Jump to content

Talk:Tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007 has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 3, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yetinubu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current?

[edit]

It's my understanding that since the tornado has dissipated, it is no longer considered a current event. Aftermath from this storm could last months. I haven't seen another weather-related article stay current during the aftermath stage. If you create an article about the larger storm system that spawned this tornado, that would be another matter. If this is about a multi-day tornado outbreak, the article needs a new name. Thegreatdr 19:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree about the name change. Either focus on the Greensburg tornado or change the name of the article and discuss everything that happened in the area on May 4. --Bdj95 19:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was a temporary name. It could be changed - although this is very similar to the Andover, Kansas Tornado Outbreak and that was named for its main event. However, should today feature another round of devastating storms, it should be renamed. Two possible names are May 3-6, 2007 Tornado Outbreak (to dab from the May 2 derecho/tornadoes) or Early-May 2007 Tornado Outbreak (if the dab is unnecessary). CrazyC83 20:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was exactly referring to the Andover outbreak for the title, now I will have to change a portion since it has surpass the number of deaths from May 4, 2003. sicne we are at 10 (although the Pratt County fatality may have been caused by the same tornado.JForget 20:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be moved to May 2006 tornado outbreak if the expected outbreak tonight pans out. ---CWY2190TC 21:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would work initially (May 2007 you mean). Later further modifiers may need to be added if another outbreak happens in May (likely). CrazyC83 22:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted as recommended by CWY2190. Adding "Early-" may be needed if another outbreak takes place before the end of May. CrazyC83 22:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Early-May 2007 tornado outbreak sounds good to me, assuming we get an outbreak tonight. (Sure looks like it). ---CWY2190TC 22:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the EF4 rating official?

[edit]

I see it listed in here as an EF4, but I just saw another article where it made it seem like it was not yet... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070505/ap_on_re_us/severe_weather_40 Also, don't look now but at this moment there are about 4 supercells within about 20 miles of Greensburg.Gopher backer 22:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not, although all sources I have heard suggest "at least" EF4, it might have been EF5 - but since NWS Dodge City (the one responsible there) has not declared it yet, it should be left off. ONLY official reports should be listed here. CrazyC83 23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Radio-Canada article mentionned it was EF3-EF4 (actually they still used the old Fujita scale in their article), but it was just preliminary according to weather official in the US. Yeah I've saw those cells, there already three reports of possible tornadoes in the same area and also looks like the Spencer, SD and Gregory, SD (which had an F5 in the past) areas are also under the gun--JForget 23:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They won't issue an "official" rating until they can get a complete damage survey...and that may be a little while; based on the SPC outlook I just read, NWS has other things to worry about right now. Alan 23:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say drop that rating. It may be Sunday or Monday before NWS Dodge City, NWS Goodland and NWS Wichita issues its final report on the tornadoes, provided that no more develop. --Bdj95 00:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised when I signed on to Wikipedia earlier today and saw the tornado already listed as EF4; I hadn't seen that anywhere else. Good call to remove it until it's official. The Pratt County fatality could have been from the same tornado; Pratt is east of Kiowa. That one had the report of the house being blown off its foundation and debris scattered. If that house was structurally sound and the report was accurate, that's textbook EF5 damage, but it's best to wait and see. The NWS has been reluctant to issue that rating (I'm thinking of the disputed tornado in the May 2003 tornado outbreak sequence), apparently because it's hard to prove. Especially so if the area takes additional damage tonight. PolitiCalypso 01:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on storm reports and current radar data, the same area's getting nailed again, and it looks like it's a HP supercell bringing the tornadoes this time. In my experience they aren't as potent once the updraft gets rain-wrapped, but they can hold together for an impressive amount of time. This could bollux the NWS surveys for rating yesterday's storms; they may have to go with whatever estimates they can glean from witnesses and the WSR88D data to assign a rating. Bottom line, EF4 might not be so far off. Alan 01:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KAKE-TV just posted on their site that it was confirmed as an EF5, probably due to the report that mentionned that a house that was swept off its foundationa in Pratt County--JForget 18:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have confirmed that the Dodge City NWSFO and NWS Quick Response Team have determined EF5 damage and announced this to the media, but there isn't yet official documentation of this. Evolauxia 19:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wichita Eagle is also reporting an EF-5 designation, citing SPC: http://kansas.com/625/story/63289.html Ubernostrum 23:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No survey report yet, however, DDC/QRT are now reporting on the NWSFO homepage that it was rated EF5. Evolauxia 00:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

[edit]

For everyone's sanity, it might be best to have just one editor do the major LSR table updates, and limit those to every half hour or so...otherwise you'll spend the entirety of your evening doing nothing but chasing edits and rm'ing dupes. Oh, and while I'm thinking of it...the SPC page I permalinked was for YESTERDAY'S LSR data (just in case anyone sees my comment and starts wondering). Alan 23:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That hasn't been needed in the past; it will warn us if there is an edit conflict. CrazyC83 23:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone, I have made some edits to the content. I noticed some plagiarism at the end of the introduction section of the article from a site known as the Insurance Journal. I have since reworded the content and cited the source. I also linked some wikipedia pages to locations and words to add clarity (Edwards County, Dodge County and Doppler radar in the image of the tornado tracking specifically). I also linked the word Riverfest to the Wichita Riverfest site because there is no wikipedia page on the festival and I'm sure readers would love to check it out. I also took time to add some interesting yet pertinent information about the nature of severe storms in America to the start of the Meterological synopsis section. Hope you all don't mind my additions and changes. Yetinubu (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Count

[edit]

Just to help in avoiding of being lost in the numbers. I've left the number of reports so far as of 8:30 PM EDT

As of 8:30 PM EDT/7:30PM CDT

May 3 - 7 (excluding Louisiana and Missouri) May 4 - 30 (excluding Illinois) May 5 - 37 + 2 in the wind reports.JForget 00:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa County, Kansas tornadoes

[edit]

I'm in Wichita, Kansas, right now, and I heard on KWCH something about some possible injuries near Ottawa State Fishing Lake, but that is the only place I've heard any information. If anyone finds any information, edit the article. Right now, I have a note in the list that says information about possible injuries pending. It's 1:00 AM here now, and I'm going to bed shortly. Incubusman27 06:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they are a media report, add them listing the media source. CrazyC83 13:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NWS stated that there was 4 people injured from that tornado, although preliminary reports I presume.--JForget 14:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KAKE-TV now reported that a camper was killed by the storm.--JForget 17:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

World's Largest Hand-Dug Well

[edit]

Does anyone had information about the well? Heard on CNN, that it had probably resisted.--JForget 20:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't exactly destroy a hole in the ground, but the building next to it was destroyed, obviously, as 95% of the town was. I know there was an aerial picture of the well in the Wichita Eagle, I'll see if I can find it. Incubusman27 02:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a picture of the water tower that was pretty much right over the well: [1] Incubusman27 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an aerial shot of the same water tower, and you can see the covering of the well in the lower-left portion of the image: [2] Incubusman27 02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both shots are courtesy of the Wichita Eagle, and the photos were taken by Jamie Oppenheimer. Incubusman27 02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flooding?

[edit]

I haven't had time to keep up on this event today, but I just glanced at a radar precipitation estimate of the last couple days and it says that a couple counties in Oklahoma have gotten rainfall in the 15" range. It looks like there have been several places from OK & KS that have gotten around 8-10. Should this be included in this article? http://www.wunderground.com/radar/radblast.asp?ID=FDR&type=NTP Gopher backer 01:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can definitely be added in the meteorology synopsis/storm track section, so far only Canadian amounts were put and the US Plains reports were much more impressive then in Canada.--JForget 01:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, under a separate section "Nontornadic events" below the tornadoes. See here for an example. Any thunderstorm flooding deaths should count as part of the event with tornadoes in a separate set. (Just like deaths from straight-line winds, hail and lightning are all counted for the event, but not winter weather) CrazyC83 02:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]

Should we discuss a move to "May 2007 Tornado Outbreak Sequence"? ---CWY2190TC 02:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might make sense, but this is one stubborn system and not several repeated systems...however I wouldn't be opposed to such a move as the activity stops at night and redevelops at day. CrazyC83 02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a good idea, since there's no way of telling right away how long this event is going to last. Anyone else?Alan 20:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Theres still a SLGT risk over the south for the next 3 days. I say re-look at it in a couple days. ---CWY2190TC 21:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Especially if one of those SLGT days turns to MDT. This system refuses to go anywhere; it is just dying a slow, painful death. CrazyC83 21:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved "May 2007 Tornado Outbreak" to "May 2007 tornado outbreak" to comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). --Rosiestep (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New image

[edit]
Doppler radar wind velocities shortly before the tornado hits Greensburg

I have uploaded this image for anyone who sees a place for it in the article. Incubusman27 05:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. Classic HP supercell presentation. I'd love to see it used somewhere, maybe as an adjunct image in the Greensburg section. Alan 20:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would make a great main image, but most people cant read a wind velocity on radar but most understand the reds and orages of the relflective. But I'd like to put it in the article. Amazing picture. ---CWY2190TC 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main image should be a picture of the tornado itself, but that is one amazing image. It just needs good words so that the average person knows what it means. CrazyC83 21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did put a fairly detailed description with it, but if you feel it's not detailed enough or needs clarification, it's obviously in your power to make it so. Incubusman27 23:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split the flooding away?

[edit]

The flooding may soon warrant an article on its own. Any thoughts of possibly breaking that into its own article? CrazyC83 21:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a major flooding event happens, it will certainly need an article, already lots of significant flooding in several states due to the storms--JForget 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 8-10

[edit]

Should that be counted as part of the outbreak, in which case it would be clearly an outbreak sequence, or separate it into a separate section on the annual archive? It looks like a separate system to me... CrazyC83 00:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we get anymore tornadoes in Day 2 and 3, then it will have to be moved to an outbreak sequence. We should probably just wait it out. ---CWY2190TC 02:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaking, the storm system is right affecting Ontario and the Great Lakes ara today, so yesterday's events were from another zone of instability. Right now, I don't a whole lot will happen today, so we may forget about the tornado sequence issue unless you really went to add yesterday's events and the May 2 bow echo that hit Texas. Although the May 8 event can be mentioned in the tornadoes of 2007 article separately--JForget 19:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ---CWY2190TC 20:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greensburg Tornado Family

[edit]

Based on NWS Dodge City, it now appears that there were at least two "giant" tornadoes spawned by the Greensburg supercell. The first tornado seems to have passed through Greensburg as the meso was occluding (based on SRV and tornado tracks). The dying tornado then nearly completed a counterclockwise circle and almost struck the town again! As this was occurring, a new meso developed to the east and appears to have "ingested" the Greensburg circulation. The 2nd tornado then grew to nearly two miles in diameter and tracked to the northeast our of Kiowa County. A third tornado touched down several miles to the east of the 2nd and tracked to the northeast as well. This tornado could have been nearly a mile in diameter. --Bigphishy56 23:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, and there were a number of other large tornadoes on both the 4th and 5th. Combined with the Greensburg EF5, it is likely that NWS Dodge City will not finish their surveys for quite some time, as they have overlapping tornado tracks and so many large tornadoes. Only three tornadoes have been rated from the NWS Dodge City area. The other "mega" tornado was an EF3 (the SPC site provided that) and another EF3 took place in Stafford County on Saturday which killed one. CrazyC83 23:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read the source link you provided. It will indeed be interesting to see how many of these "mega" tornadoes actually occurred over the two day period. The velocity signature during and after the tornado struck the town is likely the most spectacular I have ever seen. Bigphishy56 23:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The EF3 of Saturday is probably part of the twin-wedge report near St.John, although there were so many tornadoes in that same area, so I cannot be sure if it was part of that report--JForget 00:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw that the SPC report said it has swept a house off of its foundation, I was wondering if we would get a second EF5, but I guess it wasnt a strong enough house. ---CWY2190TC 01:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, the assessments listed the source provided are probably preliminary, and it will likely take more time for survey teams to determine the final ratings for every tornado that occurred on both nights. There were 3 tornadoes produced in very close proximity to each other, and the EF-3 rating could be describing either one of those tornadoes. Bigphishy56 13:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is very preliminary at this point from NWS Dodge City (except for Greensburg), since they have been bombarded with overlapping tracks on separate nights and Greensburg has had all their attention so far. I don't know about a second EF5, but easily one or two of the other tornadoes could have been EF4... CrazyC83 13:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like KAKE-TV mentions here that there were in fact four major tornadoes from the Greensburg family (not including the satelites tornadoes, the Sitka/Protection tornado and others that occured in Barton County. I wouldn't be surprised that this same supercell spawned at least 10-15 tornadoes in total. JForget 13:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's possible, there appears to have been 1 to 3 ahead of the Greensburg tornado (Sitka, Protection (if they weren't the same one), plus perhaps one in Oklahoma), the ones later down the line (before it entered NWS Wichita territory) and could have been a few satellite tornadoes. I removed the tornadoes listed as Comanche and Kiowa separately after the big one started since they were part of the Greensburg one. As for the numbers, Dodge City hasn't even begun to look at the May 5 tornadoes yet being so bombarded...it could be next week before we have final preliminary numbers (the official final numbers will be in the fall after the NCDC lists them)... CrazyC83 15:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I've noticed they still haven't rated the Oklahoma tornado that the chaser filmed about 50 yards away on the 4th (part of the same Greenburg storm I think). Apparently, that tornado damaged a house or two and probably heard on CNN that it was possibly an EF3. Anyone found a confirmation for that tornado? And those in Colorado and Texas?JForget 17:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about those ones. That would be in NWS Norman territory I believe so they could be waiting for Dodge City. Colorado I think was never confirmed and Texas may have been never confirmed as well (i.e. actually straight-line winds or just a funnel cloud). CrazyC83 19:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gov. Sebellius' Commentary

[edit]

There is no need for inclusion of Gov. Sebellius' political commentary after the tornado. Especially, without balancing it with the fact that she has retracted/rephrased most of her critique, and that actual G'burg residents don't share her "concerns."K. Scott Bailey 17:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update, May 22nd

[edit]

NWS Dodge City just revealed that 12 confirmed tornadoes were spawned by the Greensburg supercell in NWS Dodge City territory only. Here is the article in detail. The ratings for May 4, as well as other tornadoes on the 5th and 6th will be available soon. [3]--JForget 01:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This will take a long time. Normally I would take down the list of unconfirmed tornadoes about 1-2 weeks after the event, but this could take many weeks, if not months. Although tornadoes outside the NWS Dodge City area, the NWS Norman area (where the supercell started) and NWS Wichita area (where it ended) should be removed. I think the outbreak final total will be over 100, maybe 120, tornadoes. CrazyC83 21:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the past, it has taken months for SPC to review a tornado event and get a full accounting for tornadoes. Maybe by December we'll have a better idea. Thegreatdr 11:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our best bet is probably to wait until the 2007 issue of Storm Reports is published and use that as the source for the final confirmed list. (As a note, also remember that the NWS numbers count any tornado that crosses a county line twice, once for each county...) Rdfox 76 12:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Usually the numbers are stable and all in though (except for sudden additions that are not publicly disclosed) within 2-3 weeks of the event though. However, due to the shear number of tornadoes in a small area, plus overlapping tracks from May 4 and May 5 and the flooding that made searching difficult, those numbers could be the first time we can actually get a real official count. Tornadoes crossing county lines being counted more than once are my pet peeve, as they skew numbers especially for major outbreaks like this one. That means we have to read every single description to get the right track, since tornadoes in multiple counties (or states or even nations) count as one tornado in the chart. Those outside the core area of activity that were not confirmed have been removed as they were probably not tornadoes (most likely just funnel clouds as in the Plains not many tornadoes go unnoticed due to the geography, unlike on March 1 in the Southeast, many tornadoes were initially reported as wind damage due to the presence of hard-to-see HP supercells and the extensively forested landscape hiding tornadoes). CrazyC83 18:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split?

[edit]

Shouldn't the Greensburg tornado have its own article? That section is large enough to stand on its own. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Greensburg should be moved off, after all, that is what this outbreak was most memorable for (although with over 80 tornadoes confirmed, it would certainly still have an article even without Greensburg). I think instead that what should happen (especially if this goes for GA, which could be after all the confirmations are in - that could be many weeks, if not months when the NCDC final numbers are in) is that the tornado chart could be split away to a separate list article. See here for an example. CrazyC83 03:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any harm in a subarticle about the most known tornado of the outbreak. Thegreatdr 11:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

13 or 12 dead?

[edit]

AP says it just turned 12 deaths. ←BenB4 12:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12 died from the supercells in the Greensburg area, but there was one additional death farther east on May 5. (It had been listed originally at 14, but scaled down to 13 later due to a double-counting) CrazyC83 20:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I purchased a copy of may 07 NOAA storm data. Apparently there were 11 deaths in greensburg, and 2 in tornadoes to the northeast, amounting to 13. I have also fixed several of the tornado ratings based on the document. --Bigphishy56 (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does that make 14 deaths considering there was also a death on May 5 farther east? CrazyC83 (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a former South-Central Kansas resident, and continued frequent visitor to the greater Greensburg area, I am passionate in keeping abreast of Kiowa & Pratt County's recovery efforts - Mournings and total count of those lost included.

The following article may answer your query:

69.139.221.57 (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    The prose is very good
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Although most of the article is very well referenced and accurite, the "Greensburg Family Tornado" section is under referenced.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Seems good
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Seems good
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Images are good
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

This is a very good article. The only problem, is that the section concerning the Greensburg Tornado is under referenced. Every paragraph should be referenced, which shouldn't be too hard to fix. Because it is just a minor issue, I've put this article On-hold for further improvements to be made. Thank you for your work in improving this article thus far, and good luck in improving this article to good article status. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 17:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated with more sources added in that section. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Because the issues have been addressed, the article now passes GA. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Videos from YouTube

[edit]

I saw a video on YouTube about a tornado and several massive cloud formations related to the May 2007 Tornado Outbreak, would it be appropriate to add it into the article or as an external link? Thanks, --WraithHunter (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on May 2007 tornado outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on May 2007 tornado outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe make a new article about the Greensburg EF5 itself?

[edit]

well i dont know if it's going to be possible but maybe make a new article about the EF5 that struck Greensburg, Kansas? I did one but it failled, so maybe try to make a new article about the EF5? Stronkgod (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stronkgod: Done, see 2007 Greensburg, Kansas, tornado. Hoping to get it renamed shortly, then I'll link it here. EF5 19:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
alright, good luck! Stronkgod (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornado_outbreak_of_May_4–6,_2007&oldid=1257546678"