Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 25–28, 2024/Archive 1

Archive 1

Re-draftify

This article should be re-draftified for not having enough information. 204.98.124.205 (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It's already been requested over at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 01:41, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Second this. We need to wait for more information to come out tommorow, please put this in drafts ASAP. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 02:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, the first damage surveys have been released on social media for the initial Elkhorn/Lincoln area tornadoes. Article is good enough to be published independently and linked to mainspace Tornadoes of 2024. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to request that bot thingy come and archive this section and any other sections that are no longer relevant 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:1C33:5BDD:23B8:FA6D (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Might be ClueBot III, don’t know for sure. Just guessing based on the edit history of another article’s talk page with recent archiving. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:1C33:5BDD:23B8:FA6D (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Image used is copyrighted

The "Blair, NE" tornado photo is a screenshot of a copyrighted video which was taken by an unknown man. I have seen this making the rounds on social media, I just wanted to let you know that this image is 100% a copyvio. MemeGod ._. (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

iowa

what about the tornadoes in iowa? underwood, minden, shelby, tennant, so on and so fourth? 2600:8804:168B:4000:812B:C115:B336:D847 (talk) 03:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Pertinent information will be reflected as appropriate sources (i.e. NWS surveys) come out. Though I will agree Minden seems to be one of the hardest hit communities. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Surveys have not been completed; the Iowa tornadoes will be added when they are finished. EPhC4 (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Potential EF4-EF5

a bunch of professional storm chasers and weather agencies are calling the Blair-Elkhorn wedge tornado a potential EF4+, so a lot of information might come crashing in here in the coming days. This outbreak is more significant than I thought it would be. MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but I really wouldn't spectate on the tornado's rating or the significance of the tornado outbreak itself in general until the NWS surveys come out. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 15:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Potentially, but the lack of any reports of major damage there or in Minden (I think the same exact tornado) makes me think it wouldn't reach anything beyond EF3-EF4 but I don't want to speculate. PaulRKil (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Mìnđến was a different tornado. The Blair one hit parts of Omaha, and there is very, very clear EF4 damage. While I’m not saying it should be prematurely rated as such, I was just saying that we should prepare for a ton of info to start coming in quickly. MemeGod ._. (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Remember how a lot of social media personalities and agencies thought the Matador tornado was a EF4+ last year, but was actually rated high end EF3. Please wait for official NWS assessments to be released on social media, or other credible rating from the DAT for reference and addition onto here. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Strongest tornado with damage reports was the tornado near Elkhorn, Nebraska, which is speculated to be EF3. The tornadoes yesterday (April 27) have not had as much time to be assessed, so we will see. 2605:A601:A0F2:8600:FB92:2CCD:C381:68AD (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Elkhorn could have been an EF3 or low - mid EF4. EPhC4 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"Speculated".

Wikipedia is not Reddit, Twitter, Facebook or like any other social media app. When a fact is verified this page can be revised or expanded upon. No other exceptions. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The tornado near Minden did have possible F5 winds but it only had EF3 damage. EPhC4 (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolute insanity in Oklahoma

There are 5 PDS warnings active, 3+ wedge tornadoes on the ground, and the Ardmore HS is currently on fire. This article needs updated ASAP MemeGod ._. (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Fatalities

At least 1 reported in Holdenville so far: [1] --Kuzwa (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

One more, also another confirmed death in Sulphur. MemeGod ._. (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Rating in Infobox

While I'm sure this outbreak has some violent (EF4+) tornadoes in this outbreak, it appears there's no tornado currently with even an official preliminary rating of EF2+. Maybe change the rating in the infobox to EF2+ until the NWS actually gives a higher rating. Halls4521 (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the tornado in Elkhorn, NE, had a preliminary rating of EF3. EPhC4 (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

However, the article currently doesn't have any available references to any preliminary EF3 rating, much less one that's higher ( at least the ones shown in the confirmed tornadoes table). Until an official (NWS/SPC) one is found, hopefully soon, I think it be best the Infobox display the highest rating we're currently able to confirm (EF2+).--Halls4521 (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

NWS Omaha said that they found evidence consistent of EF3+ strength in some areas but never said where. So no individual tornado has been rated EF3 but it appears as though EF3 damage was found. That's probably why the max rating in the infobox is EF3+ JimmyTheMarble (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll leave it as is. Thanks.--Halls4521 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Per the following news article they assigned that preliminary EF3 to the Elkhorn tonado. Fatalities have also increased to 4. [2] --Kuzwa (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

More images

I think we need more images from tornado damage. Doe anyone know any images that have no copyright? Floriangkmcc (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

As of right now, there aren't many copyright-free damage images. I'd wait a few days until the NWS posts the results to the surveys, which usually includes damage images. MemeGod ._. (talk) 18:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I do have an image of the Sulphur, Oklahoma tornado, but I have no idea where I'd put it. MemeGod ._. (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I know I'm late to this talk, but I have a myriad of images I took in and around Marietta including the image I added to the weather info box for the Marietta tornado. If you want more, I will provide . JasRazz (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism

The vandalism in this article is crazy. We need to semi-protect this article ASAP. D.P.K (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@TheEasternEditer: If the vandalism resumes, please make a report to WP:RfPP for temporary semi-protection, or I will do so if I notice further vandalism. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 22:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you handle the report. D.P.K (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Will do, if I notice vandalism on the page again. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 22:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Flooding

Shouldn’t the flooding be added to the event since the wpc did issue a large risk for flooding and that the flooding was pretty bad for Oklahoma Colin777724 (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a good idea. ChessEric 01:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Damage?

Our list contains no tornado identified as Elkton or Lincoln nor mentions any tornado destroying a single home. Not in line with the images on the news reports. Rmhermen (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Rmhermen: There are tornadoes listed for Elkhorn and Lincoln, NE (under "SE of Yutan, NE to Elkhorn, NE to Modale, IA" and "Northern Lincoln to Waverly to SW of Ashland" respectively) and we do list some homes being destroyed in some entries, such as the Minden, IA tornado. The reason why some information is missing because the event happened recently, and the information simply hasn't come out yet. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 00:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, I fixed the header to be 2 "==" on each side, if there is an issue with that, please let me know. Thank you, ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 00:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

problem

I accidentally duplicated everything because the page looked empty. I tried to re add all the topics but it ended up duplicating everything, and I can’t undo it, can someone fix this. EPhC4 (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done here. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 00:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. EPhC4 (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 01:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Synthesis and some missing citations

So a tag has been placed on some text indicating possible OR/synthesis in this article, and I've added an additional cn tag. Some statements pertaining to PDS tornado warnings also lack citations. I have work to do tonight but I figured I'd pop in. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Velocity scan of the Elkhorn tornado

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2024_Elkhorn_Tornado_on_Velocity.jpg I have a picture of the velocity scan of the Elkhorn, Ne tornado if anyone wants to use it in the article. Gavintheweather (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Conflict with official tornado c ount

How are you all counting only 56 tornadoes with this event? The SPC storm reports lists 178 unfiltered and 145 filtered tornadoes over the 4-day period. -Rolypolyman (talk) 19:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Some tornadoes were reported may times 2600:1014:B138:C8E6:0:6:4FAE:3701 (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Many tornadoes have been unconfirmed/reported multiple times, the count can definitely go up as info is sorted. MemeGod ._. (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Title

I think this is more of a tornado outbreak than tornado outbreak sequence 2600:1014:B138:C8E6:0:6:4FAE:3701 (talk) 19:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a tornado outbreak sequence, as violent tornadoes were reported on April 26, 27 and 28. MemeGod ._. (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Only one violent tornado occurred, plus a tornado outbreak sequence has to be 5 days or longer 2600:1014:B138:C8E6:0:6:4FAE:3701 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

1. Doesn't have to have a minimum amount of days (a few days suffices)
2. Sorry, not violent, EF2+. There have been 3+ days of EF2+ tornadoes.

MemeGod ._. (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Possibly may continue until the 31 if a tornado occurs today 2600:1014:B138:C8E6:0:6:4FAE:3701 (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

You predicted the future MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

This was caused by two separate systems in close proximity, so this suffices as a sequence. See above discussions. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Ardmore tornado

Why is it listed as an EF?. It is shown as an EF2 on the DAT. 2600:1014:B138:C8E6:0:6:4FAE:3701 (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Holdenville tornado

The DAT only list its as an EF3, not EF3+ 2600:1014:B138:C8E6:0:6:4FAE:3701 (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

As of a few minutes ago, the Holdenville tornado is no longer listed as EF3+ here. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey ClueBot!!

I’ve got a few obsolete talk page entries on here to be archived. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:1C33:5BDD:23B8:FA6D (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think archiving discussions that aren't even a week old is a critical priority. Master of Time (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Well I’m always a stickler for not having obsolete entries in a talk page. I’m in the mindset that someone might accidentally duplicate something that has already been done. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:994F:43F1:5581:8D85 (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Sulphur tornado

When more information comes out, I think an article should be made for the tornado. Yshehru72727 (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Already working on it, as of right now the community has come to a concensus that it should stay a draft until WP:NEVENT is satisfied and that this tornado has proved notable. See Draft:2024 Sulphur tornado. MemeGod ._. (talk) 13:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

extending the article to include the 29?

since there were tornados on the 29th would it be beneficial to add the 29th? and possibly the 30th and 1st depending on what happens? 50.201.134.50 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

They did issue a Tornado Watch for parts of Iowa and Nebraska for today. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:B17C:1145:B767:8AC6 (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

No tornadoes happened on the 29 Yshehru72727 (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Exactly 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:B17C:1145:B767:8AC6 (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

One has been reported near Grantsville, KS on the 29th, and we had another wave of strong tornadoes and a fatality on the 30th. We should at least consider expanding the article. Thoughts?

TornadoInformation12

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we should Yshehru72727 (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Isn't what happened last night a separate outbreak? I may be wrong, but it was formed by a different trough and line effectively making it a completely different storm. MemeGod ._. (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

An outbreak sequence can have multiple troughs Yshehru72727 (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose I think there should be a separate article on account of the fact that April 28th saw NO tornadoes. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:994F:43F1:5581:8D85 (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Description of random radar images and loops as "public domain"

This discussion explicitly mentions a rad loop in this article, but figured I'd mention it here too. Just because a radar loop some random Twitter person made uses NEXRAD data doesn't make it public domain. See the broader discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather#Description of random radar images and loops as "public domain". Master of Time (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

They are per a Wikimedia Commons’s administrator after a duplicate question arose over there. I quoted it and linked it in that other discussion. Either way, case was already solved for us last year. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:04, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I think if it comes from somewhere like Radarscope for instance and it is clearly NOT on NWS servers; then I think it should be considered copyrighted because Radarscope imposes a copyright. I imagine GR2Anylast does too but NWS does host some images on their servers (thus making the NWS images public domain) 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:994F:43F1:5581:8D85 (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Especially if it has say a Radarscope logo on it or something. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s just my opinion anyway. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:994F:43F1:5581:8D85 (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I am obviously not a Philadelphia lawyer. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:994F:43F1:5581:8D85 (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that the radar images are generally screenshots of non-free software. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:994F:43F1:5581:8D85 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Per an administrator on the Wikimedia Commons: “The data is clearly PD. While the software which was used to present it is copyrighted, the only human involvement is by the uploader…It is well established the output of a computer does not itself have a copyright unless it is derived from a copyrighted work.” The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Marietta tornado gone from article?

looks like the section for the tornado has disappeared, maybe from not enough information or temporary formatting stuff. Pretty important knowing that it was the highest rated tornado of this outbreak so far. JasRazz (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

See my talk section below. It's because of NWS Norman and the way they do things. We don't have close to enough official survey info yet, and it will probably be a while until we do.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

April 29 and 30

These days should be included in the article and title. A tornado touched down in Northeast Kansas on April 29. An outbreak of at least 13 tornadoes happened on April 30. A few of the tornadoes on the 30th were intense to violent. Also, at least 1 person was killed on April 30. Yshehru72727 (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah but NO severe storms happened on the 29th. That broke the streak. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:C5F8:EAF6:E74F:F1B0 (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The report for the 29th is erroneous, the tornado actually happened on the 30th. Awesomeness16807 (talk) 20:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Multiple major tornadoes happened on the 30th, including the one that looped back on itself and the briefly stationary anticyclonic tornado. - Tenebris 66.11.165.110 (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Merging of 2024 Sulphur tornado

Some help will be needed in merging 2024 Sulphur tornado into this article, as that was the consensus of the AfD discussion. I will still be working on the article on my sandbox as to not disturb the encyclopedia, but until the article is sufficient in info and long enough, it should be merged as soon as possible. I'm not good with merging articles, so some help is requested. Thanks! :D MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Utah tornado

CNN states that this tornado outbreak actually began with a Utah tornado, per https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/09/weather/us-tornado-reports-streak-climate-dg/index.html?iid=cnn_buildContentRecirc_end_recirc . Other sources clarify that this was a landspout tornado. - Tenebris 66.11.165.110 (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Move Sulphur Back To Table ?

So we really don't have enough info/details right now to do a full summary for Sulphur, and it will likely be a while until we do. Why? Because NWS Norman takes FOREVER to add their damage points to the DAT. NWS Norman has said on Twitter that they always want make sure they have the surveys 100% finished, make sure everything is absolutely correct, and get some post-analysis done before they add any damage points to the DAT. As a result, it's a slower process with them compared to other NWS offices, and they usually don't add the damage points until at least a month or two after an outbreak has happened. However, once they do decide to publish their survey details, everything will be added to the DAT all at once in one big info dump. That's what they did after the Cole/Shawnee outbreak last year, and I believe it was months later. Anyway, permission to merge back to table until DAT info is released? Once it is, I will likely make a full summary for the Marietta EF4 as well. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation

Nobody seems to be against it so I went ahead and put it back in the table.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

@TornadoInformation12: Just merged the article into this page. It's a huge mess but don't feel like fixing it. United States Man (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Merge this, April 30 - May 4 and May 6-10?

The Storm Prediciton Center has officially referred to this period as a long tornado sequence. Should we merge the three current sections into one large article, similar to the tornado outbreak sequence of May 2019? Considering this one was both in April and May, an exact date range is necessary such as Tornado outbreak sequence of April 26 – May 10, 2024. Thoughts? MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd be down for it. Seeing how we've seen nonstop tornado activity, it fits. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 01:16, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

No. By that logic, the May 2019 sequence should've gone out to June 1.--2600:4808:353:7B01:A2C2:1257:E352:E18A (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I made a quick mockup in my userspace in case anyone would like to see how it would be structured. If a consensus forms to broaden this I will add this and preserve the original outbreak’s history (unless there’s some that want the May 6-9 article to have its revhistory merged too. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 01:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think SPC is designating this as a single outbreak sequence, just generally referring to a very active stretch we've been in. There are gaps in the activity that prevent that entire period from being one continuous outbreak sequence. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Just as an example, in one of the tweets in that thread, they group together the April 13-15, 2011 and the Super Outbreak, even though they were distinctly different. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from their tweets. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 02:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems to be an exception given how prolific that month was, as the rest are all documented sequence pages we have currently on Wikipedia, so the recent sequence should be no exception. As a side note, the only missing date in this entire sequence we had was April 30, but technically by UTC time it occurred so it’s an uninterrupted sequence. The May 1995 sequence has one gap day and it’s still considered a sequence too. Also I think if it comes from the SPC which an official organization, regardless of outlet they say it on, that should take precedence over other opinions. It’s like saying the NHC said something on Twitter about a hurricane but not including it in the article about it because it came from Twitter. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not taking exception that it came from Twitter, just the implication that they're officially designating the entire period as 1 outbreak sequence versus broadly making note of how active it's been lately. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 03:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with those mentioning that the SPC has referred to this extended period of time as extremely active tornado-wise. However, there were multiple days within this long stretch of severe weather that did not contain any tornadoes, and the different outbreaks came from completely different atmospheric systems, so it would not be coherent to do so, even if it would be convenient in the editor mind. Mjeims (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the upticks in activity are what is most documented in the two outbreak articles. Note that the period between the two outbreak articles, which had 120+ tornadoes each, has only 29 tornadoes as of right now. I could see why combining all the days would make sense, but I like the way it is now. ChessEric 05:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Lede

One may notice several possible flaws in the lede, namely these sentences:

On April 26, a tornado in Lancaster County, Nebraska, injured three people, which touched down in the northeastern outskirts of Lincoln, Nebraska - Why is this tornado lede-worthy?

At least twenty eight tornadoes were confirmed, with ten in Iowa and one each in Nebraska and Texas - Perhaps this should be updated or removed entirely?

At least six fatalities were attributed to the tornadoes, with more than 156 people injured - This is more or less repeated in the third paragraph.

Maybe the lede could be modified to include information about the Marietta tornado and the deaths that occurred at Sulphur and Minden? Idk.

Now, I would fix it myself, but I am hesitant to move forward without other editors' input due to my lack of experience in writing storm articles. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@ChessEric: Do you have ideas? AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@AllTheUsernamesAreInUse: I go through these in order:

(1) Lincoln, Nebraska is one of the largest cities in Nebraska and the EF3 tornado that occurred near there received A LOT of media coverage. There was also plenty of pictures of this tornado, so I think it is noteworthy enough to keep.

(2) I'm going to be honest; I didn't even know what this sentence was talking about. I had to go check back through the history for context and it turned out that this was first added here as the 72nd edit when the outbreak article only had April 26. I think it's still there because the way the lede was written.

(3) I didn't go back to see when this was added, but the reasoning I listed for (2) probably applies here as well.

(4) That's a product of the lede not being updated to reflect later events due to the sheer magnitude of the May tornadoes. The editors of Severe Weather Project, which includes me, have gotten caught up with the large number of tornadoes and the three derechos that occurred in May, especially because 26 people were killed during the month. Additionally, as noted in the lede, this outbreak was the start of a 16-day period of elevated severe weather and tornado activity that we had to keep up with. As a result, while this article is very important, it became a low priority article while we dealt with May.

I appreciate you bringing this up as an outbreak of this magnitude does need a good lede. If you don't mind, I'll handle the lede, but I'll add your input as well. Happy editing! ChessEric 16:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks. That's pretty much what I thought, I just didn't know if anyone else had noticed these issues. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 20:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Elkhorn tornado

Should this have its own article? It is 5 paragraphs (with each paragraph being somewhat lengthy) and multiple images. Also caused near EF4 damage to multiple homes, and surprisingly had no casualties. 2600:1014:B14B:959B:0:20:42AF:B101 (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Not yet. I am not even entertaining the idea of a stand-alone article until the finalized report comes out from NOAA in mid-July. Even though, WP:LASTING has to be proven, which is possible, but research needs to be done. No draft should even try to start until at the very minimum, the final NOAA report comes out. Technically everything in those five paragraphs is preliminary and still subject to change, so a stand-alone article is not even thinkable right now. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Elkhorn Update

Everyone. Let's not change this based on the Damage Assessment Toolkit. This is a preliminary tool from the National Weather Service (NWS). The National Weather Service is legally not allowed to published finalized information regarding tornadoes. That responsibility is with the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI).

Per the NWS themselves as well as NCEI:

1. NWS conducts damage surveys
2. NWS published preliminary information and preliminary damage surveys
3. NWS signs off on the preliminary information and sends it to NCEI
4. About 75 days (3 months) later, NCEI finalizes the tornado's information using NWS info and other sources.
5. Per NWS and NCEI: The Storm Events Database is the only place for official information on tornadoes.

In the case of Elkhorn, the finalized NCEI report for the tornado has already released. If NWS did upgrade it to EF4 from the finalized EF3 rating, then the EF4 rating is preliminary for about 75 days, or until NCEI publishes it. I.E., now that NCEI has published a report, we have to follow the verifiability policy and guidelines and keep it EF3, since the EF4 rating is preliminary. The same process applied to the 2023 Amory tornado, when NWS upgraded the wind speed preliminarily, but the finalized report did not. Wikipedia followed the finalized report, but makes notes for any new preliminary information. For all of this, it must stay EF3 until released officially. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I can see NWS Omaha putting out a PNS on the upgrade, and if they do, I believe we should circumvent the NCEI publication, since Wikipedia is a domain for timely information. Wikiwillz (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

While I would logically agree with that...we really can't. We had an oddly similar case a couple of years ago (WP:VNTIA). Basically, NOAA put out new info (primary info) which disagreed with the mass of RS we had. An RFC actually decided it is better to have the outdated, factually inaccurate information rather than updated, only primary-source verifiable information. That is also why Tornadoes of 2022 has factually inaccurate information, but verifiable information. Based on that RFC and our similar case back in 2022/23, the only way we should change it is if a secondary source (news article) points it out. Chances are, one will, but the PNS alone would not be enough, since the WP:VNTIA case involved a new NOAA publication which made other sources then-inaccurate and outdated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I must have missed this incident, I appreciate you explaining it to me. That would make sense, and I do believe secondary sources will take to covering the upgrade so I'm not too concerned. Wikiwillz (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Same. I'm not worry about Wikipedia keeping the EF3 a little longer, even after the PNS. Some news guy will almost certainly write up an article about it being EF4 now. But yeah, as crazy as it is, consensus was with keeping the verifiable information, even if it was outdated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I fear that including the outdated information that can be verified using an official source, even if it is primary, impedes efforts to maintain and/or improve the encyclopedia. I feel like we need to remember that Wikipedia has no firm rules, that sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions, and that WP:VNT should be avoided in order to do so if an official, trusted source actually confirms the information in a timely manner, while other sources may take more time to update their sources or not update them at all. These are my personal thoughts on this that I just wanted to share with you all. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 03:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole thing smells like trying to ignore WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (even though that’s for articles, the same logic can apply here too), and Wikipedia should be trying to have the latest updated information, regardless of how it works legally speaking as Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over that. NOAA is an official source so we should take it from them, even if it is primary source. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 04:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: The DAT is not showing this as an EF4 tornado. ChessEric 08:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Still shows it for me. Maybe it takes a bit to update? MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@ChessEric: What people are referring to regarding this tornado being an EF4 were two new DAT-points recently entered in the path of the tornado that reflect an EF4 rating.

I will state that I do not support this being upgraded to the higher rating here before an official statement is released by NWS Omaha, and that my thoughts above apply to the time after the NWS potentially releases an official statement upgrading the rating, along with general cases where this may be an issue such as the list of costliest tornadoes in 2022. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 15:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Where? I didn't see it, so I don't know where the points were. The place that was changed in the section only had that one EF3 point. ChessEric 18:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The points (as of this message at least) are still on the DAT. They are along Larimore Avenue (41.30, -96.25). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

See, it'd be different if there were also a polygon and the line color was changed, but those are just points right now. We've seen points mistakenly put on the DAT and then later changed or removed. We've also seen NWS services upgrade a tornado on the DAT, but not make it official until later, like when the NWS Charleston did that with the Nixville tornado in 2020. We need to wait here; there is no rush to add it and we don't want to put in incorrect information. ChessEric 21:58, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. That is why we are sticking to the EF3/165 official NCEI rating. The two notes on the EF3 rating are still needed, given some mets already mentioned the upgrade on Twitter, which actually caused NWS Omaha to issue a statement: "In response to multiple inquiries regarding the preliminary change in the rating of the April 26th Elkhorn tornado: we are assessing new data and a final decision will not occur until Monday. Suzanne Fortin, Meteorologist in Charge". So yeah, Wikipedia is staying with the official rating, but the note helps with the EF4 talk by meteorologists and even a "preliminary change in the rating" by NWS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn’t change the rating until

it is officially released. 2603:80A0:17F0:B60:6977:125E:19C1:60B5 (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, problem solved. Let's leave it alone. ChessEric 00:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

In this case, however, is just a matter of time. The proper "red" color assigned to EF4 damage indicators is now clearly visible in the DAT, with both the 170mph wind estimate and an elaborate description of the damage in both of the indicators. The NCEI is very likely to reflect this upgrade soon, so we must be on standby till then. For a moment, I thought this was all for damage indicators in Blair, and spent like 20 minutes searching XD. Mjeims (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I would've thought it was going to be near Blair too! I was surprised to find it in not just in Elkhorn, but also in an area that wasn't even previously near the EF4 range because I looked in the area that had the 160 mph point, didn't see anything, and was like, "What are they looking at?" XD ChessEric 02:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Once the official update is released tomorrow, we can change the rating to EF4 2603:80A0:17F0:B60:6977:125E:19C1:60B5 (talk) 13:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

IF it is you mean. ChessEric 16:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s likely they will, but there is a chance the rating isn’t changed 2603:80A0:17F0:B60:6977:125E:19C1:60B5 (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

As of right now, there has been nothing about the final rating coming out today Yeetboy92cp821 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There have been more EF4 DI's added, i think it miiiight be official but idk how to find that. 71.221.132.182 (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna rerequest page protection, as so far I have counted 2 people (including 71.221.132.182) attempting to add the ef4 rating without proper consensus. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh. I'm really really sorry. I thought I saw other areas were updated to EF4, I thought I could go ahead. I'm very new to editing here, I'm kinda following people blindly. I'm so sorry.

Also I don't remember if i was the first one to upgrade it, I have an absolutely appalling ability to remember things. If I was, I'm sorry, I should be ashamed of myself because I know I'm not supposed to do that. 71.221.132.182 (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No you're completely fine! I later read the PNS statement, and it turns out you were right all along, they did upgrade it. Also, I do apologize if I was a bit harsh earlier, I'm usually a more cheerful person. Sorry you had to see my bad side, it's honestly my fault. :) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 05:40, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Nah it's alright, nothing was wrong about the tone of your message. It's just that I realized that I did something without proper verification and kinda freaked out and got embarrassed, as I often do. Thank you for your kindness tho! :) 71.221.132.182 (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

No, as I said before, you're completely, positively, absolutely fine! Again, my fault for not seeing the PNS statement in time (silly me haha)! Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 05:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

PNS officially released upping it to EF4. Problem solved. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, well that answers it. Shall I withdraw the page protection request? Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I personally believe that the tornado should be upgraded to EF4 intensity within the article now that the NWS has officially released a statement upgrading the tornado to an EF4. They also say in the statement that "This conclusion is being released now, in time for the final submission of the April 26, 2024 severe weather data into the official NOAA Storm Data publication." This indicates that the data is official and not just preliminary, it will be included into the official publication, and can be easily verified using this source as official information confirming the rating. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 21:16, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR, I'm not going to argue, but to note, the EF4 rating isn't official. The EF3 still is. Officially, the tornado is EF3 until NCEI changes Storm Data to say EF4. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm so confused. Should it be in the article or not? Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 21:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I will say, this argument is very pedantic. The tornado was officially upgraded to EF4, there's no doubt there. I think to save a headache we should keep it that way, unless someone wants to bring up a more substantial argument against it. Wikiwillz (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: It is official though, or I believe it is at least from what they said in the statement. They say so in the source by stating that it will be included in the aforementioned NCEI Storm Data report, and that nothing else will change from their previous data. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 21:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Better wording would be it will be official. I ain't arguing the micro-stuff. Wikipedia should say EF4, not EF3. NWS made a slight goof (I think) in their wording. My bet is it is being shipped with the May 2024 tornado reports, given the April 2024 tornado reports went public and were "official" two weeks ago. Either way, the tornado will eventually be an official EF4 per NWS' wording, hence why I am just going to WP:IAR and WP:DTS. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: Good point, that is most likely the case, and since they say it will be placed into the official data, Wikipedia should definitely reflect the EF4 rating in the article. I believe that's the best thing for us to do with this as well. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 21:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Elkhorn tornado

With the rating likely becoming EF4 tommorow and the fact the section has 5 paragraphs, 4 images, and 7 references, I think a draft should be made. And only a draft, not an Article, as I don’t think it’s ready for a full article. What do you all think of the tornado having a draft? 2603:80A0:17F0:B60:2948:60F4:ECA:A9AA (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and if found this news article about the tornado written 3 month after it, so there’s that 2603:80A0:17F0:B60:2948:60F4:ECA:A9AA (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really for making an article for this tornado. I'm not saying that it can't reach the criteria for it, but that's not the most pressing thing right now. We can evaluate that another time. ChessEric 03:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I copied and pasted the meteorological synopsis for April 26 and the section on the Elkhorn tornado to my sandbox, which is here, it will need a lot of work before I even move it into a draft. Yeetboy92cp821 (talk) 12:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Guys, come on. While the tornado is certainly notable, it does now meet the criteria fora an article, which we have applied ofr previous tornadoes in the past. No fatalities, and 4 injuries. It may have been extensively documented and recognizable, but articles have only been made for particularly devastating tornadoes, such as the Greenfield EF4, which killed 5, or lasts year Rolling Fork EF4, which killed 16. The section may be convoluted, but it's length does not warrant a standalone article. Mjeims (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I have everything in my sandbox currently, and have no plans of moving it into a article until the tornado gains more notability. Yeetboy92cp821 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, I would be very open to discussion about backing an article. Mjeims (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No. This can be seen with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Sulphur tornado. This tornado has an ample section on this article, and an article is not at all needed. The only tornado this year that even remotely warranted an article was 2024 Greenfield tornado and that one was still created too soon. Also, apologies if I'm being a bit harsh right now, I'm usually not like this. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 16:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t support having an article currently either, as there is very little news coverage after the first 2 weeks after the tornado happened. If there was more news coverage more recently, would support an article, but for now, I’m keeping everything in my sandbox. Yeetboy92cp821 (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I also have created a new draft called Draft:Derecho and tornado outbreak of July 14-16, 2024, as even though only 3 tornadoes were strong, over 80 tornadoes occurred, which would technically make it the largest continuous tornado outbreak in July. The derecho was also significant, producing wind gusts over 80 mph, a few of which exceeded 100 mph, causing significant damage. Also, other tornadoes occurred mostly in the Northeast and Chicagoland (On July 14), one of which caused significant damage in Rome, New York. I will need help making it, as it’s already over 60k bytes just from the list of tornadoes, and I will appreciate any help from other editors. Yeetboy92cp821 (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

No it wasn't, there has been other notable tornadoes that have been created much sooner then Greenfield, like the western Kentucky tornado article was made 2 days after the tornado happened or the El Reno 2013 tornado being made 5 days after the tornado happened, the article about the Greenfield tornado was made 2 months after the tornado Joner311 (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Those tornadoes all were originally claimed to be record breaking and some of them were. Nothing about the Elkhorn tornado is record-breaking except it is the first tornado to prompt over 1 tornado emergency in Nebraska, which isn’t really notable, and I am not even sure about it. Yeetboy92cp821 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Im not saying Elkhorn deserves an article, I'm just pointing some other notable tornadoes that had an article way sooner then 2 months like Greenfield Joner311 (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't make it okay. We have recently set a criteria that an article is strongly recommended to be created at least 6 months after a tornado. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 18:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

And as Yeetboy92cp821 stated, the Elkhorn tornado wasn't even really notable. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 19:00, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

• Here is my take for this discussion: One of my first assessments is whether it is a “finalized” rating via NCEI. Once something passes that, I assess whether or not it has WP:LASTING coverage and impacts. If it passes all three of those criteria, then I am all for giving it a standalone article. For the Elkhorn tornado, we have a finalized NCEI report, so step 1 passes. After a few Google searches, I also can see some level of lasting impacts. However, I do not see any lasting coverage. In fact, searching “Elkhorn” “tornado”, I found a single news article in the last month on the tornado. That is not lasting coverage. For this tornado, my stand-alone article justifiableness (fun word to say) does not pass, as only two of the three criteria points pass. So for right now, I would not be in favor of giving the tornado a stand-alone article. This may change in the future, but at least for right now, that is my take. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  I'm pretty neutral here but I would like to add that "lasting impacts" can be more than continuous news articles. No one is currently writing articles on the 2023 Pasadena–Deer Park tornado, which I honestly think does not deserve it's own article but i digress lol, that doesn't mean it's not notable nor has lasting impact. Undeniably, the Elkhorn tornado is a one of a kind, rare, and particularly destructive tornado event. Wikiwillz (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, the effects of the January 2023 tornado were still talked about by media in May 2024 ([3][4]). You are correct on it not being continuous news coverage, but the tornado occurred about 3 months ago, so it is really hard to tell on that lasting aspect. Over a month gap between news articles for this recent of a tornado is the issue. The Deer Park tornado article was also made 9 months later, and more or less because of the city council taking actual action (improvements in alerting systems) over half a year after the tornado. That's the difference here. We are honestly still in the recently of the tornado. For my "oppose" comment above, had there been less than a month gap (even 2-3 weeks), I would have considered that having lasting coverage. That month gap, which started less than 3 months after the tornado, makes it hard to show or argue for lasting coverage in my opinion. Gaps in coverage is ok. The older the event, the longer the gaps can be. That is my take on it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:33, 29 July 2024 (UTC)