Talk:Tornado outbreak of January 21–23, 2017

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

Requested move 22 January 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 21–23, 2017, tornado outbreak → January 21–23, 2017 tornado outbreak – Unnecessary comma, don't see a reason for it. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the comma either, but there was a discussion here that was on and off for over a month. If you have anything to say, consider writing it there. Dustin (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that all of these were being changed to include the comma, so that's why I went ahead with the comma here. It actually is grammatically correct after all. United States Man (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion I think it's not, because it sounds really weird pronouncing the article name in the form of "January 21–22 *pause* 2017 *pause* tornado outbreak". That's pretty much why I disagree with the comma, because in my opinion it just sounds weird. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 22:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grammatically, having the second comma is correct so that should be the title for the article and the style used by all outbreak articles regardless of how it sounds (see also: WP:IDONTLIKEIT). ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite correct. it is not an opyional comma, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:51D4:FF69:2CC2:D563 (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge - I don't like the comma either, but it is gramatically correct. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 23:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - why are we including the precise dates in the title at all? Wouldn't a title in the form "January 2017 [geographic location] tornado outbreak" be better all around? I don't understand the need for such a specific date range looking at Category:Tornadoes of 2017, nor can I imagine it becoming the common name. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @StillWaitingForConnection: This practice of naming arose from having multiple outbreaks in rapid succession in the same areas (Springtime can be relentless some years). To avoid making up names and breaching WP:OR, we just opt for the dates as that's the best way to avoid any confusion and stay within Wiki policies. Outbreaks rarely receive names that are useful to Wikipedia (they'll be named sub-regionally, but not for entire events), and the last one to get a special title was the 2011 Super Outbreak, for obvious reasons. If it were just one major tornado with other minor ones associated, we can go with something like 2013 Hattiesburg, Mississippi tornado, but given that we have multiple fatal tornadoes in this event we have to default to the broad scope name. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the last outbreak to receive a special name was the 2012 Leap Day tornado outbreak. But that was likely due to the fact that Leap Day only occurs every four years to begin with, and that outbreak also occurred during the winter. This policy of including the range of days of the outbreak in the title definitely makes sense during the springtime, but I think that it could go either way with this particular outbreak, due to the relatively rare magnitude of the system and time of year that it occurred. Undescribed (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per TropicalAnalystwx13 and Cyclonebiskit. Kiwifist (talk) 05:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per MOS:DATEFORMAT, "A comma follows the year unless followed by other punctuation: The weather on March 12, 2005, was clear and warm", and MOS:COMMA, "Dates in month–day–year format require a comma after the day, as well as after the year, unless followed by other punctuation. In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetical. Incorrect: He set October 1, 2011 as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma to meet his demands. Correct: He set October 1, 2011, as the deadline for Chattanooga, Oklahoma, to meet his demands." —BarrelProof (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that this forum be withdrawaled of the move request per the reasons stated above. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Death Toll from Abel, Georgia tornado[edit]

This article is claiming that 12 people died in the Abel, Georgia tornado yet almost articles I see are saying only 7. The other 5 died in other counties and it isn't clear this is from the same tornado, or even a tornado at all. This should be rectified until further information confirms how these people died. See: [1] --Kuzwa (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per this link, all those deaths were from the same tornado that moved through all three counties. United States Man (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nor'easter part of system[edit]

Because the system that produced the tornado outbreak is also apparently going to transition into a nor'easter tomorrow, should the future impacts of it be listed here as well (and maybe a page move to "Late January 2017 nor'easter and tornado outbreak" or something)? --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No future impacts should be covered per WP:Crystal. Once impacts do start occurring, it depends on the scale of impact. As of now, the tornado outbreak is by far the most notable aspect of the event and should be the primary focus. Other damage caused by the system can be covered in a "Non-tornadic events" section. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new renaming: "Late January 2017 North American storm complex"[edit]

Because of the nor'easter effects being felt right now (which is gaining a lot of attention) and the heavy rain and stuff from one portion of the system that came and affected California, I think maybe this could be renamed to the above title. For comparison, the storm in late December of 2015 had a similar change, going from an article just on a tornado outbreak to the whole system because of how they were all related. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rationale? Wikipedia is not a vote. Dustin (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see the need at the current time. I'd wait a bit longer, at least; the tornadic impacts are certainly the most notable. Dustin (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This outbreak is significant enough to stand on its own. No need merging it when the tornado outbreak was as notable as it was. United States Man (talk) 04:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like how this article is named January 21-23, 2017, tornado outbreak. Rename it to Late January 2017 North American storm complex.

Requested move 26 January 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Clear consensus against. – Juliancolton | Talk 22:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


January 21–23, 2017, tornado outbreak → January 2017 North American storm complex – This name specifies where the storm took place. There was also more to this storm than tornadoes Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 18:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - There have already been two move discussions above, and this has been covered. The tornado outbreak was by far the most notable aspect of this system. The effects from the nor'easter were minimal. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 19:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The tornado outbreak is substantially more notable and should be the primary focus of the article. Other effects can be covered in the "Non-tornadic events" section but I think to shift the focus of the article to the broader system would give undue attention to the more mundane aspects. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Proposed naming is Original Research. --Matthiasb (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Descriptive titles are not in conflict with Wikipedia's original research policies. Multiple articles throughout Wikipedia use "Time place storm complex" titles. Dustin (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – per others here and my comment in the above section. United States Man (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: main focus should be on the tornado outbreak. ~ KN2731 {talk} 07:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – requesting this be closed as it serves no purpose as a similar explanation was made above. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Tornadic effects are the dominant characteristics of this event. Such a rename is unnecessary. Dustin (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cyclonebiskit: can you close this? It's obvious it is not getting moved considering all are oppose. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MarioProtIV: While I don't think the way this discussion is heading is going to change, Cyclonebiskit is involved and as such, closure should be left to someone else. Dustin (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox image[edit]

Would this image be better suited as the main image? It shows the system itself and doesn't focus on one particular state, so I think it is worth considering. Dustin (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The average viewer isn't going to know what's going on in that image; it doesn't really relay much regardless. While this January outbreak was notable in being the 2nd largest for month and 3rd largest for the winter, I think we can agree the most notable aspect is that it was Georgia's largest tornado outbreak on record, period (for any month). Therefore, I think the current image works well. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting off one of the tornadoes[edit]

Should one of the EF3 tornadoes be split off into its own article? Personally I think the Adel tornado is suitable, as it was the strongest of the event. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing this up again as I still haven't gotten a response on this yet. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornado_outbreak_of_January_21–23,_2017&oldid=1210973506"