Talk:Tornadoes of 2017

New page

Felt this was necessary. Even though it's only been 2017 for 30 minutes EST and is still 2016 further west, the SPC is forecasting a slight risk for severe thunderstorms both today and tomorrow which may end up producing a few tornadoes. --Anonymous Macaw (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Tomorrow's risk was raised to enhanced MegaEarthquake (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2 Outbreak

The outbreak on January 2 was fairly significant, on my terms, and I am questioning whether the event should get a page of its own. Afterall, more then 15 tornadoes touched down, and at least 4 fatalities being reported, it is larger then any other outbreaks in January in the past couple years (2014-16). So, should a page be made for the event? MegaEarthquake (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No, in my opinion this is far too insignificant for an article. The amount of relevant information can easily be covered in a section on this page. And those deaths have been determined to have been caused by straight-line winds instead of a tornado anyway, so the deaths from tornadoes factor is out of the question. United States Man (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with USM. Damage was neither widespread nor particularly severe with this outbreak. Relevant information can be put in its section on the main page. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

January 21–22: Outbreak still ongoing...

Since it will be brought up soon anyway, I think it will be at least a couple days too early to suggest the current outbreak (January 21–present) be turned into an article. Yes, it is a huge area of the southern states affected, but it's still too early to to get a proper count of the storms (not to mention how many can be verified and their strengths). Maybe after we get more info concerning the current outbreak we can see if it warrants an article.--Halls4521 (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, an article was already started. Sorry.--Halls4521 (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Help with formatting?

I'm trying to help add the new survey results and I messed up the infobox.. can someone help? Thanks in advance! Jdcomix (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Nvm, fixed it. Jdcomix (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting data

The infobox image tells of only 121 tornadoes, but based on article information, it should be 130. Why the discrepancy? What is it between different organizations that the numbers differ so often? I'd like some clarification. --AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The infobox images uses filtered tornado reports submitted to the Storm Prediction Center (national organization for severe weather); they update this image every few days. The confirmed tornado count is what myself and others have counted this month based on information from the local forecast offices (local official weather organizations). So, one is an estimation based on tornado sightings, the other is a preliminary total based on confirmation/investigation of damage. This number is as I said preliminary, with the final counts not in for each month until 3-4 months after the fact when the National Centers for Environmental Information (subset of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) compiles all information from all local forecast offices. With all that said, and given that there are 1,000+ tornadoes every year, there are certainly going to be discrepancies no matter how hard we strive for perfection. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 05:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

GR live radar validity

Just a few moments ago a tornado warning was issued for Arkansas. Would this count towards tornado reports on the article, or should we wait for official reports to come in? --AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Edit: It was issued right on top of Norfork, Arkansa. --AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Should I provide an image? --AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 10:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Article really needed for February New Orleans tornado event?

Seems to me like somebody jumped the gun on this. Not sure if this was article worthy, and even if it was, the current article title is not acceptable. Thoughts? Screven94 (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Screven94

• Reply - @Screven94:, there is a discussion taking place at Talk:List of United States tornadoes from January to February 2017#February 2017 Louisiana tornado. --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Killian-Madisonville tornado

File:Killian-Madisonville Tornado Base Velocity.png

Radar indicated windspeeds from about 30 miles away of about -146 MPH/-122 KTS

This tornado has has the strongest signature out of all the storms on the 7th and the most defined structure. My GRlevel2 indicates -146 MPH winds with Base Velocity, -122 Knots with Storm Relative. This is the most intense stage of the tornado as indicated by radar, with a MASSIVE debris ball

File:Killian-Madisonville Tornado.png

Killian-Madisonville Tornado at peak intensity as indicated by radar.

. I'm curious as to what the SPC will rate the twister. I'd say at least EF3 from radar alone, and I'm certain that if it hadn't passed over water, it'd probably have been stronger. Is there any rating provided for it yet? --AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 15:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I looked at the list with the Killian Tornado and saw that its path length was only recorded at 1 mile. This is objectively incorrect, as the dying tornado was seen in Madisonville at or almost 30 miles away. Not to mention it re-intensified just southeast of Hammond to the strongest of any tornado that day. I understand surveys take time, but do they not take radar data into account AT ALL???? --AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@AVeryWiseWolfy:Radar data does not equal ground truth. There can be a prominent circulation aloft but nothing at the surface, that's why they conduct surveys. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: That doesn't explain why video proof isn't being used, as the tornado was seen in Madisonville during its roping out stage and recorded by a resident. This is a different video before it significantly weakened, but this is probably during re-intensification. http://wgno.com/2017/02/07/amazing-video-workers-in-madisonville-capture-tornado-touching-down/ --AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit: http://www.wdsu.com/article/viewer-video-of-reported-tornado-in-madisonville/8686487 here's the roping out video. --AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@AVeryWiseWolfy: an update to the survey was released earlier today extending the path to 23.2 miles. The 1 mile length seen yesterday was likely the portion surveyed at the time and they were able to continue assessments today. There are only so many people available to conduct these surveys so outbreaks do take some time to cover ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Ah, thanks. The description here pretty much tells me it didn't hit any major structures during its peak intensity. (Not surprising as it's literally open field on the radar). Sucks that windspeed isn't taken into consideration when rating a tornado. Should at least treat the detected windspeeds as something rather than nothing.--AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Source for recent storm surveys.

I'd like to know where I can go to find recent storm surveys made by the SPC. As of right now I know of one tornado that was confirmed high-end EF2. --AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 13:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@AVeryWiseWolfy: The SPC doesn't conduct any of the storm surveys, actually. They're all made by local weather service offices, and can either be found via Public Information Statements or Local Storm Reports. Further details on surveys are also compiled by the offices on the Damage Assessment Toolkit. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

March 6-7 tornado outbreak

A significant tornado outbreak has yet again occurred. No fatalities occurred but damage is severe, including some reports of damage in the Kansas City metro. A strong, long-track tornado struck the towns of Oak Grove, Bates City, and Odessa, Illinois with homes destroyed in each town. Potentially violent damage occurred in Trimble, Missouri with anchor-bolted homes completely swept away. This outbreak has produced at least 27 tornadoes, and I expect that number to rise dramatically as damage surveys begin. I'd expect 50+ tornadoes confirmed with this event including some EF2s and EF3s (maybe even an EF4 with the Trimble tornado). Thoughts on an article? Discuss. Screven94 (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)Screven94

@Screven94: start up a section in the Tornadoes of 2017 article first and we'll work from there pending on what surveyors find. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary articles being created

In the past few days we have had two completely unnecessary articles made by one user, with no consensus or discussion regarding creation of an article among other users. The first of these two articles covers an "outbreak" that occurred from March 28 to 30th and produced only 25 tornadoes, no major damage, no tornadoes above EF2 strength, and no fatalities. The second is an ongoing that has not produced any major damage or confirmed strong tornadoes at this point. This rash, reckless creation of articles over what are overall not article-worthy events does not sit well with me. Other users please help me fix this mess. Thanks. Screven94 (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94

So you are saying the tornado outbreak of June 13, 1998 shouldn't have an article? It was thoroughly written out, but only F2 tornadoes were confirmed. Think about what your saying before jumping to conclusions, as some of these have been time-consuming for people to make. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that was more noteworthy than this one. That outbreak had 45 tornadoes and caused 26 injuries. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Severe_weather/Tornado, these are the criteria for an article: Any (E)F5 tornado, provided enough information can be written, Any (E)F2 or stronger tornado in a major city, Tornado/outbreak causes multiple fatalities, 40 or more tornadoes in the outbreak with no fatalities (unless a quick spin-up event), 25 or more tornadoes in the outbreak with at least one fatality, Any tornado/outbreak that produces at least $250 million in damage, Other non-tornadic events occurring with the outbreak that "help" to make it notable (like a winter storm, derecho or hail storm), Any outbreak that does not meet the above rules, but has some kind of significant historical standing.

As far as I can tell, it doesn't meet any of those. Jh23487 (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: Aside from that article being considerably better developed (I started writing it as a section of the Tornadoes of 1998 article, which you might consider for this outbreak), it already had demonstrably significant tornadoes in the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (one of which struck an amusement park) and Sabetha, Kansas areas (one of which struck downtown Sabetha and critically damaged the city hall). Additionally, the outbreak caused 45 tornadoes and 26 injuries. This isn't even including non-tornadic events. Plus, I think the tornadoes on the following day (22 tornadoes) may have been part of the same outbreak, and I've just been having trouble verifying this. The recent outbreak, on the other hand, had an article created before much information was available and without any known tornadoes of major significance / only five or six reported tornadoes. If the article were to be developed a bit more, I think an argument could be made for it to be returned to mainspace, but in the meantime, additional details can be added to the relevant section of the Tornadoes of 2017 article. By the way, I think Screven is being way too strict on his requirements. Master of Time (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

That article should not have been created and I have no idea who did so without consulting any other users. I'll let it slide though since it happened a while ago. An article worthy event usually is defined by numerous EF2 AND EF3 tornadoes, one or more violent tornadoes, multiple fatal tornadoes, and overall major damage. Not every single one of these criteria have to be present for an article, but your last two articles meet NONE of the above criteria. If we make an article every time a system spits out a few EF2s, that would lead to one or more articles every week once April and May roll around. That just isn't practical, and such events can be and always have been covered by the Tornadoes of 2017 page. Yes I know you put time and effort into this, but that effort needs to be redirected to smaller sub sections within the main 2017 page. Most importantly, you CANNOT just make articles without consulting others on the talk page first. Doing that completely overrides any degree of consensus that is vital. Hope you understand! Screven94 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94 Screven94 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the intensites of the tornadoes are confirmed, then if there is ar least 2 tornadoes of an EF2/3 or higher we should make an article. MegaEarthquake (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Next potential outbreak

I should not have to be doing this, but let's discuss how we are going to handle the next potential event. The next possible tornado outbreak of 2017 may unfold from April 4th to April 6th across the southern US and east coast.

First and foremost, destructive and or deadly tornadoes must occur before anyone even CONSIDERS starting an article. If we do end up with a major event unfolding, it is an ABSOLUTE must that someone (probably me) starts a talk page section to discuss whether an article needs to started. If there is consensus, only then can an article be created. I don't care if we wake up with a High Risk and a 60% risk area for tornadoes. We wait until after the event, or after it is undeniable that a high impact event occurred to make an article. Period. This all has been running my patience thin and apparently we need a refresher on how this works. Screven94 (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, as one of the longest-tenured members of WP:SEVERE, the guidelines for when to split off an article weren't really written for today's era of high levels of media coverage of severe weather, and they should probably be updated. The way they are now an outbreak can easily meet the general notability guideline and yet not meet the criteria specified at WP:SEVERE, and as I've recently been informed during the page move debates, site-wide consensus overrides local consensus. If a tornado outbreak meets the notability guidelines for a standalone article we can't really override that just because it didn't meet our project's (relatively) arbitrary criteria. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You are technically correct, but by that definition every system that is able to spin up a few EF2s is now article material? With an active year predicted ahead, that means we are going to basically have an article for every weekly event May through June. Things are going to get cluttered and impractical fast. I understand where you are coming from, but it makes no practical sense. Saying "we don't really know what is and isn't article worthy" is going to open up one huge can of worms. Just my opinion. Screven94 (talk) 20:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I should add, by that definition, there are now 3 or 4 additional minor 2017 events that would fall into the article criteria. Like I said, huge can of worms. Screven94 (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Screven94: there's no need to be so confrontational over an article. Nothing bad will come of temporarily having these types of articles. Anyone can write articles on whatever event they want and discussion can follow after. We want to promote proliferation of knowledge, not define what can and can't be expressed before it even happens. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I understand what all of you are saying, but the main reason I initially took issue with the creation of that article was that it was for an outbreak on April 2 that hadn't even really occurred yet (for the most part). Drafts are probably fine, but I don't think that we should be too hasty when it comes to creating articles in mainspace. That doesn't mean that I don't think individual editors should be able to use their own discretion when it comes to creating articles, but I do not think that a high risk should automatically constitute article-worthiness, and I don't think that articles with little information such as the "Tornado outbreak of April 1–3, 2017" article in its early stages should be published. An article on a current/recent event with only a short list of tornadoes and a small Meteorological synopsis can be contained in a relevant "Tornadoes of year" article and "List of United States tornadoes in month year" article. Sections of the relevant "Tornadoes of YYYY" article can be good starting points for tornado outbreaks that can later break off as articles as the event unfolds if need be. Once enough tornadoes have occurred / enough information written, then the article can be created. I support the 'existence' of information on Wikipedia, it's just the necessity of very short articles on recent/ongoing outbreaks that I am calling into question, particularly if such information can easily be contained elsewhere. I'd give the current draft a bit more work and if there is enough information added / the article becomes better-developed, then it can be later published (in the meantime, information can also be added to Tornadoes of 2017#April 1–3). On a final note, I consider Screven's requirements to be much too strict, as that would necessitate a discussion for every last article and result in the removal of noteworthy articles just because they don't meet his EF3+ criterion. There are outbreaks with 50+ tornadoes where none of the tornadoes received a rating of higher than EF2. EF2 is a "strong" tornado, so I could hardly disagree more on that limitation. Master of Time (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, the April 3 event may have been a little more potent than expected. At least 23 tornado reports and counting. It seems that areas in and around Gordon, Georgia, Griffin, Georgia, Ellaville, Georgia, and Smarr, Georgia all sustained significant damage from tornadoes. Combine that with two tornadic deaths and likely still several un-surveyed tornadoes from April 2, the April 1-3 event may end up being article-worthy after all. We shall see.

Screven94 (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94

As I understand it, merely attracting the attention of the news media does not necessarily constitute notability; Wikipedia knows they overhype things. A high risk outlook may lend some notability to an event, but I wouldn't put too much stock in it unless the outbreak had a significant impact, since the outlooks can be wrong. While I agree that Screven's standards are rather strict, I think he is right that we should wait until the impacts are known before going ahead with creating an article. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Screven94: New high risk issued and violent tornado apparently on ground in Georgia. Should we make Tornado outbreak of April 4–5, 2017? There was a few tornadoes last night as well. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Would like some response at some point IMO. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV I agree with you. The NWS did issue a particuarily dangerous situation tornado watch for a large portion of the Mississippi Valley and Southern states. In addition to that, a tornado warning for south-central Georgia was noted that there was an observed "large, extremely dangerous and potentially deadly" tornado on the ground, with a "catastrophic" damage potential. However, there has been no confirmed tornadoes and only 7 filtered reports of tornadoes so far. The part though that the 3rd high risk of the year was issued so early in the year is pretty notable (by my terms, though). MegaEarthquake (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I went and started a draft on this outbreak because it seems to be getting more intense by the hour, plus an EF2 and 1 were confirmed from yesterday. I am holding off until probably tomorrow afternoon when storm surveys start coming out to publish this, in the meantime anyone can help add more to the draft if needed (particularly the meteorological synopsis). I was thinking at one point today that we could merge all of the tornado events from the last week or so into one big page titled something like Tornado outbreak sequence of March 28 – April 5, 2017 since they have impacted very similar areas in only a timespan of a week or so. Not sure if that's the way to go but one possible solution, as something like that was done when the 2011 Super Outbreak was getting started, it was connected with the tornado outbreak sequence of April 19–24, 2011 as a page called "April 19–26, 2011 tornado outbreak sequence". Just a suggestion. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

An article looks unnecessary at this point, with only a handful of tornadoes and no causalities. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 23:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No chance of an article with this one. The wind profile today was far too unidirectional to support a widespread or significant tornado outbreak, and thus the event busted quite badly. Only minor to moderate damage occurred associated with a few scattered tornadoes. No deaths or populated areas impacted either. This is a PRIME example of why High Risk does NOT equal automatic article status. This is the third High Risk Bust of 2017, it should be abundantly clear by now that articles are created based on impact, not outlook severity.

Screven94 (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94

Couldn't we just put the past tornado events of the past week into one big article like I suggested above? --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No, because they were spawned by separate systems. That's how outbreak sequences are determined. Can't mix tornadoes spawned by one trough with tornadoes spawned by others. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

No, this period wasn't significant, even as an outbreak sequence. I know you are itching to create an article, but we have wait until we have a significant event verify. Be patient, its only early April. On to the next one...

Screven94 (talk) 00:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94

True, I mean look at 2011, we had such an active April that finished out with a very big bang, so there's still 25 days left to see a major tornado outbreak with violent (EF4/5) tornadoes. I think we will see one for sure, so I can handle waiting :P --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:57, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, we just have to wait and see what the tornadoes are rated. The tornado that has the best chance of a high rating is the one in southern Georgia that had the tornado emergency issued on it. My bet is at least EF2/3 (crossing my fingers though for an EF3+ cause I like to see strong tornadoes, eccept when they kill people) MegaEarthquake (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A tornado emergency does not in any way guarantee significant damage in the same way that a High Risk does not guarantee a significant outbreak. You are putting WAY too much stock in the wording rather than the actual impacts. If there was significant damage from this outbreak, I would have found out about it by now and I can promise you that. You are clearly passionate about severe weather, but you need to go about this in a more objective manner.

Screven94 (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Screven94

I really think there's little point to these early discussions. It all comes down to speculation until surveys come in unless there has been a clearly catastrophic tornado. Outlooks shouldn't have all that much bearing since, as the latest events have demonstrated, they can be wrong. Even with the tornado emergencies that have been discussed, many of these tornadoes have failed to do particularly heavy damage. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Damage Column

Are we still putting in the damage column in the monthly tornado lists? I think someone mentioned removing it until the information is put in the NCEI database. Right now, January is probably complete in the database. For the first part of the list, the damage amounts, if mentioned, got put in the damage summary section. If no one objects, I'll just put it back. Also, if a tornado crosses state borders, is the state abbreviation supposed to be listed after each county or starting or ending point to clarify which state it is in? I know some people do that and some don't, so it isn't really consistent. Jh23487 (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The reason I haven't added the damage column back is because it makes the tables too crowded. Me and @Cyclonebiskit: looked around to see if anyone had any new design ideas (to make it more neat, and also because we wanted columns for deaths and injuries), but we had no luck. Writing out the totals in the description rather than adding the column makes January look more visually appealing. That's just my say. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 23:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Outlook-based discussions

Lately this talk page has been flooded with discussions on potential future outbreaks. I think it best that we avoid such discussions moving forward. I know it can be exciting to see significant tornado potential in an outlook, but as TropicalAnalystwx13 says above, this is not a forum; it is a page to discuss the content of the article. Discussing outlooks does nothing toward that purpose and creates unnecessary clutter on the talk page. Outlooks can be wrong and we cannot judge the significance of an outbreak or its worthiness for a section or article until it actually happens. Most of the information that would go into an article won't even be available until surveys come in. So, please keep discussions relevant to the page. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Heads-up

Just a heads-up, any tornadic activity associated with the major storm plowing through the Central US will also be included on April 2017 North American storm complex once I finish it to an acceptable level (should be up by tomorrow at least). For now just keep a section for it if needed so and probably add a hidden text with the main link template for it. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 04:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you update the fatalities map in the events section of the Tornadoes of 2017 page. Also, I read an article that said the death toll has been raised to five people, but I'm not sure the authenticy of the page. MegaEarthquake (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Heads up 2: I have surgery tomorrow to get all 4 of my wisdom teeth out, so someone else will have to take over updating tomorrow and maybe Tuesday. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Russia

According to RT, there were multiple tornadoes but no deaths. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Tulsa tornado

I know that there has been an article for the Tulsa tornado for the past several days, but should it really have its own article? I mean, it's only an EF2 tornado, which is extremely common in the Tulsa area, and this one wasn't any different. The only thing that it is notable for was that it was rare in August, but nothing else is particularly significant. The article needs some huge expansions, unless that is all the info available. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 12:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know the article is still under construction, I was going to add to it, but I was also wondering why we have a separate article about an EF2, it did cause an unusual number of injuries, I think this is why it has it's own article (not sure if it should though). Tornado chaser (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, there should not be an article because other tornadoes that have caused 30+ injuries don't have articles. Unless this caused a high amount of fatalities, there shouldn't be an article. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 15:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

In point of fact, when the article was created, it basically was a carbon copy of the section I had created on August 7. Ironically, the section in this page's parent article elaborates a little more on the tornado event in comparison to the separate article on the event itself. The only other plausible reason for keeping the article on the Tulsa tornado is the fact that it cut through a mid-sized metropolitan area (and in the dead of night, when tornadoes are inarguably the most dangerous because of their lack of visibility and the fact that tornadoes that happen at night are more likely to catch the public unaware, especially at the time of night the four that hit Northeastern Oklahoma took place). However, that argument is a bit thin, too. TVTonightOKC 19:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Oppose merge - The 2017 Tulsa tornado did "cause an unusual number of injuries", and "cut through a mid-sized metropolitan area" "in the dead of night". I feel that this issue should go before the wider Wikipedia community at AFD before being merged. Besides, it does not make sense to destroy the house while it is being built. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Other stuff exists and does not exist. The fact that a tornado was relatively weak is in itself not a reason for a tornado to not have an article. There are multiple articles for F2/EF2 tornadoes. These are not compelling reason for this subject to not have an article. I am interested in seeing if it can be expanded a bit further. I may look into it myself at some point should I find the time. In the longer term, if no more information is added, it may be worth merging it, though. Master of Time (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

There is little notable about a 6 minute tornado that injured 26 people. A universal guideline for Wikipedia is that articles should be created when relevant information becomes too large for its parent topic (the August 6 subsection on this page; too large implies sufficient notability). That is certainly not the case here. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You have a point, I will add that the amount of time a tornado lasts is not relevant to it's notability, as a fast-moving tornado can cause more destruction in less time then a slower one. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@HurricaneGonzalo, TVTonightOKC, Jax 0677, Master of Time, TropicalAnalystwx13, and Tornado chaser: So, the page in question has experienced little editing activity in the past few months. It appears there was an attempt to blank and redirect, but that was reverted citing an ongoing discussion here. Is there a consensus? Enwebb (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Merge, can easily be contained in target article (giving it context)...coming to this cold as a new page reviewer I would have PRODed this as WP:NOTNEWS had the potential merge not been mooted.TheLongTone (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Harvey Related Tornadoes

Just wondering if we should end up creating a separate section for tornadoes that were spawned by Hurricane Harvey. --greendevil32 (talk)

I would second this. Hurricane Harvey caused a tornado outbreak all on its own, so Harvey should get its own section. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree.Tornado chaser (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Add November 5 outbreak.

https://weather.com/news/news/2017-11-05-severe-thunderstorms-midwest-early-november-impacts

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/officials-tornado-injures-small-ohio-city-50954822

209.96.101.75 (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Deadly Tornado in Germany

There was no deadly Tornado in Germany this year. There is no source for it. This is the only possible source i found. http://www.dw.com/en/2-dead-as-tornado-storms-batter-northern-germany/a-39373673

There was a confirmed F2 Tornado that day in Germany. But it occured in Töppel (Saxony-Anhalt) and the deaths were in Uelzen in Lower Saxony (around 90 miled away) and in Gifhorn in Lower-Saxony (around 70 miles away). Check this list, it is the official List of Tornados in Germany. http://www.tornadoliste.de/ --217.24.226.52 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Lukatz

Tornado victim name

You should mention their name instead of calling them person Alvaro ivan daniswara (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)