since 1971. This was absolutely a significant outbreak, just not a very big one in terms of number of tornadoes, but still bigger than this one https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_outbreak_of_March_2%E2%80%933,_2020. You need to understand that a tornado outbreak is generally considered a series of 6-10 or more tornadoes, and small tornado count does NOT mean it wasn't a notable outbreak (here's another example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion,_Illinois,_tornado_outbreak). In fact, given the intensity and death toll of these tornadoes, this "small" outbreak is more significant than some of the large outbreaks last year! The significance of an outbreak is NOT only tied to the number of tornadoes, it is MOSTLY tied to the amount of destruction, death, and media notability it causes. This one was very notable in all three of those catagories. Case closed...

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Note: I think there is a slight misunderstanding here. I'm not saying the tornadoes aren't notable. What I'm saying is that 16 tornadoes in 4 days is something I would list as an outbreak if it were in the 1950s, not the 2020s. I know we had several significant tornadoes, but I just don't feel like the small number of tornadoes really counts as a tornado outbreak.

That being said I didn't realize we had a significant tornado this morning. They keep happening when I'm not looking! XD Plus, this does contradict what I said in an above discussion about the lack of communication prior to the EF4 tornado striking Rolling Fork. I was basing my move request based on another failed move request that I did last year with only difference being that the move request was for the tornado outbreak terminology rather than storm complex terminology (See Talk:April 2022 North American storm complex#Requested move 14 April 2022). However, I see now that the comparison does not apply here. I'll rethink this move request. ChessEric 19:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I've been tracking the debris signatures on radar. The tornado count is going to easily exceed 20, but like I said, even if that wasn't the case this already meets the criteria for a significant outbreak, as they were all spawned by a single system. It doesn't matter if the 20+ tornadoes happened in the span of one day or four, it's a single outbreak with numerous deaths and 20+ tornadoes, albeit a weirdly slow one with weirdly small tornado counts for each day despite the significance, but that has zero influence on the article title. Also, did you not click on the links? 16+ tornadoes is absolutely an outbreak, especially if they are significant and deadly. Again, 6-10 tornadoes is an outbreak by definition (please look it up, it's even in the first paragraph of the wiki article for "Tornado Outbreak), so that just isn't true at all.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Oh wait. You're right. I'm stupid. What is wrong with me? I'm normally better with this crap. XD ChessEric 20:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey it's all good and a common misconception. A lot of people don't realize that it only takes a measly SIX tornadoes to qualify as an outbreak. Now if this event didn't produce anything above an EF2 and didn't cause a bunch of fatalities, the tornadoes would not have been the "main" story, and a "Storm Complex" designation would have been fine. As long as a weather system produces 6+ tornadoes, there are multiple EF2s and EF3s, and multiple fatalities, that would technically be enough to qualify for an outbreak article here on Wikipedia. The thing is though, things like that rarely ever happen, as there is usually a strong correlation between tornado intensity and the number of tornadoes in an outbreak. Small yet devastating outbreaks like this aren't all that common, but they do happen sometimes, like March 2-3, 2020.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

True. My bad. I retract this move request then. Someone please close this. ChessEric 20:31, 27 March 2023 (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.

Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023 has an RFC

Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023 has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Fork summary too long?

OK come on guys what is the deal with this? Why is there a "may be too long to read and navigate comfortably" template at the top of the Rolling Fork summary? I mean seriously, it is no longer and no more detailed than summaries for previous events like Hackleburg, Mayfield, or other long-tracked violent tornadoes. We always break the path down step by step, street by street, damage point by damage point. This is how it has always been done. I feel like whoever put that there doesn't have any sense of context for these summaries. It's a long-tracked tornado so what do you expect? Long-tracked tornadoes are going to have long summaries; that's just the way it's always been, and it's the way it will always be. Now if we want to give this tornado it's own article I can work with that, but I am not going to sacrifice detail for brevity under any circumstances, because that isn't something we have ever done, and I'm not about to let that happen now. If people want something brief and easy on the eyes, then they can go watch a YouTube video or something. If I can't get a reasonable solution or explanation, I'm going to just get rid of that template, because the writeup is no longer than other past tornado summaries and there is zero precedent for this proposal. Oh and that reminds me, I'm getting sick of the sudden knee-jerk changes that fix nothing, yet completely ignore years of precedent with ZERO discussion or proposals surrounding them. If that keeps happening, we'll have no year-to-year and article-to-article consistency, and I'm not going to allow that to happen. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I mean seriously look. Look how long and detailed some of these are. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. There are plenty of much longer tornado summaries from previous years, and there is ZERO precedent for this proposal for shortening. This has never been a problem before, and there is no reason to make it into one now. It seems like you guys just forget everything from previous years:

-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_outbreak_of_December_10%E2%80%9311,_2021 -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Easter_tornado_outbreak -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_outbreak_of_March_2%E2%80%933,_2020 - -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Western_Kentucky_tornado -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Joplin_tornado -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Hackleburg%E2%80%93Phil_Campbell_tornado

Anyway, I think I've proven my point quite well. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Are we going to discuss this or just edit war? Come on I'm waiting. If somebody can show me PRESEDENCE or evidence of us shortening detailed articles in the past, then I will listen. If not, this is to be disregarded as a non-issue, as it has never been an issue before. It's like people are just inventing problems that aren't even problems to begin with. This how we have done it for YEARS. HOW is this even remotely legitimate?

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Just because we've done something before doesn't mean it's the correct thing to continue doing. As it stands, the tornado sections have become a dumping ground for (what feels like) every point in DAT. It's just a wall of text that repeats things over and over and eventually causes your eyes to glaze over. These articles are not just for weather enthusiasts, they're for the general public and should be accessible to them. The vast majority of people are looking for summaries, not a play-by-play of what the tornadoes did on each street. A lot of the information in these sections can be summarized without losing any quality. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for every minute detail, things need to be conveyed in an encyclopedic manner. In saying this I am also saying all of those articles mentioned above require the same adjustments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That's absurd. We have YEARS of precedent of doing it this way, and precedent matters more than you are giving credit for. It's only an issue for a vast minority of contributors here. Sorry your eyes glaze over, but that is your subjectivity speaking, and you don't speak for a majority of people. I'm telling you that these highly detailed summaries are appreciated by MANY. Now, if you can prove that a MAJORITY of editors and users dislike the long summaries, then I will be fair and relent. If not, there is zero basis, no majority opinion, no precedent, and as a result, no reason to change procedure. That is a completely reasonable proposition.

In a nutshell, prove that this is an issue that a majority of people here are concerned with and I will be reasonable and find some way to compromise. If not, it just comes down to a few people making subjective complaints, and therefore is not a valid issue. Plus, if you think we're going to go back and shorten every full summary from the past decade, you're dreaming. That would be a fruitless and completely impractical endeavor.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I've been editing for over 16 years, I'm well-aware of how things work. I've been aware of this problem for many years and have tried here and there only to be reverted or not be noticed. I haven't made a concerted effort since I felt it would stifle the passion and otherwise productive editing going on. However, it's time to reign things in and make things, in my opinion, better. I'll be opening an WP:RFC to receive input from non-weather project members at your request. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you realize the drop in quality that will occur if you pursue this. If you want to flush the passion this community has down the toilet for the sake of brevity, you are making a HUGE mistake. That is NOT going to go over well with me and many other contributors. You'll lose your most valuable contributors, and quality will absolutely tank. It's not worth it man, and you are vastly underestimating the ramifications this will have. This is a hill that is not worth dying on, I'm telling you....

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I'm a little slow because I've been reviewing the articles you mentioned to see if they should be tagged as overly detailed as well, but I was going to say pretty much the same as Cyclonebiskit. I'll add that while I do like detail, play-by-play damage summaries are too much, especially with long track, significant tornadoes. It turns into a wall of text that gets a TLDR reaction from a not-insignificant share of our audience. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 05:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

OK so we have two or three people that have an issue with it, versus an entire userbase of editors who have never made a single complaint. Again, this is coming down to your personal subjectivity, and minority rule isn't going to happen. Show me that more people have an issue with it than don't, then you'll have a point. Until then, this isn't valid and comes down to a few people's opinions. Plus, just because you haven't been paying attention and JUST NOW realized how long these summaries are, it shows me that you aren't even that involved anyway. It's been this way going on almost a decade at this point, and going back and changing them now would be basically impossible. Also, very detailed play-by-play tornado summary videos on YouTube are extremely popular now, and 90% of them are made using these summaries as a primary source. The public loves this stuff, and I think you are speaking for people who don't actually feel the way you assume they do. These summaries are invaluable, and I don't think you realize to what extent these minute details are utilized by the general public. I've even heard details that I added, quoted verbatim on TV documentaries. That speaks for itself.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

The editors aren’t the issue. It is the end user that we are providing this for, and most of them aren’t going to read paragraph after paragraph talking about downed trees. United States Man (talk) 14:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Paragraph after paragraph" of the summary is almost exclusively dedicated to STRUCTURAL DAMAGE, not downed trees. If it were about mostly down trees, then it wouldn't have a section at all. ChessEric 16:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

WTVA meteorologist headlines

According to multiple news outlets, Matt Laubhan, a chief meteorologist at WTVA, prayed during the Amory tornado. Should this be included in the Amory tornado section? There are multiple reliable news sources that attain significant coverage on this, including CNN, WTVA, Yahoo, and others, and there are at least 30 depicting this, but I would like to bring up consensus to make the change. Courtesy ping G.0700, as they've also added this news event. What do y'all think? Tails Wx 01:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I see no harm in adding a sentence on it going viral. Penitentes (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Rolling Fork is still 170 MPH

Somebody keeps trying to prematurely change the wind speed estimate for Rolling Fork. There has yet to be an official upgrade, and it remains listed as a 170 MPH EF4 for the time being. Please wait until an official wind speed estimate upgrade is released by NWS Jackson. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Indeed. You can't really go off that anyway. ChessEric 17:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible higher intensity controversy section

I don't think this is needed in the article. It's solely based on a 190 mph DI briefly appearing on the DAT and then disappearing—that's it, that's all the section is based on. There's no controversy and we have no idea whether it signifies anything: it could have been a placeholder value while engineers continue to evaluate the data, it may mean a future upgrade, or it could just be a mistake. Certainly there's no controversy about it unless we make one. Given that the tornado's DAT survey information continues to be somewhat in flux and is obviously not finalized, I don't see the point in saying anything beyond "this tornado is currently rated as an EF4 with maximum estimated winds of 170 mph" until there is an official communication otherwise. Penitentes (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The main reason I added it was because two broadcast meteorologists and MyRadarWX (one of the big radar app companies) directly mentioned the tornado had 190 mph winds and that it was upgraded. The section is similar to 2021 Western Kentucky tornado#Possible EF5 intensity and 2011 Smithville, Mississippi, tornado#Internet fiction. Especially with RS media meteorologists mentioning the "upgrade", I think the section or topic is notable enough for inclusion. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I still don't think offhand tweets—which are just riffing off of your discovery—make it worth the confusion. This would set a precedent for all future tornadoes whose ratings and other attributes are subject to fluctuation in the Damage Assessment Toolkit before their finalization.

It's just not worth it, considering that we have an excellent standard already (PNS or other official release from the National Weather Service). We don't know why they put that 190 mph marker there for a few hours! It's all based on uncertain interpretation of what that meant. If they leave the tornado as an EF4 with a 170 mph rating then clearly that means that by their best judgement it was not of a higher intensity, whether they considered it or not. It clouds the article and clarity will come in time anyway, when NWS Jackson chooses to finish their survey. Penitentes (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You’re not allowed to speculate on Wikipedia. The official wind speed now in 170. There is no reason to have a whole paragraph based on cherry-picked information to fulfill some fantasy. You need to stick with the official statement. United States Man (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Then why did the community decide to “speculate” on a higher intensity for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado? A community decision did that. Both are sourced with reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn’t cherry-pick information on what to not include. Two separate broadcast meteorologists stated the tornado had windspeeds up to 190 mph, with even one saying it was upgraded. NWS disagrees. So why are you cherry-picking NWS’s info and saying two broadcast meteorologists (Washington Post and CNN) shouldn’t be included? Elijahandskip (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Broadcast media doesn’t rate tornadoes. If we start doing that, all these articles will be piles of junk. United States Man (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Are we seriously having an argument over ONE DAT POINT that got deleted THE EXACT SAME DAY it was added? Cut it out. The section was never needed. I would've deleted it myself, but I didn't want to start anything. Of course, SOMEONE ELSE had to start it. I've already said countless times this year that petty arguments like this need to stop, The DAT is even more preliminary than the PNS's are anyway. Also, broadcast media is not a valid source to use for possible intensity changes like this. Let it go. ChessEric 20:31, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Can we use this pettiness to make weather a contentious topic? 98.116.45.220 (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

No. Please stop using IP addresses to push this narrative. Its annoying. ChessEric 22:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2023

Please add at the end of non-tornadic effects that a section of I-39 closed due to downed utility poles. https://www.nbc15.com/2023/03/25/stretches-i-39-closed-after-downed-utility-lines-during-winter-storm/ 98.116.131.119 (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done USS Cola!rado🇺🇸 (C⭐T) 08:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Arado Ar 196: This is likely one of the continual stream of IP socks of User:Andrew5. As such, I'm going to revert this. United States Man (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Please fix this

There is w plce.where it says produced catastrophic, but iz suppoced to eay catastrophic damage 2600:1014:B1EF:8330:0:B:B64:F601 (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Done Erp (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do not do this

I saw on a wikimedia for the water tower in Rolling fork the damage may have been up to 229 mph in that area. But it was rated EF4, and is going to stay that way unless the NWS says otherwise. Do not try to fool others or take any information from non-government weather websites. 2603:80A0:1100:E:D9F3:28C1:9632:B3A8 (talk) 01:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Fyi I am the same person who put the please fix this on May 21 2023 2603:80A0:1100:E:D9F3:28C1:9632:B3A8 (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Amory tornado was weird

The tornado was rated a 155 Mph EF3, but on radar there was a velocity couplet of 180 Mph. I wouldn’t be surprised if the NWS upgraded it in the future. 2603:80A0:1100:E:D9F3:28C1:9632:B3A8 (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, this has been explained many times. Damage is no assesed necessarily on velocity readings. A tornado may have had the winds of an EF5, but if it produced no damage, it is rated an EFU. Its that simple. Tornadoes are given ratings that are aligned with the most intense damage confirmed to have been caused by it. If no damage occurred in the moment this tornado hit 180 mph, then it cannot be given a higher rating. Mjeims (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I was meaning for people to only get information from official government websites, even if anyone says something else. What NWS says is what NWS says, and the public can’t change that. 2603:80A0:11F0:860:49A2:BE91:A19B:BC2B (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2023

Please add that the Amory tornado caused $80.045 million in damage in the Infobox. Sources: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=1087392

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=1087403

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=1087421 108.170.68.186 (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your contribution! NotAGenious (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: Create page for Rolling fork tornado

I think we should create a page for the Rolling fork-Midnight-Silver city tornado, because of the strength, the damage, and because of it being one of the worst Mississippi tornadoes since 2011. Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I’m not entirely opposed to it. More like a fairly weak lean to go for it. The section for the tornado summary has 12.5k bytes. The 2011 Smithville tornado’s tornado summary section is 10k byes (plus 1k for the “internet fiction” section). Based on the section size template above, it roughly the same size as the entire March 24 confirmed tornado table in terms of bytes. I personally would hold off on creating any article, until we actually get the finalized Storm Data (NCEI Storm Event Database) information for it. Rolling Fork is still all preliminary information at the moment. That said, once we get the finalized info for it, I wouldn’t be opposed to splitting it into a stand-alone article. The outbreak article is at 99k bytes, which is borderline “Almost certainly should be divided” per the general rule of thumb on WP:SIZESPLIT. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Tornadoesarecool13: I started a user space version (User:WeatherWriter/2023 Rolling Fork—Silver City tornado) for the tornado. It still has a lot of work to be done and, like I said, I am strongly opposed to moving it into mainspace until the finalized info comes out. You are free to help work on it though! The meteorological synopsis section is what needs worked on the most as well as some aftermath section. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Correction to what I said. I was able to reduce nearly 3,000 bytes off the section in the outbreak article (equal to the EF3s now) and publish the article, which is 30,000 bytes long, containing more than 4,000 bytes of new, non-copied material. So, for that reason, I went ahead and published into mainspace. 2023 Rolling Fork—Silver City tornado exists now. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)