Jump to content

Talk:Tornadoes of 2023/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

'Snow tornado' in Shetland

Hello everyone. I am not sure if this is quite the right place, but wanted to flag this interesting tornado as featured on the BBC today. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-scotland-64900417 Cheers! SnowballWT (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Even if this is a tornado (there is dispute of whether or not this is a tornado or a snow devil), I doubt it is notable enough to be included in the article (Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Weather by year criteria#Tornadoes). While it is notable, it isn't notable enough. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 18:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Referencing

Currently, referencing seems to be a free-for-all with no consistency across editors, so I figured I'd make this section detailing how sources should be constructed.

Iowa Environmental Mesonet/NWS

  • If IEM, use cite report; if NWS site, use cite web
  • Use the title provided; the ellipses (three dots) are not necessary
  • The author is the NWS WFO
  • The publisher is Iowa Environmental Mesonet or National Weather Service
  • Use publisher and not website, which a) should not be an actual link to the website, b) is generally not the right usage, and c) would be redundant anyway when they match.
  • Example: <ref>{{cite report|author=National Weather Service in Norman, Oklahoma|title=NWS Damage Survey for 2/26/2023 Tornado Event - Update # 4|url=https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=PNSOUN&e=202303031706|publisher=Iowa Environmental Mesonet|date=March 3, 2023|access-date=March 9, 2023}}</ref>

NCEI

  • Use cite report, not cite web
  • There are no formal titles provided. The standard is to use '[State] Event Report: [Rating] Tornado'. Because there's no formal title, this needs to go in brackets.
  • The author is the NWS WFO
  • The publisher is the National Centers for Environmental Information
  • There is no date, so use year
  • Example: <ref>{{cite report|author=National Weather Service in Goodland, Kansas|title=[Kansas Event Report: EF3 Tornado]|url=https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=109509|publisher=National Centers for Environmental Information|year=2008|access-date=March 9, 2023}}</ref>

In both cases, and in all cases across almost the entirety of the weather wikiprojects, we use month-day-year and not day-month-year for dates. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 21:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The "[]" is not necessary actually. However, I normally don't have time to write out that citation, so I do what I can. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak of March 24

Its time, folks. We've just had a rare tornado emergency as a massive tornado struck the town of Rolling Fork, Mississippi, and multiple other supercells are spawning. The draft is a go. You can find it here: Draft:Tornado outbreak of March 24, 2023. Mjeims (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Silver City, Winona, and now Amory has taken hits Arkansasperson124 (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Someone made an article and it has since been expanded significantly, so please ignore the draft above (it already has been redirected). Work is been done here: Tornado outbreak of March 24, 2023. Mjeims (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 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) 15:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Tornado Photos ripped from Twitter/YouTube

Why do I keep seeing tornado photos taken from storm chaser accounts on YouTube and Twitter? That isn't public domain, and they are going to keep getting removed. Someone just did it with the Rolling Fork, MS EF4. Am I missing something here? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

In progress of being deleted on the commons. It’s getting annoying with all the images not able to be used. In this case, one of the images had permission to be used, however, the photographer didn’t specify a CC license to be used, so it was deleted on copyright violation grounds. Someone else just straight up uploaded an image without permission whatsoever, and that is also being deleted on copyright violation grounds. So you aren’t missing anything except copyright violations. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok, well that is annoying. Is there a way to put out a message or disclaimer that people can't just pull any tornado image from wherever and put it here?

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I wish I knew, but I just upload NWS photos to avoid copyvio's since NWS's photos are all public domain. ChessEric 00:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking for damage or radar photos for Jenkinsburg, GA EF2

Not a big deal at all, but it's bugging me that the there are no photos of any kind for the Jenkinsburg, GA EF2 writeup in the Jan 12, 2023 article. There are no DAT photos, so it doesn't leave us with many options. However, I was wondering if anyone has either radar screen caps or their own damage, photos, or something we could post for that writeup? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I was wondering the exact same thing. I don't have anything unfortunately. ChessEric 23:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop adding unneeded parentheses

Edit: Nevermind, I can see there was a consensus reached that I was not aware of. Disregard and carry on. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Tornado outbreak of March 31, possibly April 1

Today looks incredible, and it is an outlook like I had never seen before in how large and how many people could potentially be affected by it. As such, I created a draft, with the meteorological synopsis already present. However, there are some elements I think could be changed, so we could do that before storms initiated lated this afternoon. So many people could be affected by this event, that there is no harm in working in a draft beforehand.

You can find the draft here: Draft:Tornado outbreak of March 31, 2023. Mjeims (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

We're going to get a high risk at 1630 UTC as well. There is going to be two high risks zones, which is something I've never seen:

ChessEric 15:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure never in SPC history we've had two distinct high risk areas. Today could potentially be historic. Mjeims (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
No it has. The April 14, 2012 Day 2 outlook had two high risk zones. There are probably at least a few others as well. ChessEric 16:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Guess you are right. Still, incredibly rare and concerning. Mjeims (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. We'll have to watch closely today to see if it verifies. The SPC normally issues lower risks for areas closest to the low-pressure supporting the outbreaks, but they didn't this time, so it is something that is interesting to note. ChessEric 16:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
We also have blizzard in South Dakota that we will have to mention. ChessEric 16:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Not to mention these pretty strong gradient winds behind this dry line. ChessEric 18:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

High risk day tornado count

Currently, we put in the tornado count for high risk days as 05z/06z-05z/06z. However, the SPC outlooks are valid between 12z-12z. I was, therefore, thinking that we should change the tornado count to the valid times of the outlook instead of how many tornadoes that happened that day. Thoughts? ChessEric 19:18, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

April 19, 2023 tornado event

I doubt an article might be needed about this, but a section might be warranted if the effects of this storm system is widespread or significant enough. Right now I'm tracking the storms through the reflectivity, velocity, and correlation coefficient ones, and one of them near Cole, Oklahoma looks to have strong rotation! That one might head towards the University of Oklahoma within the next two hours! Tails Wx 00:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

No strong rotation, but rather a massive, intense tornado caught in 4K by Timmer. Certainly not enough for an article, but we've got at least a large, destructive tornado so far. Mjeims (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I will make a section for this. The Cole tornado looks pretty significant. ChessEric 01:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I created a draft just in case because this is expected to be a multi-day event. If nothing else notable happens, I'll create a redirect. - Visiblity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VisiblityGale (talk • contribs) 02:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The draft in question: Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 19 VisiblityGale (talk) 03:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@VisiblityGale, ChessEric, and Tails Wx: This will need to be beefed up and moved to mainspace. Significant media attention with multiple fatalities, at least one EF3+ tornado, widespread damage in a large town, and an interesting meteorological episode. United States Man (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Interesting and locally significant event for sure, but I personally don't think we have quite an enough for an article yet at this stage. It's close though. Lets give it some more time to see how the surveys pan out.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Indeed. I thought about moving it last night, but...just read this edit summary. I'm too lazy to right it out again. XD ChessEric 13:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yo vi un video de el tornado en Trinidad, Cuba

The storm, you's delete my information, plese perdona but my english 🤨 152.206.99.38 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Tienes el video en alguna parte bro? O algún clip de noticias que podamos usar? Si es así, tal vez lo podamos mencionar, pero no creo que se le pueda dedicar una sección especial en el capítulo de abril. Mjeims (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
...dang. I wish I knew what you said. XD ChessEric 22:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I used google translate, and apparently it says, "Do you have the video somewhere bro? Or any news clips we can use? If so, perhaps we can mention it, but I don't think a special section can be devoted to it in the April chapter." Infinity (talk - contributions) 00:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
My guy. Gotta admit I'm kinda cheating since I'm from Colombia, so I got that Spanish in me since I use it everyday. But that is exactly what I said. That said, is the Cuba tornado worth mentioning? Mjeims (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
No. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 01:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Are We Jumping the Gun again?

Guys, we've been over this so many times, and its like it never sinks in. We need to be more conservative with article creation, and I have some doubts as to whether the April 19 outbreak needs an article. We were discussing the possibility, and next thing I know I wake up and its been added with no consensus given. Where's the evidence of consensus and discussion for this article? Two fatalities and 10 tornadoes is not much of an outbreak, and in some Spring tornado seasons, that's sometimes just an average week in April or May. If I'm outvoted here, fine, but I think you all still get too excited any time there is even a localized rash of tornadoes that includes an EF3+ and at least one fatality, but the standard for articles is usually higher than that. So I ask you, why does this NEED an article? April 4-5 was deadlier and produced more tornadoes, and that one didn't get an article. Yet this one does. Is it because of Reed Timmer's crazy stream and all the internet hype over last night's event? I think that plays a role, and think it's interfering with people's objectivity. Also, what happened to the more conservative approach we agreed on after November 29-30, 2022? We agreed on it, and yet there's clearly been no follow-through or enforcement of this problem. Did we just forget all about that?

And for real, can I get an explanation as to why somebody was challenging a full "Tornado Outbreak" article for March 24-27 which produced 20+ tornadoes including an EF4, wiped a town off the map, and killed TWENTY TWO PEOPLE, yet there was no hesitation for this MUCH less significant outbreak. It makes no sense and there is still no consistency of the standard for what makes an event article worthy. I'm tired of dealing with this ongoing issue, and I'm about to say no more making drafts in the immediate aftermath of outbreaks, because I think once a draft is made, people have already made up their minds to some extent, and it creates a bias towards article creation. PLEASE lets discuss this. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I was informed by an administrator that no one needs consensus in order to start an article. So, anyone is free to create and publish one without needing permission. United States Man (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any idea what can of worms that is going to open up? The implications of there no longer being any standards for article creation is going to result in a complete and utter free-for-all. That is not a good thing, and doesn't provide answers for any of the legitimately concerning questions and potential problems that this issue raises. So the standard is now "because I said so, and because I want an article personally"? How is that remotely democratic or a good idea? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
There's always PROD and AfD if someone gets overzealous. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I honestly think this isn't that big of a deal. This could be easily merged later, if needed. However, there has already been several more EF2+ tornadoes confirmed than April 4-5, and the amount of information on the April 19 article already exceeds the small section on April 4-5. As the event garnered a good deal of media coverage, I chose to go ahead and move it to mainspace. Probably worth stepping back and calming down. United States Man (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree. Honestly, I don't think it was this notable for an article, and even the Fujiwhara stuff isn't enough; it was an EF3 in Oklahoma that caused two fatalities and a few other tornadoes that weren't very significant either. It's definitely eligible for an AfD if the event turns out to be non-notable. Poodle23 (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
OK fair enough. Honestly, between the Cole and Shawnee EF3s, I think this event is just locally significant enough that an article isn't totally absurd, and I can make due with it. My concern is the slippery slope of overzealous young weather fans making an article any time a weather system spits out a handful of EF2s. It WILL get to that point unless there is some degree of self-moderation, and I can promise you that.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

As the creator of the article, I will say something. I didn't really wanna create the draft, but due to the sudden spike of significant tornadoes (5 at the time of this reply), I felt it pretty notable to get a draft. And even then, I went to the IRC and was told if it had significant media attention, then go ahead and expand the draft. So I expanded it. But of course, I admit, I may have jumped the gun a bit when creating the draft due to the panic at that moment. But I do believe the article isn't totally unreasonable. Thanks for your opinion though! :) VisiblityGale (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
We've always argued, even after the limbo we found ourselves on after November 30, that creating a draft will always be fine, as it can be easily eliminated if no urgency for an article arises, or if things die down and not enough activity occurs to guarantee the necessity for an article. It is when the draft is moved into the mainspace when there should be a more thorough internal discussion before doing it. But the mere creation of a draft will be fine, as long as it stays like so until consensus is reached, weather to move it into the article mainspace, or delete it. This one was discussed and agreed upon when more fatalities began to appear, and the highly anomalous nature of the supercell was revealed. Mjeims (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean by "more fatalities began to appear"? There were only two, and don't get me wrong it's tragic, but not really significant in the context of outbreaks we see every year. The Glen Allen, MO EF2 killed five people during the April 4-5 outbreak but nobody was clamoring for an article. Why? Because it hit in the middle of the night and nobody was awake to spread hype here or on social media. The human emotion element wasn't there because all Wiki users were asleep rather than tracking it and watching live streams. Do you see what I'm getting at here? This has more to do with the spike in emotion that comes with the immediate aftermath of a tornado event, and it clouds judgement. When no news is covering it, no storm chasers are streaming, and nobody is awake to get everyone all hyped on here or social media, this doesn't happen, and Glen Allen, MO is a perfect example of that. If we're going to make articles, it should hinge on hard facts and statistics, not us weather nerds getting excited and chomping at the bit for more details to justify an article. I think you and other users STILL have a tough time separating those two things in an objective manner when the damage and fatality reports start rolling in. When this happens, can we look back at past articles and ask ourselves "How does this stack up in terms of other events that we deemed article worthy?". For example, last night we had a handful of strong tornadoes, and two deaths, and when you compare this with every other article in the past 3 years, it clearly isn't enough. Now the tornado count could still increase, but not by much, and we may not even see this one get past the 20 mark.
The only thing that BARELY makes this notable is the unusual Fujiwhara Effect stuff that happened, which is significant/anomalous from a meteorology perspective. Someone more knowledgeable may be able to do a very interesting breakdown in the Meteorological Synopsis section. Otherwise, I'd say lets dump this one.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Stating the obvious here, but the new round of surveys has us at 26 tornadoes, including 5 EF2s and two EF3s, so I'm much more comfortable with there being an article at this point.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:08, 22 April 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I was trying to add April 21, but didn't realize that we can't move the page right now due to edit warring over the name, which is frustrating because it was another unnecessary argument for this year. We may have tornado today in New York as well. ChessEric 22:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
There were one or two very brief tornadoes in Alabama yesterday evening as well, but I would not support moving the page as this isn't really an "outbreak", despite it being from the same general system. This is why we have the monthly list. No sense at all in extending the page over numerous days for 1-2 tornadoes per day. That just seems silly. I support it either remaining at April 19-20 or even going back to just the 19th. United States Man (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to just focusing on the Oklahoma metro supercell. The tornadoes in Kansas/Iowa/Illinois/Texas were hardly notable and the most significant aspect of the event was that chaotic mess. But I'm probably an outlier with that thinking. Anyway, leaving it Apr 19-20 is probably best. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I noticed the whole article got pulled. Are we sure we want to do that? I know I was making a big to-do about it being necessary, but we were approaching a tornado count of 30 with multiple EF2s and EF3s, and I'm more than ok with an article for that. Also, I do not think the other tornadoes should be excluded. They fired along the same dryline, a few were strong (EF2), and we've never excluded tornadoes from an outbreak just because they were less significant than others the same day. Even if there was a single EF0 in say, North Dakota, as long as it was spawned by the same parent weather system on the same day, it should be included. Otherwise, that would be like only focusing on the Deep South tornadoes of 4/27/2011 and ignoring the weaker ones farther north because they weren't the "main event". That's a slippery slope, as we've never excluded tornadoes in an outbreak based on a perceived lack of significance, and I strongly recommend against setting that kind of precedent.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12!

30 is usually around the bare minimum of what we've created traditional outbreak articles for. There were multiple strong tornadoes, but most only impacted a handful of structures and outside of major population centers. Since the primary focus of the outbreak was almost entirely two supercells, the OK one and the KS one, that seems like a situation where the info can be preserved within the main article's subsection. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 18:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. Well, it was fun while it lasted :) VisiblityGale (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

April 26

After the hubbub with the April 19-20 article, I thought we might need to have another discussion about this. It doesn't look significant enough, but we'll see. Poodle23 (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

April 15, 22, and 27

I was wondering which, if any of these events you guys would be ok with me making a section for? Each featured one strong tornado, but were otherwise not particularly significant, so its pretty borderline. I'm thinking at least April 22, due to the rarity of strong tornadoes in New York. What do you guys think? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Definitely make a section for April 22, because straight-line winds in Pennsylvania killed 2 people. 134.6.205.51 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah... considering how new this IP is, it's possible that it could be an Andrew5 sock. Poodle23 (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
This is getting annoying. I don't care who is or isn't Andrew5's sock. If Andrew5's sock has a good suggestion, we should debate it. If Andrew5's sock makes a good edit, it should be kept regardless of who it came from. In this case, I do not believe sections are needed for any of those dates based on the number of tornadoes/damage caused. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 00:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
The suggestions from the IP are fine; using multiple IPs to do so is not. April 15 should get a section since it affected the St. Louis metro, but the other two don't need one. ChessEric 23:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

April 19 Shawnee tornado rating confusion

I've seen multiple times where the NWS Norman is saying that the Shawnee tornado did EF3 damage, but the rating they are giving it is high-end EF2. Can someone make an inquiry about it? In the meantime, I'm going to say the tornado was very high-end EF2 since it could be either EF2 or EF3. ChessEric 23:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

In their ArcGIS Story Map, made by a meteorologist and the senior service hydrologist, they rated it EF2/130. I'm going to trust the ArcGIS story map as the current and up-to-date preliminary info from NWS Norman, since it takes more effort to create that than creating a PNS or webpage. Plus, all their damage pictures and damage info is on that storymap. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
That's the problem. Some of the points are EF3 and not EF2. ChessEric 23:34, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh shoot, you are right. Well, now I'm inclined to say EF3/148 since that is the highest DI listed. The EF2/130 (and all the other ratings) are a screenshot from the weather.gov page. With the amount of effort in the story map though, I think it would be "higher-tier preliminary" (Coining that term now, lol) than the PNS. It has the interactive map and two NWS employee creators, while the PNS doesn't list any creators. I really don't know now that you pointed it out though, but later tonight, I will contact them to find out. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I guess I could also go visit the NWS Norman myself. Its right down the street from my house! XD In any case, I think I'm going to leave a note on the tornado summary, so we don't have edit wars about the rating. ChessEric 17:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Do you like, walk in and ask "Aye the tornado we had the other day in Shawnee, what rating is it really?" While I know it must be a serious stablishment and asking such information is a serious matter, but I still find it humorous. But now that I think about it, as the NWS is a federal company, I'm pretty sure they cannot disclose information they have not released properly online or publicly. Mjeims (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Which picture of the Cole tornado is better for the section

Option 1: File:The April 19, 2023 Cole, Oklahoma EF3 Tornado courtesy of Tim Marshall.jpg (Current)

Option 2: File:The April 19, 2023 Cole, Oklahoma EF3 Tornado courtesy of Sean Ernst.jpg

Discussion

  • Option 2 — I think this image shows the wedge-nature of the tornado. TornadoInformation12 said it was not better due to the watermark, but some of the WikiProject’s most famous images are similar with the watermark of “Courtesy of…”. A good example is The 1999 Bridge Creek F5, which has a similar watermark at the bottom. I’m honestly ok with either image, but I personally prefer the 2nd one by Sean Ernst. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 – Option 2 is obviously the better picture, but the watermark is WAY too big. The watermark on the The 1999 Bridge Creek F5 is much smaller, so that works out. It doesn't work here though. I got to go with the image that doesn't have the watermark. ChessEric 17:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 — As it has been identified the second picture as the better definition one, I would lean on that one as well. I'm pretty sure the watermark issue can be fixed by cropping the picture, but that has a different process when working with copyrighted pictures. Mjeims (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
That photo would actually fall under public domain since it came from the NWS summary. ChessEric 15:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 — Better defined structure and higher quality image. The watermark doesn't get in the way of the main focus of the image, so it's fine. Infinity (talk - contributions) 21:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 — Clearly shows the wedge tornado near maximum intensity near Cole, and the current image shows it at a much narrower state in its lifetime. The watermark doesn't affect the main part of the image because its in the bottom left and not severely obstructive to the image. The watermark can also be cropped out and the credit details can be put into the description of the image, like what has been done in previous cases of public domain images from the NWS. ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 23:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

UPDATE: The NWS Norman has added the Option 2 photo onto their event page without the large watermark (it is replaced with a much smaller one). I would be fine with that one as an Option 3. ChessEric 22:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

New image switched on the commons and per very clear consensus here, it has been switched in the article. Thanks y'all for participating. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Your welcome! ChessEric 01:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
No problem, man! ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 03:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

RFC - Which file is best for the January 12 section

Option 2. 2 received an equal number of supporting comments as 3, but 2 enjoyed greater support among those who indicated multiple preferences or complicated opinions. casualdejekyll 01:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

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


Which file is best for the January 12 section on the Tornadoes of 2023 article?

Elijahandskip (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC), originally raised 02:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Option 2: This is a file released by the National Weather Service earlier today. It shows the numerous tornadoes that occurred at the same time through the velocity scans. Poodle23 pointed out WP:ACCESS concerns saying, people who don't know radar should be able to read it. Generally, I would agree with that since radar scans are not always the best to use for images due to access concerns. However, the National Weather Service put circles around each of the tornadoes & highlighted their respective damage paths. So instead of having a damage picture from one of the tornadoes, we have a gif showing numerous tornadoes. The circles and highlighted damage tracks is why I think any WP:ACCESS concerns are not needed. Noting I pinged Poodle23 only because I directly mentioned a quote from them on this exact issue. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 – Honestly, it's a bit confusing at first to the average reader, but they should be able to somewhat understand it if a longer caption is provided + Elijah pointed out the circles which substitute the tornado location; however, the animation does not work for "technical reasons", so that will need to be fixed before any consensus can be reached. Poodle23 (talk) 2:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment, the gif does work on my end, but it takes a while to load. Can anyone else check if it works or doesn't work? Elijahandskip (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
It functioned properly, however it took a reasonable 2 minutes and 47 seconds, and an extra 63 milliseconds for the GIF to load. Tails Wx 03:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
'Cause it's bloody 270 MB! Will never load for most users (who are on mobile) and I don't believe high-size GIFs get animated in thumbnails (articles) anyway. Any way to compress it by two orders of magnitude, by any chance? DFlhb (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I was on the computer and the gif would not load (its my mom's old one that's about nine-years-old). If it won't load on a computer, then imagine all the other devices it won't load on. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 – Yeah, I do think we can have a GIF observance of numerous tornadoes, but IMO I feel like Option 3 fits best with the tornado section, highlighting the EF3 Griffin–Experiment tornado damage. I do feel like I would go for the GIF on Option 2, but I'll stick with Option 3 for now. Tails Wx 02:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 – I really don't feel that strongly either way, but I think the gif with the paths would be better suited in the article, probably inside the section ChessEric is writing about the supercell for the synopsis section. United States Man (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 3 – I side with the third option, as it displays clearly some of the more intense damage dealt throughout the outbreak. I'm not opposed to GIF's being present in this articles, but in this case, such a file is most efficient and useful within a tornado/supercell section, than as the header of the article. Mjeims (talk) 03:05, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 – I can't see the gif at the moment, but I put this image (option 1) in there because the other images are already in the article, so I think its redundant to have images in both the article and the section. Its the same I did with the outbreaks in March and April 2022. As a side note, should I include some of the general warnings in the supercell section or just talk about the tornadoes and tornado emergencies? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: The gif for option 2 was just resized down by a lot (270 MB down to 10 MB) and now does the animation through the thumbnail. It was renamed to File:Griffin Tornadoes.gif, so I have updated the RfC option to reflect the renamed file. Just a head's up for editors who have already commented and for future commenters. I will note for RfC reviewer, some previous concerns involved the gif not loading due to size, so those concerns should have been fixed at this time. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 1 is a better photograph. Its subject - a home on its side - is striking and relevant. Option 3 doesn’t really have a subject - it’s a general scene of wreckage which doesn’t speak to the cause. Option 2 is kind of cool, but without explanation I wonder how valuable it is - and it’s a much larger file (even after being downsized) which could cause problems for some readers. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Option 2 There's already a bunch of images showing property damage in the article already. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, Strive for variety. Some1 (talk) 00:42, 10 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.

May 11th

I am considering making a section for today, since we already have 16 tornado reports by the National Weather Service. VisiblityGale (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I swear if I see one more storm rotate above my head, I'm gonna scream. ChessEric 01:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Lol. Anyway, VisiblityGale, I see you've already created one–great! I hope this section expands to elaborate on new information! Tails Wx 01:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

May 11-12th (tornado outbreak?)

I've created a draft for this event, because multiple news agencies are calling this a "tornado outbreak", plus the reports of pretty bad damage in and around Noble, Oklahoma. https://abcnews.go.com/US/tornado-outbreak-hits-americas-heartland-forecast/story?id=99277162 https://www.wphm.net/2023/05/12/tornado-outbreak-hits-americas-heartland-with-more-in-the-forecast/ I believe that the draft should be moved into "Tornado outbreak of May 11-12, 2023" at some point. should we continue to expand on the draft? VisiblityGale (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of tornadoes yesterday and today, with the exception of the violent tornado that just dissipated, were over open areas. At this point, I lean toward a section being good enough instead of an article, but we'll see how damage surveys progress. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 00:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
We now have a fatality in Texas. An article may become necessary depending on the ratings from the storms in Nebraska. ChessEric 13:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The draft VisiblityGale created needs significant expansion, then that draft can become an article once the ratings in Nebraska are determined, and if it is necessary! Tails Wx 14:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey, it’s Visiblity. According to sources there are “atleast two fatalities”. 72.50.16.206 (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Hey @VisiblityGale, I checked the sources you provided, and so far they only confirm 1 fatality from the tornado, and I haven't seen any direct mention of "at least two fatalities". If you do see a source which does mention another, or if I missed something, then please let us know. ChrisWx (talk - contribs) 17:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
It is one fatality. Fox Weather explained the confusion… “One person was found dead at the scene, while 10 others were taken to a local hospital for injuries, Port Isabel officials said. Officials originally announced two people had died but corrected their report later Saturday morning to state only one death had been confirmed.” Elijahandskip (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Oops. I added that to the draft as well. I have removed it from the draft. Sorry! :( -Visiblity. 72.50.16.206 (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

May 28 event

In this edit, I removed information about a boat capsizing in Italy on May 28th. The Guardian described it as a “whirlwind”, not tornado. ESSL actually marked the event under a “severe wind” event rather than a “tornado”, which they would mark as “tornado over water” if it was going to be recorded as a waterspout. So ESSL is not considering the May 28, 2023 event as tornadic, meaning shouldn’t be documented here. If they re-mark the event, please re-add to the list. Here is the link to the European Severe Weather Database from ESSL: https://www.eswd.eu/ Cheers! Elijahandskip (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

June 14-16 outbreak

can i add the 10 EF0 tornadoes that touched down in alberta to this section? CKulak05 (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

You can add it to the page, but make it separate by putting the following information.
June [insert day number here] (Canada)
[put information about tornadoes here] Meowmeowcat12 (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
awesome thank you! CKulak05 (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornadoes_of_2023/Archive_2&oldid=1164170136"