Talk:2020 Easter tornado outbreak

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

Unsourced tornadoes[edit]

@United States Man and TropicalAnalystwx13: We can only add the tornadoes if they're appropriately sourced to the SPC or NWS. Taking random bits from twitter or chase feeds that aren't of proper reliability violates WP:OR and/or WP:RS. We can't make the determination of damage being from a tornado nor can we claim such based off non-expert (majority of chasers) statements. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well if we can only take confirmed reports then every unconfirmed tornado except the EF1 in Texas needs to be taken off. You can't pick and choose. We have been doing this for years with no problem. United States Man (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all the non-confirmed tornadoes. I generally leave the tornado table alone until confirmations start flowing in, but I was under the assumption that those listed came from the LSRs. We can't just add tornadoes to the table based on what we see in radar, that is a clear OR violation. Like I said in the summary, feel free to start sections for the significant tornadoes as long as they're referenced. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 03:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I do that anyway is to make it easier to add surveys in once they come in. I wouldn't do that if there wasn't some kind of confirmation. What if I hide them on this page so they don't appear? United States Man (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are the warnings themselves not reliable sources? (e.g. https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=SVSSHV&e=202004121644) TornadoLGS (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) If you want to keep the table you're compiling, the best option is to keep it in a userspace sandbox. When things are confirmed you can easily transfer them over without the other information being fully open to others. If the warnings explicitly say confirmed then that's a valid source and it can be added. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is it a little two early to list confirmed (or unconfirmed) tornadoes or casualties in the infobox (or even start a chart for them)? And what about the Radar-estimated winds (since that cannot be used as evidence)?--Halls4521 (talk) 03:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The casualties can be added since we always include non-tornadic events, so regardless of the cause they would be there. However, we can't attribute them directly to a tornado or wind damage unless it's stated in the source. Radar estimated winds in this case were explicitly mentioned by the SPC in a mesoscale discussion so it has a reliable source. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. It might be a good idea to hold off adding any more tornadoes until either the damage survey come in, or SPC/NWS stated any evidence of other confirmed storms.--Halls4521 (talk) 03:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source that has the NWS ratings for any of the tornadoes on the table? I would like to look for more confirmed ratings to add to it. Tgrzych (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only two surveys have been completed and published so far. We won't have more info until tomorrow morning or afternoon when surveys continue. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the two completed surveys? I found one from Iowa State but the local NWS hasn’t posted yet. Tgrzych (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NWS offices release survey results through Public Information Statements (like this one) which are easily accessed through Iowa State. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Easter"? "Outbreak"? "Tornado"?[edit]

The first two seem a bit Christian and epidemiological for metereological phenomena, unlike the third word. Aye? Nay? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Tornado outbreak" is the official terminology for a series of tornadoes in a relatively short period of time. There's no formal given number, but general consensus is at least six. Regarding "Easter", that's the holiday it occurred on in a majority catholic country. Many outbreaks have become colloquially and formally referred to by holiday or observance they occurred on, i.e. 1965 Palm Sunday tornado outbreak, 2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak. If such a name arises, we use that as the title in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME. This is the case with the 2011 Super Outbreak which didn't occur on a holiday, but was given a name to identify. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um? Today is Easter, a federally recognized holiday; also, this was a tornado outbreak. United States Man (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know Sunday counted as a federal holiday. I suppose "outbreak" is common with tornadoes. I'd have thought "cluster" or "system". InedibleHulk (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it isn't an official government holiday, but it and Good Friday are recognized and observed by many institutions. Still, it is a well-known holiday and Easter will be synonymous with this outbreak in the future, such as Cyclonebiskit's examples of Super Tuesday and Palm Sunday. United States Man (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Tornado outbreak", however, is used by meteorologist, weather experts and weather people everywhere (including NWS/SPC/NOAA). And as noted by Cyclonebiskit and United States Man this is not the first articles of tornadoes and tornado outbreaks named in such a way in Wikipedia - or anywhere else.--Halls4521 (talk) 04:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, that last part sounds normal through repetition already, good choice! Easter/Easter Sunday, maybe, time will tell. The year will never be part of this one's common name, but I know you weather(wo)men prefer them, so I can look the other way on that. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado reports[edit]

How do you change tornadoes confirmed to tornado reports as many of the reports are up for debate if they should be confirmed or not? Tgrzych (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our place to determine if a report should be counted as a confirmed tornado or not. We have to wait until there's explicit confirmation of them by the local National Weather Service offices. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked that wrong. Can we only put the confirmed tornadoes or is there a way to put the reports along with the confirmed? Tgrzych (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're only putting confirmed events into the table. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Locations[edit]

Should we be putting in both beginning and end locations, or just the beginning? For example: "SE of Currie to S of Burgaw" vs "SE of Currie". Does it matter? How should I go about entering them? I've noticed several entries omit the end location. Tornadotom666 (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we should be doing that. It is just lazy editing. Put in as many as you find! United States Man (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, I've always used ~12 miles as the threshold for one city vs. multiple (with the exception being if it moved through multiple cities). It cuts down on the amount of clutter in the table. There's no set standard though. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I usually just do what the survey says... United States Man (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Same, I generally find that info from NWS and survey report info. If a tornado has a short track NW of [Town], it's too repetitive to type "NW of [Town] to NW of Town". Also some tracks stay within one community. Conversely depending on the NWS data, sometimes even a short path can take it into a different community (esp in cities and suburbs). It just depends on data and I wouldn't want a hard rule. If you think it's needed put it in and we can always clean the table as the rush to input dies down. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks, I guess I'll just handle it case-by-case for the most part. Tornadotom666 (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado deaths[edit]

I feel as if this outbreak has been very difficult in the fact it's been hard to determine the actuall number of deaths, how many in each state, where in the state, if they're tornado related or not. In the overview of this outbreak it says we have 30 deaths confirmed making it the deadliest tornado outbreak since April of 2014. But further down in the article it states there are only 28 tornado related deaths with 4 not related. Which # is right? I also feel like the tornado deaths for each tornado aren't accurate. I believe there we 10 deaths in and around the Chattanooga area where this article only states 2. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The line between direct and indirect is always blurry in widespread and multieffective killers like the wind. But it seems either number makes it the deadliest outbreak since the last one, so both are right that way. I think a tree falling on a guy during gusty weather is close enough to immediate. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point of this chat was to just see if the numbers were right and for the right areas, theres no need to be all defensive and toxic about it, come on man. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I was just saying the numbers are fuzzy, the "deadliest since" area of the lead is right regardless and counting the fallen tree North Carolinian in "Non-tornadic impacts" is (possibly) wrong. Nothing cruel intended. Can I ask how those ten Chattanooganish people died, or is it too soon to share a link? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly dont know how many and/or where each death occured in and around that area. I know there were a couple deaths directly with the Chattanooga tornado, 5 with an EF2 in northern Georgia and 1-3 others around the same area. It was very confusing since there were so many deaths in and around the same area from several different tornadoes. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you getting at? Just wait for reliable sources to sort everything out. United States Man (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's partly on us to interpret those sources. Why do we have a section about non-tornadic impact in a tornadic article? Why do some non-tornadic things count toward the tornadic infobox figures and not others? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the weather channel has 45 tornadoes with 6 EF3's. Some of you are going to say they arent a reliable source but they have to get their info from a reliable source to put it on live TV. I'm trying to figure out where the other EF3 and other tornado where located. Anybody know? Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox says 34 deaths but the list of tornadoes only total to 19 currently. Rmhermen (talk) 15:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surveys are still coming in, that's probably why. Tornadotom666 (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This one's infobox is up to 35 (plus 4), which is deadlier than 2014's 35 (plus 3). So if we're counting untornado deaths as tornado deaths, the lead is arguably wrong now. Deadliest since the next deadliest back (at least plausibly). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we counted untornado deaths as tornado deaths? I think that's inherently conflicting - so no, this outbreak may have been a deadlier severe weather outbreak, but it isn't a deadlier tornado outbreak (yet). Tornadotom666 (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inherently conflicting indeed, but both articles currently work that way. "When in Rome" rules, perhaps. In any case, if we're sure we're counting "tornadic" accurately, it's still tied for deadliest since the one ahead of the 2014 one. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of assuming those 35s are accurate and declaring a draw. If anybody knows when the last 36er roared through, a new comparison might sound more impressive. Nobody loves ties. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
InedibleHulk, that would be the Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2012, which had 41 direct and 2 indirect fatalities. Ionmars10 (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, and was the second-deadliest in early March since 1950, so at least this lead's claim is relatively straightforward. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think a big deal is being made over nothing honestly... United States Man (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the deal where the leads rank deadly events against each other, I'll drink to that. But the whole fuss about numbers adding up within the same article is something realer, something fundamentally mathematical. Logically, tornadic damage and non-tornadic damage should not coexist. But yeah, it's not the biggest problem in the world, or Wikipedia, or even my narrow Wikipedian day. That's still misery, systemic bias and redundant subheaders, respectively. But somebody has to sweat the petty things. May as well be us! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 more deaths in MS bringing the total deaths from this outbreak to 37. Idk when someone will update the "tied for deadliest tornado outbreak since 2014" but I dont have time right now Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ionmars10 (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kade Ydstie45: In the future it's best to add a source to the article or at least link a source in the talk page so someone else can add it. For things like death toll it's really important that we keep track thoroughly. Tornadotom666 (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's on twitter @msema https://twitter.com/MSEMA/status/1250832103484329984?s=19 Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protect for Vandalism[edit]

I've noticed there have been a few unreliable sources and frequent edits here so I am suggesting this page be self-protected for a little bit due to vandalism. Sammy Maggio (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's been bad enough to warrant protecting. Most edits have been constructive. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Titles[edit]

Can we please start capitalizing every important word in a title? Like you're supposed to? 2020 Easter Tornado Outbreak. --AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not by the hair on my chinny chin-chin! We need readers to discern between proper titles and things people say. Call your state legislator, get an official proclamation (or formal resolution), then we can talk turkey. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MOS dictates using sentence case in article titles. Tornado outbreak is not a proper noun. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. We're not capitalizing every word like books in the way one would be taught at school. AC5230 talk 08:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA lists two separate tornadoes: one for Fort O and the other for East Ridge/East Brainerd/SW Bradley County[edit]

The coordinates are close, but are different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:51a0:c20:d162:7b3c:81a6:487e (talk • contribs) 02:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source? DAT has one tornado. United States Man (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just said NOAA: https://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/200412_rpts.html

New Page for Bassfield Tornado[edit]

I am wondering if we should create a new page for the Bassfield tornado, since it was an extremely rare and violent tornado that killed 7 people. The tornado was the widest in Mississippi history. I think it deserves a page to itself like other significant tornadoes.Destroyeraa (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Destroyeraa: focus should be placed on this article right now. A section should be made on it, largely been waiting on a full survey from the NWS to provide a coherent narrative, but I don't believe it warrants an article of its own just yet. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notable tornado sections[edit]

@Alehol and United States Man: both of you need to stop reverting each other. Alehol, you've hit 3 reverts and continued reversions violates WP:3RR and could warrant a temporary block; United States Man you're at 2. Please discuss how to handle this here rather than continuing to disrupt the page. Alehol, I strongly suggest you find sources to back up your summaries as the onus is on you to do so. We can help out, but your current method is not the proper way to improve the article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with United States Man on this one. Alehol has a poor grasp on what happened, and is repeatedly publishing backwards, inaccurate info. Alehol, your notable tornadoes entries for the Bassfield EF4s are a confused mess. Both EF4s came from the same supercell, with the Salem/Walthall tornado being the first, and the long-tracked 2-mile wide Bassfield/Soso tornado forming from the same supercell after the initial EF4 tornado lifted. The second supercell that trailed behind the first produced the 93-mile long EF3 path. If you watched the radar during this event, it should have been obvious. Do some more research, use the DAT, and wait until you have a better grasp on what happened before you start creating these sections. Until then, you are just publishing inaccurate info.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I don’t appreciate you throwing me into this. I am simply reverting un-constructive editing; it was previously also removed by someone else. United States Man (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not throwing you into anything. I don't appreciate your unnecessarily rude response.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

@TornadoInformation12: it was directed at me. Fair on my overreaction, sorry USM. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TornadoInformation12 and Cyclonebiskit: Sorry! I didn't mean for you to think I was referring to you. You came to my defense. And also, apology accepted Cyclonebiskit. United States Man (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good everyone. This was a historic event, so lets make this a great article. Once more information is published, and complete tracks are added to the damage assessment toolkit, I will write some extremely detailed, sourced, point by point track summaries for the most significant tornadoes.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I know this isn't about the same topic, but 37 tornado related fatalities occured with this event (correct me if I'm wrong), and not all of them are designated to their specific tornado. I went through 3 times and counted all of the deaths from the from the confirmed tornadoes tab and I only counted 32. Idk if any of you have the time to fix this but the right numbers need to be added to the right tornado. I as if right now don't have time to fix it. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kade Ydstie45: I've tallied the state-by-state deaths in the Aftermath section, appears to be 32-34 tornadic, 3 non-tornadic. Two deaths in Mississippi have not been given a cause yet, but are presumably from one of the tornadoes. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:23, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we list 32 tornado fatalities for now, and raise the number as we get confirmation? The current listing of 38 is not accurate.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Tornadoinformation12[reply]

Infobox doesn't specify what caused the fatalities so there's no issue. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'm assuming we will delineate tornadic/non-tornadic fatalities in the infobox like usual once information becomes a little clearer?

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Can it be trusted that there were no tornadic fatalities other than the sum of those reported in NWS damage surveys? If so, it would be easy, but it seems to be more complicated than that. Tornadotom666 (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tornadotom666: we can't make any assumptions on causes of death but we do have a minimum from tornadoes with the surveys. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

House Blown of Foundation[edit]

I am shocked. How come no one even mentioned once about the incident of the house being blown out of its foundation in Thomaston, Georgia? (https://weather.com/news/news/2020-04-13-severe-weather-blows-an-entire-georgia-house-onto-a-highway-intact) That was probably one of the most notable reports of damage from this storm. EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to find which tornado it was on the table, include that information, and source it. I don't see anything wrong with that. Tornadotom666 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be from the EF3 Upson/Lamar EF3, that tornado did impact areas near Thomaston, but it's not explicitly mentioned in the FFC report. State Route 74 isn't mentioned either. TWC articles states "heavy winds" so it's ambiguous if it's from thunderstorm winds or the tornado. Would need clarification from the NWS. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for notable tornadoes[edit]

Does the Monroe, LA EF3 tornado really need its own section? Despite causing significant damage in a populated area, it isn't particularly notable. Not long-tracked or deadly, and can be summarized within the table. If we give every damaging tornado from this outbreak a section, we are going to end up with 9+ notable tornado sections. I have no problem with that, but I'm not sure if everyone here wants that. For now I'm thinking of including both Bassfield, MS EF4s, the extremely long-tracked Topeka to Rose Hill, MS EF3, the deadly Chatsworth, GA EF2, the Chattanooga, TN metro EF3, the Seneca, SC EF3, the Livingston, SC EF3, and the Scotia, SC EF3. This would be a total of 8 notable tornado entries, and I don't think we need to go higher than that. Thoughts? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Is there sufficient information for all those SC EF3s? Maybe some of them, but I don't think we need that many sections. We should for sure include the long-track EF4 and EF3 in MS, and maybe add back the first EF4 if enough can be found to make a section (although tracking over a rural area with only a couple EF4 damage points isn't going to yield a ton of information to fill a section). How about we start with just those two and go from there? At least when Storm Data analysis comes out there could be more in depth summaries with which we could use to write more sections. United States Man (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable" should't only mean "too long-tracked to fit into a table." Those SC EF3s were long-tracked and one caused 5 fatalities, which makes it within the top three deadliest of the outbreak. The Seneca, SC tornado caused high-end EF3 damage in populated areas, and caused a fatality as well. At least two of them need sections. Also, I feel that any EF4 or higher tornado should have its own section due to the rarity and notability of violent category tornadoes, even if they can be summarized in the table. In any case, thoughts on reverting the Monroe EF3 back to the table?

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I disagree. Being an EF4 alone is not enough for a section. However, generally EF4's cause enough widespread damage that they usually get a section. We actually shouldn't even have a "notable" section. These extra sections are supposed to be included in the confirmed section under the tornado table. Some outbreak pages have managed to hang on to "Notable" but that should and has generally been phased out. Also, where are you going to find enough information for many of those tornadoes? Sure, they caused deaths, but paths and survey info was not very long for many of them. The damage for most of those SC EF3s can be summarized by the table. United States Man (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My choices for possible sections: Hampton Co. EF3, Clemson SC EF3, Chattanooga EF3, Bassfield EF4, Walthall Co. EF4, MS long track EF3, and Monroe EF3. I believe Monroe was impactful enough and received enough coverage to still warrant a section. United States Man (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that sounds perfect in terms of tornadoes that need sections. I'll create a section for all seven of those. In terms of finding enough information, I'm assuming you know about the Damage Assessment Toolkit? If not, it's a NWS product used by damage surveyors to plot each surveyed damage point on a map. It includes a TON of information that is left out of text only survey information. Each damage point is color coded by EF rating, and is clickable, with damage information and pictures. It's extremely detailed, and allows me to create a point by point, street by street summary of each tornado path. It's truly a wealth of tornado survey information, and like I said, it provides way more info than text summaries provided by the NWS. If you haven't used it, I'll post a link below. Use the pencil icon at the top to click on each damage point.

Link: https://apps.dat.noaa.gov/stormdamage/damageviewer/

Please note that the damage paths from the recent outbreak are still being updated as more information is added. Some of the paths only have a few damage points right now, but more points will be added in the coming days.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Yes, thank you, I'm very familiar with it. :P United States Man (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha ok I thought so.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Upon further review, I will only be able to create sections for both Bassfield area EF4s, the Monroe EF3, and the very long-tracked Mississippi EF3. All other mentioned tracks, while are present in the Damage Assesment Toolkit, have large gaps between damage points. A lot of information is missing from the DAT, preventing me from creating detailed, point by point summaries. Table entries will have to do for the other tornadoes for the time being.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 08:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I don't believe the Walthall EF4 warrants a section. Despite four fatalities, it only impacted a handful of structures. The majority of damage was limited to trees and transmission towers. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 09:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting tornado table[edit]

I strongly disagree with splitting off the tornado table. The page has not reached the necessary point of being split off (total prose >50kb, not total page size) and there are only two small sections on notable tornadoes. Shoving off the vast majority of info into a side article is a disservice to readers at this point. @United States Man: ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it’ll be split when @TornadoInformation12: is through. United States Man (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. We haven't generally split tornado tables from articles recently, and the last time we did so for the sequence last May, it's because the article prose size was 65kb. For reference, that's over three times higher than this article's prose size. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, it’ll be split anyway soon enough. United States Man (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

@Cyclonebiskit: - I don't know if it's necessary to move the references to the "summary" section - It's a little more simple when putting them in if they're in a different column. And if we format them like that, will we need to update it for all the tornado list articles in past years? Tornadotom666 (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It'll certainly be a pain to update the articles, but there are couple things needed to better adhere to WP:MOS. Verification issues arise if text is not directly cited, especially in the case of multiple references being set to the side. Several years back I spent days reworking the tables with other editors to create one that meets the standards of WP:FL. Accordingly, the "gold standard" is what's featured at List of tornadoes in the 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak and Hurricane Katrina tornado outbreak (colons should be added to the times tho). We're also meant to have a singular table with an additional column for a date; however, for the purposes of easier updates until finalization of data in NCEI I don't see a problem in holding off on this. It's not an immediate necessity to correct all the previous tables, but I think going forward we should try to keep this up. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll innacuracy[edit]

Guys, the tornadic death toll for this event is 33. Count it yourself. It is NOT the deadliest event since the March 2-3, 2012 outbreak. This keeps getting published, and it is completely inaccurate. Please, count the deaths yourself, as inaccurate info is getting published in the media, probably because of this page. NONE of the previous articles here count non-tornadic deaths for the tornado outbreak total. Non-tornadic deaths have always been kept seperate. There is no reason to start doing that now. This is getting ridiculous... TornadoInformation12 (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Isn't it 32? 4 from the first ef4 in MS, 8 from the second in MS, 7 from the ef2 in GA, another death from an ef1 in GA, 3 from Chattanooga TN ef3, 1 from an ef3 in SC, 2 from another ef3 in SC, 5 from a 3rd ef3 in SC, and a further 1 from an ef1 in SC? Am I missing another death from another tornado? Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


No count it yourself. There were TWO deadly EF1s, with one death each. Why is nobody bothering to count the total themselves? It isn't hard.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I count 32.... TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 23:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm stupid. Never mind guys. It's 32. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Ctrl+f is your friend :) Tornadotom666 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More notable tornado sections[edit]

I was thinking that the long-tracked EF3 in Mississippi and one or two of the EF3s in South Carolina deserve articles. I could try to write them. They were pretty notable in their own right when it comes to intensity, fatalities, distance traveled. ChessEric (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton County, SC EF-4 tornado[edit]

In my personal opinion, the Hampton County, South Carolina EF-4 tornado deserves a section under "notable tornadoes". First official violent tornado in the state since November 7, 1995, and it was very destructive and killed 5 people and injured 60 others. Gio52903 (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It will likely get one when more survey information becomes available. I know ChessEric and TornadoInformation12 have been looking into one potentially. United States Man (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that is what I was doing and I just finished it. However, TornadoInformation12 has told me that we need more info before I can publish it though. ChessEric (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite significant and totally deserves a section, don't get me wrong, but NWS Charleston added literally only 5 widely-spaced damage points along a 24-mile long path. That means huuuge gaps where we don't really know what happened. Plus, their text summary is brief and a bit vague. We just don't have enough details to make a section. Hopefully more information will be published, but until then it will just have to stay in the table. Kind of a bummer honestly.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Well, its officially out now. I sent what I wrote to TornadoInformation12 and he said that he'd make some additions, but said I could publish it. I guess adding in as much information as I could find really paid off! LOL! ChessEric (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links to sections.[edit]

Due we really need to include the "2020 Easter tornado outbreak" part in the links to the tornado section? The links work just fine without them & the page reloads when I click on them. ChessEric (talk) 02:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they were just added because the table was transferred from the monthly list page, which needs the title of the article to redirect people. In this article alone, they're not needed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I forgot I was still checking in the "edit history" section! XD ChessEric (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is aggravating to have to keep adding them in on the monthly page. After final NCDC data updates in a few months, they could probably be removed from the table on this page. United States Man (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move confirmed tors list to its own page?[edit]

I feel the current list is so long that it clutters the page and makes it a chore to navigate and should be moved to its own page to clean the article up. This is done with all of the largest outbreaks, and I fail to understand why it hasn't been done here. This was done once before but was reverted for some reason. AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hate separating the lists from the main article, it's a waste of a page and an extra click. It seems everybody else supports the move though. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with moving it to a separate page, especially since the "notable" sections have grown. United States Man (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TropicalAnalystwx13 - While I can understand that in most situations, in outbreaks like these such a long list makes the page cumbersom to navigate and clutters is substantially. It actively become an inconvenience at that point which is why the largest outbreaks have a separate page for the list. AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven no issue either way now. The article has reached sufficient prose length to warrant splitting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and split it back. I usually don't like splitting either, except when we get to over 110-120 tornadoes and several sections for "notable" tornadoes. United States Man (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chatsworth–Fashion–Sumac–Cisco, Georgia tornado[edit]

There is some debate about the locations for this tornado. I think it should remain or have Chatsworth or Cisco removed from it. Thoughts?ChessEric (talk) 22:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it stopped over 3 miles south of Cisco, so you could remove that one if you want to. I just don't support having every small community a tornado hits being in the header. Just mention them all in the body paragraphs. Four places in the header for a path of less than 10 miles seems excessive to me. United States Man (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Livingston & Savannah River Site tornado sections?[edit]

The EF3 tornadoes that hit the Savannah River Site and Livingston respectfully are, in my opinion, the last 2 tornadoes that can get sections at this point. The Savannah River Site, might not be notable enough, but I think Livingston is. Thoughts? ChessEric (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Increase/update Chattanooga and Sumac tornado death tolls?[edit]

Seeing that one victim each has died from injuries sustained in these tornadoes, bringing their death tolls to 4 and 8 respectively. Should we update them now based on news articles or wait for NCDC confirmation? Just wanted to ask and see what the consensus is on this. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Largest since Super Outbreak[edit]

@TornadoInformation12: @United States Man: @Cyclonebiskit: In reviewing the info placed into the article, I realized that if you exclude outbreak sequences, this was the largest outbreak of tornadoes since the 2011 Super Outbreak. Would that be a valuable fact for the article or is that overdoing?ChessEric (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be getting into original research territory, especially if we choose to ignore outbreak sequences as a qualifying factor. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Easter_tornado_outbreak&oldid=1196856053"