Talk:Tornadoes of 2021

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Too early[edit]

@United States Man: I brought this up at Talk:Tornadoes of 2020#2021 article, but it is too early to have this article here. We should wait until January 1, since there is no content that could possibly added to this page until then. I would suggest moving this page and the January list to draftspace until then. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it’ll be fine. Two days is fine. United States Man (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed vs preliminary reports[edit]

@Hurricanetrack, 453Brax, and ChessEric: Shouldn't the confirmed count technically still be zero? We only have the preliminary SPC reports so far, no actual surveys. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS: Yeah, you were correct. LOL!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fultondale tornado discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Talk:List of United States tornadoes in January 2021#Fultondale tornado - separate article discussion regarding To determine if the Fultondale tornado deserves a seperate article. Thank you. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tallahassee tornado[edit]

The notability of the Tallahassee tornado is questionable. We'll wait until the damage survey is and see if other tornadoes are confirmed from this event, but if it turns out to be an isolated EF0 or EF1 tornado, its section should be removed from this article. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I already took it off once. United States Man (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I hesitate is storm reports there may have been two other tornadoes in Florida, and tornado warnings continued in Georgia. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS and United States Man: I left it for now, but I'm questioning it too. It appears the three Florida tornado reports came from the same tornado and no Georgia tornadoes have been confirmed either.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Edit: Scratch that. It was upgraded to EF1 and another tornado was confirmed.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was also a >40-hour gap between the tornadoes on the 25th and the ones on the 27th, so it's iffy putting them in one event. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn’t matter about the time span. We can decide what we want to do here; it doesn’t have any set time period or whatever. We have it noted that there was no activity on the 26th, so it should be clear to the reader. I am fine with leaving it together because I don’t believe January 27 (Tallahassee) warrants a section by itself. I would be inclined to remove that part if these were split. There was more activity earlier in the month that did not receive a section. United States Man (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, didn't all the tornadoes come from the same system?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it may have been, but I thought we usually didn't group events together if there was much more than a 24-hour break with no tornadoes. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 1[edit]

Do we need a section for January 1? Four relatively weak tornadoes with a typical injury from the flipping of a mobile home does not seem worthy of this.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe so. I'd be in complete favor of removing it. Didn't notice that it slipped in there. United States Man (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It meets the bare minimum suggested by Cylonebiskit, but I think those criteria set the bar low. I'm fine with removing it. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed tornado map[edit]

Does someone wanna update the confirmed tornado map that's at the top of the main page? Idk how to add the triangles that represent the tornado location and rating. But we've got some tornadoes to add. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kade Ydstie45: It's not our typical fare since we don't have our usual chart, so I made it in ArcMap. I'll update it tomorrow. I was waiting for surveys, mainly to see if the Sunset Beach tornado would be upgraded to EF4. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh fair enough. Didn't know it was a personal map lol. I thought they would upgrade it to EF4 as well, so it was a good idea to leave it I guess. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think so. High-end EF3 seemed to be the most appropriate.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado reports vs. confirmed tornadoes[edit]

Discussion Topic: Removing the confusing “There have been X tornadoes reported in the United States, of which X tornadoes have been confirmed.” which can be confusing to the reader, and replacing it with “There have been X tornadoes confirmed in the United States.” just makes better sense. -(United States Man from section now in drop-down below)

@TornadoLGS, Hurricanetrack, 453Brax, TropicalAnalystwx13, Tornadotom666, Elijahandskip, Cyclonebiskit, TornadoInformation12, Hurricanehink, HurricaneGonzalo, Redfishtwofish, and OakhurstWX: United States Man bought up a good point in his recent edits; trying to single out preliminary reports and confirmed tornadoes is BONKERS and confusing. I think we should remove them from ALL the tornado articles. Thoughts?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support after miscommunication/misreading the original reason. (See drop down below) Elijahandskip (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I support removing this. Simplifying it down to just confirmed tornadoes instead of also including the tornado report counts sounds good to me! 453Brax (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I worry, though, that not making some mention that differentiates between reported and confirmed tornadoes might actually cause more confusion for the casual reader. The layperson may not realize that 15 tornado reports might not mean 15 actual tornadoes, especially since news media usually state the number of preliminary reports. It may be worth mentioning why our totals differ from those people would hear on the news. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We could change the wording to something like "There have been X tornadoes confirmed in the United States in March, with Y preliminary filtered reports issued through the Storm Prediction Center.[note]" With the note explaining why the number of confirmed and reported tornadoes may differ. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I believe we routinely have more accurate numbers here than the SPC/NWS for the huge outbreaks and the yearly totals, and I don't know why that is because we use their data. What I am wanting to get away from is people constantly changing the number of reports because they don't understand how it works (even though we had a hidden note in the editing window). The note is fine, but I'd like to get away from having to constantly update and change or fix and correct others' mistakes (usually the anons and part-timers here). United States Man (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure removing the preliminary reports would fix that, since they may just turn their attention to the confirmed total. I do wonder how many changes to the total are in goof faith and how many are subtle vandalism. Could pending changes protection be warranted in this case? TornadoLGS (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be unnecessary. What specifically does the "reports" add to the article? We don't have a separate list for "reported but unconfirmed tornadoes", and many filtered reports are still connected to the same tornado during surveys (especially long track ones), so the "reported" total is nearly always going to be inflated. But, again, what does it really add to the article? We don't put it in the outbreak articles or monthly lists (let's NOT start that btw). Furthermore, when someone comes to the article, they are looking for the number of tornadoes (confirmed) so seeing conflicting numbers for "reported" vs. "confirmed" is hopelessly confusing. We don't have a vandalism problem; we have a mass confusion problem. I do not agree at all with the notion that removing this line would actually cause even more confusion. United States Man (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the only thing that adding the number of reports does is that it points out that the number of tornado reports is not necessarily the number of tornadoes. I can support keeping them out for now and see if that eliminates confusion. But it may be worthwhile to add a note explaining that media outlets often use preliminary reports, which often overestimate the number of tornadoes. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy pings: @United States Man:, @ChessEric:, I moved some of your messages into the dropdown below and reorganized the discussion. Just wanted to ping you incase you wanted to move some of the points back out of the dropdown. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion from misreading & miscommunication with Elijahandskip & United States Man
I have conflicting points about that. So I mostly work with the Portal:Current events and help coordinate the Current event WikiProject and deadly tornados get a mention on it. The fultondale tornado earlier this year was mentioned for 2 days on it and as reports came in (updated injuries + update on the death), Basically during the time it was a relevant current event, the reports were just preliminary. Since preliminary reports also come from the NWS, they trump all other news outlets in terms of trustworthiness. 90% of those news outlets also report their stories based on the preliminary reports. That being said, in terms of growing Wikipedia, I see how preliminary reports being removes could be a useful help and result in less problems among editors.
If I was to give an !vote about removing them, I would probably go Oppose mainly because I deal with the preliminary reports, just based on what I work on and help manage, more than the final reports. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One line of text is hardly something that you “deal” with. I think you are missing the point. These numbers are constantly changed by numerous users and they have become confusing and meaningless. A report doesn’t mean anything if a tornado isn’t confirmed, and we don’t put “reported” tornadoes in the article. United States Man (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do a good job of explaining my point so let me just state it. If preliminary reports are removed, then it is impossible to wikilink deadly tornadoes to the Current event portal. The point I was trying to say wasn't about one line of text. Removing them prevents wikilinks to the article, so the 60,000 views daily why see it can't do "more research" on Wikipedia. That was the point I meant. But I do see what you mean. I kinda want to stay opposed until I read some more responses from editors who deal with the actual articles more than I do. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not understanding. Nothing against you, but I don’t get how removing a line of text from an article prevents “wikilinks to the article”. If you are talking about how we sometimes post preliminary reports and surveys to a “list” page, that isn’t the issue here. Removing the confusing “There have been X tornadoes reported in the United States, of which X tornadoes have been confirmed.” which can be confusing to the reader, and replacing it with “There have been X tornadoes confirmed in the United States.” just makes better sense. I don’t see how that could even remotely affect the Current Events portal. That doesn’t make any sense to me. United States Man (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OH! That is the issue! Yeah, I support removing that. I thought the discussion was on preliminary reports in relation to adding tornadoes to the article. My bad. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: Yeah that's what I meant. Thanks for explaining United States Man.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite late to this discussion and my thoughts might not even matter, but I don't see the problem with stating "there have been X many tornado reports in (month), of which X have been confirmed." Like we did last year, instead of doing all reports from the SPC, we started using the filtered tornado reports which helped to cut out a lot of duplicates or false reports. I think its worth keeping in the filtered reports along with the confirmed tornadoes. **I also definitely support only adding confirmed tornadoes when they are 100% certified via NWS surveys**. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I have added back a mention of reported tornadoes for March, since people don't seem to realize that the recent reports of tornadoes in Texas are not confirmed. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added back the mention of reported vs confirmed count because it appeared that the effort was not working; as soon as we had a few reported tornadoes, people added them to the confirmed count. We found ourselves reverting more edits, not fewer. Most people don't know that reported tornadoes are not confirmed tornadoes, so we have to spell it out for them. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @United States Man and ChessEric: to the post above since this issue may need more work. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, I don't see what the issue was with what we were doing. The way you guys had been doing things had been working for years. Having the "there have X tornadoes reported in (month), of which X have been confirmed," seems like the best option in my opinion. Using filtered reports from the SPC as the "reports" slot and then using confirmed tornadoes from NWS surveys in the "confirmed" tornado slot. I don't see what's wrong with it. Helps with keeping track of events, helps with statistics at the top of the article, and just makes sense to include how many have been reported vs confirmed. If you guys change this already fine template for this year, you'll probably need to go back to previous years and make it fit this new template, which doesn't make sense to me. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current outbreak[edit]

@ChessEric and United States Man: Shall we discuss this rather than having an edit war? I agree with ChessEric in this case. We've had several PDS tornado warnings with at least two wedge tornadoes reported. We only have basic information, but this is a significant enough event to warrant a section. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS: Exactly. I didn't just make a section just because I wanted to; I made because multiple significant tornadoes have touched down. Thanks for creating the discussion. That was what I was about to do.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy is pretty clear that this is not a news site and reporting information “hot off the press” is discouraged. United States Man (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@United States Man: Use what? SPC reports? This is not from Twitter this is from the NWS!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It isn't a new site, but it is also acknowledged that Wikipedia articles have sections and articles about ongoing events. Template:Current exists for a reason. If we were on 2021 Atlantic Hurricane Season, there would be no reason not to add a section on a newly formed tropical depression. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never seen you two get so worked up lol. I’ll relent I guess. United States Man (talk) 22:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, should we include March 12 in this? A few tornadoes were reported yesterday and it appears to be from the same frontal boundary. Also, sorry about getting worked up. I was mostly tired of edit wars from last year's hurricane season. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, March 12 should be included when official reports are released. The offices out there hardly ever post full surveys for the small tornadoes, which is aggravating. But it is part of the same episode. United States Man (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@United States Man and ChessEric: On the subject of whether one or more tornadoes prompted the PDS tornado warnings, the LSRs are not entirely clear; there are three statements that seem relevant:

  • 21:23: "MULTIPLE STORM CHASER REPORTS VIA SOCIAL MEDIA OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE A LARGE TORNADO WEST OF HAPPY."
  • 21:30: "LARGE WEDGE TORNADO ON THE GROUND. TOUCH DOWN TIME 330 PM CST. STILL ON GOING."
  • 21:55: "TORNADO TOUCHDOWN 3:55 PM. LARGE TORNADO ONGOING"

The report of a new tornado at 21:55 may not mean a new large tornado, but a smaller tornado with a large one still ongoing. The 21:23 and 21:30 might be the same if there is uncertainty about the exact time of the observation. We should wait until more information is available to sort these out since we could be dealing with a long track tornado or a more complex tornado family. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. United States Man (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why when there are MULTIPLE VIDEOS showing twin tornadoes, which corroborates the report, but what the heck do I know? I just a 11-month newbie apparently.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot add information without a valid reliable source. If you do not realize that by now I do not know what to tell you. Just because you saw it in a video doesn't mean you can add it here. Sorry. United States Man (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TWC could do for now until the surveys are in. I know we don't like citing them, but I trust them to get that much right. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I HAD a valid source and you didn't believe me. I told you the source was NOT a video and you didn't believe me. I even told you where I got it from and you didn't believe me. What else do you want?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source you provided was the list of SPC storm reports for March 13, which does not explicitly state that there were simultaneous tornadoes; the sequence of events was not clear from that source alone. TornadoLGS (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsidering reported vs confirmed tornadoes[edit]

My most recent comments on the matter of including reported tornadoes seem to have been ignored, but it seems to warrant further discussion. With the latest outbreak in Texas, as soon a tornadoes were reported, IP editors started adding reported tornadoes to the confirmed total. We ended up reverting more edits than before this transition to the point that the page had to be semi-protected. This leads me to believe that my initial concerns were correct; removing the count of reported tornadoes caused more confusion because the layperson does not know that there is a difference between tornado reports and confirmed tornadoes. The administrator who protected the article urged us to clarify this difference. Even if we don't include the reported totals in the article, we need a solution so we don't end up reverting with every tornado report. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like permanent semi-protection but I doubt an administrator would agree to do that. As bad as I hate it, you could just let it go during an outbreak and then fix it back later. It doesn’t matter what you do; if we put it back, they will just change it and add incorrect numbers. United States Man (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pending Changes protection could be a good compromise, and at least incorrect numbers for preliminary reports would be less incorrect than entering preliminary reports as confirmed. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We may have to deal with this headache fairly soon given the SPC outlook for tomorrow; my availability will be a bit limited since I'm attending a virtual conference this week. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly really dislike the idea of completely getting rid of preliminary reports under each month's tab. It's less confusing and it makes sense to have preliminary reports along with confirmed tornadoes, like we've been doing for years. Just using the filtered reports from the SPC is a good way to do that, which we had again, been doing for years. I would vote against continuing this "confirmed tornadoes only" thing that's going on. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 13 expansion to March 12-15; March 17 section expansion to March 16-17 (eventually March 16-18)[edit]

The March 12-15 tornadoes were all part of the same system as are the March 16-17 tornadoes (which will more than likely have more tornadoes between March 18). Should we try to expand them once these events are over? Also, anyone got a prototype article for the current outbreak?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:13, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I see the article is already made. Thanks United States Man.
They may all be from the same system(s), but it is fuzzy. Lumping days minimal activity into sections isn't the best idea; for sure not at this time because surveys/confirmations from the plains are limited (except for the 13th). That can be something to be discussed later. On a side note, I think some editors are a little overboard with all these blizzard/complex/winter storm articles. I'm like, "Really, another one? It's snow." United States Man (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@United States Man: I'm staying out of that, except to stop edit wars. LOL!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We usually break up outbreaks if there are significant pauses in tornadic activity. I'd wait on adding the 12th until the tornadoes on that date are actually confirmed. Most likely EFUs we'll get with the NCDC update. (If my responses today seem off at all keep in mind I am currently laid up with severe back pain). TornadoLGS (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS and United States Man: Understood. On a side note, sorry for my antics during the past few days. I had a project and midterm to complete and I was a little stressed out.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Current outbreak template[edit]

So, I recently had the idea to have a new version of the current event template specifically catered to tornado outbreaks. The two specific statements in might include would caution that A: Directing users to the NWS (or the appropriate meteorological organization) stating that Wikipedia does not provide information on current hazards and B: preliminary counts of tornadoes from warnings and SPC reports may not reflect the actual number of tornadoes. I was thinking of working on this myself later, but I'm still a bit loopy from the painkillers. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea, although I wonder if that type of template would gain traction with other editors.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 27 Tornadoes[edit]

Should a section be made for reported tornadoes on March 27? Mathguy Michael (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathguy Michael: If they are included in this article, the information about those tornadoes will be added when survey results come in. It is currently being discussed on the page of Wednesday's outbreak as to whether today's tornadoes should be listed as a separate outbreak or merged. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Date for Newnan tornado[edit]

Currently, the Newnan tornado is listed in the infobox and fatalities map as having occurred on March 25, but, as far as I can tell, the EF4 damage and the fatality happened just after Midnight on March 26. I'm leaning toward changing the date accordingly and including a note. I was going to just be WP:BOLD and do it, but this seems like the sort of thing that would start an edit war. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It technically did happen on the 26th and the tornado technically did start on the 25th. Do with that what you will. ;) United States Man (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive tornado map?[edit]

Tornadoes of 2021
Map
Map
A map of confirmed U.S. tornadoes by their Enhanced Fujita scale ratings

I have been experimenting with the map feature and ported my tornado track data to geojson to display on Wikipedia. It allows users view detailed survey plots of tornadoes, however I'm concerned about slow down for users on less capable hardware. Just wanted to demonstrate the feature and how it could be used in tornado articles in the future. Maybe replace the start location to link to the tornado map in the list articles? Would like to hear feedback if anyone has any. Also the color scheme was random colors that would be highly visible on the map, certainly not set in stone. And on top of that, tornado metadata is not able to be displayed on the map. Things to consider. Supportstorm (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how much fiddling you've done with the color scheme, but I've more-or-less been using the NWS colors for the current map. I do think that different colors should be used for EF0 and EFU tornadoes. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For my static map I've been using wikipedia colors, but I'm fine with using something similar to the SPC color set here. As for EF0/U colors, I don't see the need to have a different color for tornadoes without a rating, but could easily be implemented. Also noticed the map doesn't display anything until you click on. Would make inserting it into any article useless. Supportstorm (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

april 7-8?[edit]

should you put in a section for april 7th? i know none have been confirmed yet, but 3 have been reported so far. (one of them seems like ef2 damage https://tornadopaths.org/) also there is still a chance for tornadoes today and tomorrow, and there is nothing for april so far. (9:31 april 8 2021)

Highly doubt a section would be warranted here. We’ll see, United States Man (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should, but I think a section could be added if EF2 damage is confirmed. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. The month has started out very slow, so I don't think a section would hurt. United States Man (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and added one. Several tornado reports in Tennessee today. United States Man (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of reports vs confirmed tornadoes[edit]

Currently, the lead contains the sentence "There have been 249 preliminary filtered reports of tornadoes in the United States in 2021, 179 of which have been confirmed." This wording implies that there were 70 unconfirmed reports, which is not entirely true since much of the overcount is from individual tornadoes being reported more than once, rather than reports that weren't confirmed. We've always more-or-less used this phrasing, but it could be made more accurate. I figured I'd bring it up here since it is a long-standing convention. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the new tornados?[edit]

The tornados are from January 1 to April 11. I know there have been some after then. When will they be put here? FreeWikiFrog (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeWikiFrog: Tornadoes in the U.S. since April 11 are listed at List of United States tornadoes in April 2021, but minor events (i.e. isolated tornadoes without casualties or major damage, or a handful of weak tornadoes) are not significant enough to warrant their own sections in this article. The tornadoes from April 23 might be worthy of a section since one tornado was rated EF2, but I'd wait until more are confirmed. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You! FreeWikiFrog (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

Thank you for adding the May tornado list ahead of time ShibaInuDog2012 Weather (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2 tornado outbreak[edit]

@United States Man, TornadoLGS, and 453Brax: Can I get a little help with this May 2 tornado outbreak section. Also, judging from how we have had MULTIPLE PDS tornado warnings and now a tornado emergency (not to mention the severe weather outbreak occurring across the Plains), I think we should start considering an article for this outbreak.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Just saw a picture of the tornado that hit Tupelo and it was MASSIVE. There is bound to be serious damage and there may be casualties. We need an article ASAP. I'll start it.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure at this juncture an article is necessary, and I think creating one was “jumping the gun” a bit. It may need to be merged, depending on the next couple days. United States Man (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted good-faith edit[edit]

Hello! Yesterday, there was a tornado in Decatur, and I wanted to put it here. Who deleted it, and why? It was a good-faith edit.

@Hello!765678765: Your edit was reverted because the tornado you added did not belong in its own section; it was part of the May 2-4 outbreak, which was already covered. Tornadoes with little or no damage generally don't warrant mention in the main yearly article, and certainly not their own sections, because they aren't that notable. An edit made in good faith may still be reverted. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Main Image of the Article[edit]

So I want everyone's opinion on this should we continue to use Image 1 which show's the locations where all the tornadoes occurred or should we use Image 2 which shows how many tornadoes occurred so far in the year and also every article similar to this from 2011 to 2020 used, personally I like Image 1 but everyone who's involved in this article I need your vote on this. Wikihelp7586 (talk) 04:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC) .[reply]

Image 1 Image 2
  • I'm slightly in favor of Image 1, but I'm a bit biased since it's my image. At the same time, I only started it because the SPC took forever to get the graph up this year. I might not be able to keep it going for the entire year since my license for ArcMap expires in September.TornadoLGS (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well we'll use your image until your license runs out in September then we'll switch over to Image 2 if you aren't to able to edit it because you said "might" so there's a chance you might be able to edit it after the license runs out, also great work on the map Wikihelp7586 (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

I absolutely love Image 1, but I feel like it’s going to look absolutely chaotic when we get to 500, 600, or more tornadoes on the year Redfishtwofish (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see about that if it really starts to get overcrowded, maybe reduce the symbol size and have the actual paths for long-track tornadoes. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2019 tornadoes in the United States
Even when my license expires, I may be able to get a new GIS program to work with. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea if TornadoLGS can't update his map after his license runs out in September I think we should actually use Phoenix7777's Interative map after that, I have a change of opinion we should start using tornado maps (especially interactive maps) with number of tornadoes that occurred/so far occurred in any given year for now on Wikipedia instead of just the number of tornadoes, honestly we should use maps plus the number of tornadoes for the 2012 to 2020 articles also but that's up to y'all if you want to do that, but I don't know about 2011 since it had a record breaking amount of tornadoes and they would look cluttered on the map from a far. Wikihelp7586 (talk) 02:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I love that concept map from 2019, if possible I would think that map style would fit amazingly as the image for this years article Redfishtwofish (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I'm fine with either image honestly.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Map
Tornadoes of 2011

I created interactive maps from 2009 to 2019. However template:Maplink doesn't show the map correctly (preview is perfectly fine). See Module talk:Mapframe#Features are not shown in a maplink frame.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For Tornadoes of 2011 on the right, template:Maplink works fine.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans Tornado Notability[edit]

I don’t think one EF0 is enough to qualify for a section, so I’m going to delete it. If anyone thinks that it should stay, leave your comments here. Redfishtwofish (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Redfishtwofish: Thank you.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 14-15 China tornado outbreak article?[edit]

I've constantly heard about how the main tornado articles should mention more info about tornadoes in other countries. With how severe this outbreak in China was, I think it presents the perfect opportunity for not just a section, but an article as well (that is, of course, if enough information presents itself). Thoughts?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It was a pretty major tornado outbreak, and I think we could give it an article. Also, it caused 15 fatalities and injured 400. I think that is definitely article-worthy. Also, I have seen a good bit on the news about it as well, so notability isn't an issue. ~ 🌀HurricaneCovid🌀 01:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) *Conditional support If we can find sufficient sourcing and information. One reason I abandoned the draft for the 2019 Havana tornado was because I only had one good source. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • support I like the idea of an article for the outbreak.

JimmyTheMarble (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listing of unrated tornado on the map[edit]

One tornado on the monthly list, near Crosby, Texas on May 20, has confirmed damage but there doesn't seem to be any published information on a rating (if you can find it, you get a cookie). But that leaves me unsure of how to list it in the map. I considered listing it as an EFU (with an asterisk), but property damage would seem to preclude an EFU rating. I also considered a "presumptive" EF0, since the damage sounds minor, but that would be WP:OR. Or I could add an EF? category to the legend, at least until some rating information comes out. In that case I would have be sure it gets a distinguishable color. Thoughts, anyone? TornadoLGS (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone with option 3 for now, but can easily change that. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS: Option 3 seems fine for now. Believe it or not, I just ran into the same problem with the Hobart, Oklahoma tornado from March 16. The brief tornado, which came from a storm that had a severe thunderstorm warning and a tornado possible tag, was seen live on News 9 (which I was watching at the time), and there was a report for it. Around April 23, it had been given a rating of EF0 and listed on this page, although there was no damage info given on it. However, when I went back yesterday to see if any info had been added, not only was there nothing on it, but it had been REMOVED. So now I'm wondering what do we do with THAT. The NCDC has put out damage info up until February 2021, but who knows when they get to March, not to mention that not every confirmed report will be listed when they do.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really remember the initial report on that one, so I can't really comment. I know one event listing in TN in Feb was changed from a tornado to a microburst, and I suspect that some preliminary reports may actually be gustnadoes and such. A lot of office don't seem to put out statements for EF0 and EFU tornadoes anyway. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section Criteria[edit]

We have removed sections from yearly articles for non-notable events, but we don't seem to have clear criteria of what the threshold is, though I guess it is a bit subjective. Back in 2011 or so, Cyclonebiskit mentioned the criteria for inclusion were: (1) at least three tornadoes, (2) At least one (E)F2+ tornado, or (3) at least one killer tornado. But it seems we have quietly raised these criteria as isolated EF2 tornadoes and events with more than three tornadoes have been excluded. At the same time, an isolated tornado in Australia with no injuries and damage looking EF0-EF1 has a section. I left that one in since it could still fit some new criteria. The idea I had was for something like this:

(1) At least ten damaging tornadoes
(2) At least one EF3+ or two EF2+ tornadoes with perhaps some wiggle room for high-end EF2.
(3) At least one tornadic fatality or a significant number of injuries
(4) A tornado hits a large city (population ≥1 million) or a major landmark
(5) Unusual tornadoes such as the "hybrid" tornado of 06/29/19.

Thoughts? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS: I've been adding outbreaks based mostly on injury numbers, ratings, and significant non-tornadic effects (i.e. June 18). There year has been SERIOUSLY bland with tornado numbers WAY below average, mostly because of Tornado Alley not being Tornado Alley and Dixie Alley and the tropics having to carry the load. As far as your list goes, I'm fine with everything except for #4. By that logic, the EF0 tornado that hit Downtown New Orleans and the EF1 tornado that formed near Dayton during a small outbreak (both from this year) would get their own sections, which is unnecessary. I would amend that to say thay a significant tornado (one that is rated EF2+, causes 10+ injuries, or 1+ fatalities) that hits a major city or metropolitan area gets a section.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair. I'll remove the one in Sydney, then. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I create references?[edit]

I tried to earlier today, it didn't work very well.

@FreeWikiFrog: Please see Help:Footnotes on how to add inline citations. There is a "cite" tab at the top of the editing window, which will pull up a menu that lets you insert the appropriate information. Also, please remember to sign your talk page posts with "~~~~" TornadoLGS (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeWikiFrog (talk • contribs) 02:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Combine June 20-21 section with June 21 (Canada) section[edit]

The two sections listed above came from the same system. Shouldn't this be one section, not two?ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"High-End"[edit]

So, a recent edit refers to the recent EF2 tornado in Georgia as high-end EF2, as estimated winds were 130 mph. While we've referred to 130-mph EF2s as high-end before, I've had my doubts about marking them as much, as 130 is only a little more than halfway between the midpoint of the wind range (123 mph) and the upper end (135 mph). TornadoLGS (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think using "high-end" in many circumstances is unnecessary and misleading, and I think usage should be way more limited than it is currently. United States Man (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went and changed it on the main page a few days ago (would have posted this earlier but my account was buggy)Twister mister5 (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@United States Man, Twister mister5, and TornadoLGS: Since tornadoes are generally given wind speeds on 5 mph intervals, I define high-end and low-end as a tornado being within 5 mph of a rating upgrade/downgrade.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChessEric: Fair enough. That would exclude a 130-mph-EF2 though, since it is 6 mph shy of the EF3 lower bound. It also excludes 190-mph-EF4s, which we've usually referred to as high-end. But EF4 has a wider wind range than the other ratings.TornadoLGS (talk) 21:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS: That actually is the one exception I make. I usually consider 190 mph as high-end EF4 because at that threshold, the difference between EF4 and EF5 damage essentially comes down to how good a structure is built and the eye test usually cannot decipher this (i.e. the 2020 Bassfield, Mississippi high-end EF4 tornado).ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 28-29 event article?[edit]

Hey guys, first off sorry I’ve been absent, life has been busy lately. So anyway, I’m wondering what you all think of a July 28-29 Derecho and Tornado Outbreak article? This was a fairly significant and anomalous outbreak, and one of the most significant July outbreaks in recent memory. Notable for producing multiple strong tornadoes during the “off season”, and in areas that typically do not see tornado outbreaks of this magnitude. The Bensalem EF3 is the most significant Philadelphia area tornado since 1994. One of the most prolific New Jersey tornado events on record, and the derecho was fairly notable too. We’re currently at 3 EF2s and one EF3. Also, I’m confident that we’ll see a fourth EF2 confirmed in Wintersville, OH by tomorrow. Thoughts? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I think we should do an article, at least for the Mid-ATL portion. This is easily the most significant severe WX outbreak in the Mid-ATL region (not including tropical storms) since 4/19/19. This is especially the most significant for southeast Pennsylvania and New Jersey in a long time. Tornado counts are only going to go up as more tracks are confirmed as well. It wouldn't hurt to have an article. FreakShow91V2 (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's Freakshow just on travel right now. It's been several days and still no article. I find this fits the requirements just fine. over 40 tornadoes have been confirmed, 1 EF3 and 4 EF2s (the EF3 and 2 EF2s were in some pretty populated areas) yet no article? 47.133.112.221 (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually against an article, but for this situation it could be warranted. It's a toss up for me. United States Man (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
41 tornadoes, 5 significant with damage in the metro area of a major city sounds like article material to me. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok sounds good. I'll get it started as soon as I get this August 9-11 mess sorted.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

August 9-10[edit]

I feel like we should stop deleting the August 9 sections. It should be there in my opinion because August has so few sections, it was a pretty sizeable outbreak (for August this year), and we added a section for the August 10 derecho last year which only had EF0 and EF1 tornadoes. Also I think we should add August 10 if that 1 reported tornado gets confirmed because it was a big storm.[1] Twister mister5 (talk) 03:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 10th had a significant EF3 tornado but I do agree that August 9th should stay. JimmyTheMarble (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. There is not NEARLY enough for an article. There was not a single EF3 tornado on August 10, so I have no idea where you are getting that misinformation. Besides, a single EF3 is not nearly enough to merit an article. I will continue marking this for deletion each time you guys keep trying this. Multiple strong tornadoes, fatalities, populated areas hit, are all reason to create an article. This event meets NONE of that criteria. Enough of this.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Oh I mustve mistaken August 7th for August 10th. JimmyTheMarble (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TornadoInformation12 can you please stop deleting the section for august 9-11. it is/was a bunch of severe weather events that have produced multitudes of tornadoes. if you look at august 10 2020 in tornadoes of 2020 you will see that there is a section for the derecho even though it only produced EF0s and EF1s. p.s there was a derecho on august 10 2021. also there was a tornado that looks like an EF2-EF3 completely leveling a barn. this outbreak is roughly the same size if not bigger than the august 10 2020. so please stop deleting the sections. Twister mister5 (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He most certainly should not stop deleting it. It should not be there, and I will delete it myself if I find it on there. United States Man (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently waiting for someone to give me a decent reason it should be removed. so can someone please tell me why it should be deleted, and give good reason? Twister mister5 (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2021 (UTC)\[reply]

I gave you the reasoning. The reason is that this does NOT meet article criteria due to the fact that it produced only one marginally strong EF2 tornado that produced minimal damage, a small number of tornadoes, no fatalities, no populated areas hit, was not associated with a major derecho of flood event, and there was nothing unusual or historically significant about it. It is in no way article worthy because of those reasons. The only reason that 2020 article exists is because there was a significant Derecho associated with it. A few weak tornadoes by themselves never have, and never will be enough for an article. I have explained this thoroughly and objectively. If you want to make a small section under August 2021, that is fine. But if you continue to add a full article to the page, I will continue to mark it for deletion. End of story.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

The count is now up to nine tornadoes for August 9, including an EF2, so I think it could get a section, though certainly not an article. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that MisterTwister added the section but did not create the article. Arguing for an event's section-worthiness and article-worthiness are two very different things. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I didn't realize this. Obviously a section is fine considering there was an EF2. Article, not so much.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I was talking about adding a section not an article it is clearly not worthy of an article. I only wanted to add a section in tornadoes of 2021. Clearly this was a big misunderstanding. Twister mister5 (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://tornadopaths.org/

August 9-11 Section[edit]

If anyone wants to create a section (not an article) on the August 9-11 event, feel free to do so. I didn't intend to scare anyone away from contributing. I was just under the impression that some people wanted a full article on this fairly minor event. If nobody does, I'll put something together after work. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

May NCDC data is out[edit]

@ChessEric, TornadoInformation12, United States Man, and 453Brax: Looks like the NCDC data for May's tornadoes is out. Apparently the unrated "tornado" of May 20 was just a gustnado and should be removed when we update that list. I'm not sure if I'll be getting to the update tomorrow. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 15 Ontario tornadoes sourcing issue[edit]

Somebody changed that event section to show that there were a total of eight EF2s and one EF1 in Ontario that day, with no source to back it up, so I reverted it. Can somebody point me to where this information originated so I can verify and properly source it?

-The Barrie high-end EF2, Lorneville EF2, Little Britain EF2, Dwight EF2, Lake Traverse EF2, and Sunbeam Lake EF2 are all properly sourced with the existing refs.

-The alleged Brown Hill, Sonya, and Vallentyne tornadoes were NOT sourced, nor listed with their individual EF scale ratings, and I had to remove them.

Please help me source this information. I haven't had any luck finding it so far, and it would be a shame if we are unable to document these tornadoes simply because somebody forgot to add a source. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I found a Twitter post by the Northern Tornadoes Project on it but I cant find any articles about it unfortunately JimmyTheMarble (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the map[edit]

I just did a new update of that map being used as the main image, and it might be the last, since my license for ArcGIS expires tomorrow. I will look in to using QGIS, and I should be able to continue updating if that works out. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop lazily updating the section tornado tables[edit]

Title says it all. The Ida Outbreak now mysteriously has a count of 17 EF0s, yet the total tornado count is still at 21 rather than 29 in the main article. None of the EF0s were added to the monthly tables OR the article tables. There are now a bunch of tornadoes in the monthly table that are missing from the article table. There was zero effort put into updating other tables or tornado totals, negating any degree of consistency. I'm going to fix it, but please complete your work next time. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Those shenanigans will probably continue as I doubt the ones doing it will even check this talk page. United States Man (talk) 02:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just found the missing EF0s, they occurred on August 29 and were added only to the monthly totals, so it's not as bad as I initially thought. Still annoying though.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformatoin12[reply]

Sorry. I saw someone had updated the monthly list, and I updated this article accordingly, but I forgot to add them to the outbreak article. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good. It took me a minute to find the missing EF0s but it's fixed now.\

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

June data out and map status[edit]

@ChessEric, 453Brax, United States Man, TornadoInformation12, and Prism55: NCEI data for June's tornadoes are now available. I also got a renewed license of ArcGIS, so I will have the capability of continuing to update the map. Perhaps a bit ironically, though, the project for which I got approval for the license will probably keep me busy, so I will likely have less time to edit. I know you folks are probably pretty busy as well, but this update probably won't be as extensive as the one for May. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 9-11[edit]

There have been several tornadoes reported over the weekend and I think a few have been confirmed. The national weather service is heading out today to review some damage which will mean more confirmed tornadoes. Does someone want to add this or something? I usually just make grammatical edits. Twister mister5 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Draft:Weather of 2021[edit]

Can someone familiar with tornadoes help add a little summary to the tornado section in the draft I'm making for Weather of 2021, which will be an overview for all types of weather in this year. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October[edit]

We need ones for the tornadoes in Ohio in october. Chevlon (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We also need the tornadoes from the October 10th, 11th, and 12th outbreaks Mmapgamerboy (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 10th-12th outbreak article?[edit]

I was just curious about why an October 10th-12th outbreak article hasn't been published yet. Mmapgamerboy (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mmapgamerboy: It was an outbreak of mostly weak/rural tornadoes. Not notable enough for an article. It should, however, have a section. The same goes for October 16 and October 21. As to why it hasn't happened; I think a lot of the editors (including myself) have just been busy. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoLGS: A section sounds good to me. I'd just been wondering about why nothing had been published. Thanks for clearing it up. Mmapgamerboy (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on how to handle town name location references like "Eastern Sedalia" in the table?[edit]

In most situations I am seeing the location reference (i.e Eastern) as part of the town hyperlink, but more recently I'm seeing them blacked out and not hyperlinked. I'm fine with either, but there has to be some consistency, and we can't have both. Is there any consensus on which is the correct way to do it, and if not, can we come to a decision? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Per WP:EGG we should not include the part of town in the link. Including "northeastern" etc. in the pipe implies that the link is to an article about that section of the town. Especially since there really are towns with names like East Springfield. It is also more consistent with other locations (e.g. "E of [TOWN]"). TornadoLGS (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Inclusion (or not) of waterspout on 11/13[edit]

@Elijahandskip and United States Man: If anything else is to be said on the matter, let's have it here before this turns into an edit war. I will say that I agree with United States Man on this. Waterspouts generally are not counted in tornado records unless they make landfall. All we have in this case is a tweet from an unofficial source, which is not a reliable source, and giving a rating to it would violate WP:NOR. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should not include them. I am 100% ok not including them. I actually really didn't check the edit out, just saw the edit summary saying waterspouts aren't tornadoes (Which they are), and an edit undone about a waterspout. It isn't notable for the article, not even close, but technically speaking, waterspouts are tornadoes. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak December 10-11 draft started[edit]

With a tornado emergency issued and fatalities already known, I started a draft for the outbreak. Draft:Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 19-20 and 20-21[edit]

Generally these things get lumped together, is there any reason why we seperated the Claudette and 20-21 sections up? Plus combined, they seem to be notable enough for an article (1 death, 33 injuries, 25 tornadoes). 69.118.232.58 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I could be mistaken, but I believe it is two different systems, not the same system, so if they were combined, it wouldn't be a tornado outbreak article, but a outbreak sequence article. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Considering the other tornadoes in late June, I think an outbreak sequence does make sense. 69.118.232.58 (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to start the outbreak sequence article/draft if you want. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was also an EF3 that struck Woodridge and Bolingbrook in Illinois during the nighttime hours of June 20, 2021. Why is not on the list. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 07:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December Derecho[edit]

You all better put in some information Colin777724 (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article started: Tornado outbreak of December 15, 2021. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is WP:TOOSOON to have an article. This thing is just getting started and we don't know how significant it will be. We usually wait to have an article until we have some grasp on the impacts. This will probably warrant a section, but beyond that remains to be seen. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Elijahandskip: This behavior of constantly trying to be the first to create an article is getting old. It leads to more work for others to clean up when the gun is jumped (repeatedly). United States Man (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, what get's old is the fact that I have created multiple drafts, pinged editors and talk pages about said drafts, only to have another editor create the article and ignore the draft. But sure, I promise to create them in draftspace from now on and continue to do the old thing of draft pings. But, since I promise to do that, I will be getting onto editors who circumvent the draft and create the article. Deal? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a draft for the ongoing windstorm here. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the tornado event is significant, I would just merge those two somehow, but y'all can decide on that. United States Man (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the newnan ef4 not listed[edit]

Why is the ef4 not listed can someone change that back 2600:100E:BE18:2FBA:58AB:5D85:98CC:2564 (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done United States Man (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2021[edit]

there should be 1168, add it up 47.19.209.230 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2021[edit]

December tornadoes should be 134 (61 in 10-11, 57 on 15, 13 on 5-6 and 1 on 8 of month), meaning total should be 1,184 160.72.80.50 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done United States Man (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021[edit]

the confirmed tor counts for December 15, 2021 event should be increased, as the number of confirmed tors has increased, 1 EF-U, 12 EF-0s, 34 EF-1s, and 23 EF-2s.

 Not done – Edit at December 2021 North American storm complex and derecho led to incorrect count. United States Man (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2021 (2)[edit]

December officially broke the record for most tornadoes. [1] TornadoFan45 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You didn't state what to change. Please state what you want to change, for example, "please change X to Y". Severestorm28 22:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2021[edit]

september should have 27 tornadoes, NCEI so total should be 1234 98.116.128.15 (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

please update chart 98.116.128.15 (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Darren-M talk 14:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Count[edit]

I strongly believe that 2021 should no longer be noted as a below average year on the Wikipedia page. The annual tornado count for the United States in a year is ~1,200. That number has recently been surpassed. I feel that now we should note this tornado as an around average tornado year. 2600:1007:B03A:A6BD:8482:C460:77D0:529F (talk) 16:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily opposed, though the number of EF3+ tornadoes is still below normal. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

section for 7/1 outbreak[edit]

should we have a section? Two tornadoes and an injury from DC is quite rare and the list looks wrong, looks notable enough for a section. 70.23.39.2 (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't usually make sections for events that only produce a few weak tornadoes, as this one did. I'd be cautious in talking about the rarity of tornadoes in an area as small as a city since that comes down, in part, to an issue of geometric probability. That being said, I think the fact that these tornadoes, however weak, gain some notability from hitting a major city and famous landmark. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree. As a person that lived halfway between Baltimore and DC, even these types of tornadoes are not notable enough to garner widespread attention. Severe thunderstorm wind events like derecho gain much more attention than a few weak tornadoes.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don't think a section is necessary. United States Man (talk) 04:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2021[edit]

Please change the July 6-9 for Hurricane Elsa to July 7-9, as no tornadoes from Elsa touched down on the 6th. (See List of United States tornadoes from July to September 2021)69.118.232.58 (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 29-31[edit]

Are we going to add the January 1, 2022 impacts in here, especially if the outbreak tomorrow busts and doesn’t warrant a section at Tornadoes in 2022? 67.82.182.94 (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tornadoes came from two separate systems so its best to leave them seperated.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article for October 9-13 outbreak[edit]

Are we gonna make an article? I get last time it was denied, but this had 69 tornadoes making it one of the largest October outbreaks, and it was also combined with a winter storm that did $50 million (so possibly a storm complex.) should we make an article as a result? It seems notable enough to me. 108.170.65.170 (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only three EF2+ tornadoes and no fatalities. Nowhere near notable enough for an article. It barely even fills out a good section on this page. United States Man (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with USM. It was mostly a bunch of brief, weak tornadoes in rural areas. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it isn’t notable enough on its own, so I am proposing an October 2021 North American storm complex article. It would talk about this and the blizzard, which produced over 2 feet of snow, caused $50 million and other impacts. Neither are notable enough on their own but together they are. It would discuss both aspects. That’s what I’m proposing. Or is it still not notable enough? 108.170.65.170 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US Fatality total[edit]

ChessEric, United States Man, TornadoLGS: NOAA published their Year In Review for 2021 and it says the US had 101 tornadic fatalities. We have it listed as 103, so we need to fix that, or have notes explaining why the 103 is different than NOAA's number. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If NCDC data has 103, then you need to go with that. NOAA figures are often different and the agency seems to contradict itself from place to place. United States Man (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good Lord. First the 3 unclear deaths added in the March 2022 final tornado reports and now this. I'll check it out. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two deaths have not yet been included from the Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021. NOAA seems to be having a tough time with death counts lately. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice to see which two deaths weren't included, since it could be a matter of indirect deaths or something like that. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 03:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornadoes_of_2021&oldid=1206198711"