Talk:List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks

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

Divisions[edit]

Shall the divisions by time period be retained, and rows color coded by region; or, shall North American events be subdivided by region?

Should events in Bermuda and other islands not in the Caribbean be included in Central America and Caribbean? Evolauxia 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe make an "Other areas" section? Could be used if there was ever a greenland tornado lol. I'm not sure how to make the US list any less unwieldly (maybe consider a sub-subpage for US tornadoes, or even deleting some of the less notable ones on the list). -Runningonbrains 06:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add "and other areas" to the subtitle, but there wouldn't be enough events for its own subsection and Mex, Cen Amer, Carib should be retained. There is great value in the comprehensive listing for the US that isn't freely available elsewhere. We should keep it, but maybe make another list of the most notable on the North America page, then the comprehensive list on its own subpage. Every event on there is noteworthy for some reason, be it fatalities, destructivity, history (first events, War of 1812 DC), or meteorological anomaly. Someone assembled a more comprehensive page for Canada. I was actually going to integrate noteworthy events from it eventually. Evolauxia 06:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado numbers[edit]

Two questions:

  1. Should events that were notable as a whole but only slightly affected, say, Canada, such as the Super Outbreak, be mentioned under the Canada heading? Doesn't seem like they should be...
  2. For events which are notable in more than one country, shouldn't the total only include the tornadoes which occurred in that country?

-Runningonbrains 16:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I'm more or less indifferent. I put Super Outbreak in there because it was so notable in of itself and it did affect Canada and it would be known that Canada was affected...
  2. However, if retained, it could be noted that only one tornado affected the respective area. This is what I would support in all events involving multiple areas, that is, listing number of tornadoes specifically affecting that area as well as the total (not only those affecting whatever area).

Evolauxia 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In the table, entries in the "tornados" column (presumably, total number of tornados reported) and the breakdown by category in the last column, often do not agree. For example, the Palm Sunday 1965 outbreak lists 48 as the number of tornados, but the breakdown adds up to 78. Suggest that the two columns be brought into agreement. or else the discrepancy explained.

It's hard to say in a blanket statement, without going case-by-case, however, one possible explanation is that the tornadoes in the first column are for total number of tornadoes, whereas the tornadoes in the commentary section list number of significant (F2-F5), violent (F4-F5), and killer tornadoes. This is for the United States after 1950, prior to 1950 in the United States, the list includes only significant tornadoes, as that is the only data available. It comes from the Tornado Project/Tom Grazulis database, whereas post-1950 events derive from the National Tornado Database (NWS/SPC/NCDC).
As for the Palm Sunday example, the number of tornadoes is around 47-48 (although it's impossible to ever get a perfect number, e.g. some Super Outbreak tornado tracks were later broken up to separate tracks which was never updated in the official tally). Such discrepancies as that listed for the Palm Sunday Outbreak *should* be corrected as they are noticed (making sure that one's source for the correction is authoritative). Evolauxia (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good source of links to news articles and other sites[edit]

Sirlinksalot Tornado Links has a large collection of links to various tornadoes sites, and if you go to "News Articles about Tornadoes" has links to many, many news articles about tornado events around the globe. Evolauxia 22:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lower-case "tornado"[edit]

I'm going through now and lower-casing the words "tornado" and "tornado outbreak" wherever they appear outside of a proper noun context. In some cases, like Tupelo-Gainesville tornado outbreak, I'm going to leave them upper-case because I can't tell whether that's a proper noun or not. If it's not a widely recognized proper noun, that article should be moved to Tupelo-Gainesville tornado outbreak or Tupelo-Gainesville tornado outbreak of 1936 (and others similarly), since "Outbreak" is a very general and ambiguous word. It could also refer to epidemic diseases, for example. If an article is about tornadoes, it should have "tornado" somewhere in the title. That's my two cents. --Quuxplusone 21:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Tornado", "Tornado Outbreak" and "Tornado Outbreak Sequence" should always be capitalized IMO as they are part of the event name, hence, a proper noun. The simple use of the word "Outbreak" should be avoided I agree unless it is a widely-used name like the "Super Outbreak". Otherwise, always put "Tornado" in the name. CrazyC83 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreak[edit]

I feel that the term "outbreak" is used improperly in a poor attempt at dramatization. Tornados don't "break out" like a rash. Just call each one a "tornado", not a "tornado outbreak". 131.95.1.134 (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These events are referred to as outbreaks by the NWS. And it is most certainly NOT an attempt at dramatization. That is not the place of an encyclopedia. United States Man (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Branching article[edit]

My thinking is that the branching of most canadian tornadoes went well, and should be applied to the US as well. I dont currently have time for it, so if someone else has the motivation that would be great. -RunningOnBrains 20:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California (Sunnyvale) Tornadoes[edit]

There have been tornadoes in California. See http://tornado.sfsu.edu/geosciences/StormChasing/Cases/Sunnyvale/Sunnyvale.html -- 15:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Criteria for Tornado Inclusion[edit]

What is the criteria for tornadoes fitting on the table? I cannot see a pattern. No fatalities? Minimum size fatalities? Only in the "expected" area tornado? It is self-deluding if you only include ones you are expecting. People come to look and then are not informed when "all" tornadoes happen to be only in the certain areas. I think you should put back the Vancouver, WA Jan 2008 tornado. It was in a rare place and tho small(F-1), should be included for that reason. How can you map trends if only the center of the bell curve is charted? Whaddaya mean "only significant for Pacific NW? Kristinwt (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this, I didn't see your commentary on the talk page. The listing is necessarily arbitrary; we list events that produced significant damage or casualties or were meteorologically anomalous (rare) for the amount of, intensity, etc. of tornadoes. The listing does allow for differing criteria depending on the respective area, however, we can't include every outlier event for every area elsewise the list would be exceedingly long and full of relatively insignificant events (did the Washington tornado have substantial societal impact?). The list is already quite cumbersome and will probably be reorganized. There are many outliers and we can only include those with considerable damage or injuries, something that would be notable in the news on a national stage when it occurs. The events listed, by and large, fit this criteria (although Wikipedia is open source and we can't always keep perfect tabs on what is added). Besides the tornadoes of 2008 article, the Washington tornado would be appropriate in a tornadoes of/tornado climatology of the Northwestern US/Western North America type of article (or a regional section of a Tornadoes of the United States article to which this article is likely to be split).
If there is disagreement on this, I'm open to other ideas. The list is long, however, and generally speaking, we really can't list every outlier event and maintain a useful list. Evolauxia (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful, as the list grows (and/or is pared down), to state at the top of the article what kinds of tornado events make it to the list. This would benefit reader as well as roving editors. Yes, I do notice the arbitrary nature to the list; there are tornadoes mentioned with no damage. Societal impact? The fact that it's not in a usual locale made it significant. Oregonian front page headlines. "A Tornado, HERE?" If there is no standard on which to adhere, editing then becomes a matter of "I feel like it does not apply." Then comes the question what to do if someone else "feels" differently. Wiki degrades into a Revert race. I just jumped into this article. Am kind of expecting an old timer, or owner, to edit the header to state what the reader should find. Kristinwt (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My impression that any tornado on this particular list is one that is article worthy. I can't find any links right now, but from past discussions I think that the consensus was that for a tornado or tornado outbreak to be "article worthy", the minumum criteria was:

  • Multiple fatalities from the tornado or outbreak
  • Tornado related damage of over $250 million (current dollars)
  • Something very notable about the tornado, like an F5 or some other something like Hallam, Nebraska Tornado Outbreak

If it did not meet above, then other criteria for an article may be...

  • Set some kind of notable record for the area it affected
  • Had a profound historical impact on the area affected.

At least this was my impression. Gopher backer (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one? 22 - 25 fatalities, 200+ injured, I'm sure well more than $250M in damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.96.195 (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 5, 2008 Outbreak[edit]

Might want to look at the possibility of including the tornadoes of February 5, 2008 once everything is all said and done. I know Arkansas has taken quite a beating along with Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri. ---C A Morris (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of suggestions and an UNLISTED TORNADO OUTBREAK![edit]

The 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak is really an outbreak sequence from May 3-May 8. 1999 Linden TN Tornado should be removed as that was a part of the outbreak sequence.

I question if the Iowa Tornado Outbreak of November 2005 was too small to have an individual article or it could be a part of the Mid-November 2005 Tornado Outbreak that occurred 3 days later.

UNLISTED TORNADO OUTBREAK: Anyone recall a tornado outbreak occurring November 23-24, 2004? Here's some evidence that this tornado outbreak is very notable: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/041123_rpts.html http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/041124_rpts.html Here's a link to find the tornado list: http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi.dll?wwevent~storms 120 TORNADO(s) were reported in the U.S. between 11/23/2004 and 11/24/2004. That's serious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.108.89 (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murfreesboro Tennessee April 10 2009[edit]

There was a tornado described at 3/4th of a mile hit the city of Murfreesboro Tennessee on Good Friday, April 10 2009. 2 deaths resulted from it, 43 people injured. I went down there and looked over the damage, I saw a house a 3 story brick home destroyed, only part of the roof and back walls left. Trees all around it were destroyed. Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30146711/ I believe this storm maybe rated EF-5. This is a very recent event so there is probably no data yet on it. This may not even be important enough to be listed in the main article, but seeing the damage kind of moved me to make a mention in the discussion section of this article. Thank you Magnum Serpentine (talk) 06:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013 Great Plains blizzard[edit]

If it is kept, we may wish to add October 2013 Great Plains blizzard. --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries?[edit]

I'm not really ok with the lack of summaries with the 2010 and onward events. Summaries explain the significance of the events and make certain events easier to find for people that can't remember the date. Sharkguy05 (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

@Sharkguy05: I believe it was TropicalAnalystwx13 who initiated the changes, so perhaps you should bring it up with him. Dustin (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm the one that removed him. If it's a big issue to you that they're missing, feel free to go to an earlier revision and c/p them back. My progress here has been slowed for several reasons...mainly due to time constraints in a time when I was supposed to have plenty of such. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Cutoff Point?[edit]

With every year, the scrollbar on the right becomes tinier and tinier as we add outbreaks to the list. We are on the verge of running out of room on this page. I suggest we cap off this page with the year 2015 and re-title it "List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks from 1671 to 2015". After 2015 passes, we can start a new page where this one leaves off titled "List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks from 2016 to present" or something similar. Thoughts? Sharkguy05 (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

I don't think it makes much sense to split it at 2015. Splitting at 2000 or 2010 is the best way to go. As far as the title, I don't think it should have a definite start year, as new tornadoes and outbreaks are always being uncovered. Maybe something like "... prior to 2000 (or 2010)." United States Man (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is only at 136K. I think it can wait a good bit longer. Dustin (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. United States Man (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Significant/Violent/Killer[edit]

What defines each of the above types of tornadoes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leveretth (talk • contribs) 00:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two of these are defined at Enhanced_Fujita_scale#Rating_classifications: "significant" means (E)F2 or higher, and "violent" means (E)F4 or higher. "Killer" simply refers to how many tornadoes each killed at least one person. Ionmars10 (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed wholesale rework of this page[edit]

This article has bothered me for a long time given its size and breadth. As it stands right now, I see several problems:

  • There is no definition as to what it takes to be listed on this page. 5 tornadoes? 15? 5 tornado deaths? An EF5? Who knows.
  • Almost all the text information on this page is unsourced, and some of it has not been edited in a long time. This introduces concerns about original research as well as the potential for outdated information.
  • Even areas that were previously sourced were done so using the Tornado History Project, which no longer exists.
  • This page is overwhelmingly U.S. centric, when detailed databases for tornadoes exist in other regions such as Canada and Europe these days

I made a sandbox to test a new table I would like to implement for this page (View here). It includes:

  • Adding columns detailing the SPC convective outlook for the event, which is frequently listed in the current text section on the page
  • Adding columns detailing the number of weak (E)F0-1, strong (E)F2-3, and violent (E)F4-5 tornadoes as used by NOAA and as frequently listed in the current text section on the page
  • Removing the map column. I was one of the people who originally implemented this idea years ago, but given that these maps do not exist outside the past few years yet, I think it's too inconsistent to exist as a column right now
  • Removing the summary column
  • Rename the page as "List of large tornado outbreaks in the United States", to clearly note the criteria and transition the list to entirely U.S. based. Canada has a detailed database for its own article creation, and the list of Mexico tornadoes are exclusively individual tornadoes, not outbreaks (it also lists areas in Central America and the Caribbean, when the article is supposed to be North American based?)

These are pretty significant changes. However, they a) establish an objective criteria for outbreak additions, b) remove rampant unsourced and potentially wrong information, c) provide additional options for users to compare the severity of events. I understand this would lead to the removal of many early day tornado events, but this page is not meant to be an exhaustive list of every notable tornado ever. There needs to be some sort of standard. Citing the amount of text in the current summaries is a nearly insurmountable task, and that information is better left referenced in the outbreak pages anyways. Thoughts? United States Man TornadoLGS Ks0stm TheAustinMan Cyclonebiskit ChessEric Mjeims 453Brax TornadoInformation12 TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious if anything is going to happen with this overhaul. I know it's low priority, but it's been a year since anyone has commented here. Dym75 (talk) 01:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...okay. This is a lot so I'll go over each one individually.
  • Every outbreak is significant for different reasons, so the outbreaks added are there for that reason. I know the outbreaks I put in for the 1950s and 1960s are the outbreaks articles I'm creating.
  • I am reworking the summaries sections and a lot of the summaries from 1950-1964 were made by me.
  • I'm currently adding sources on my own, so, as I said above, it can be done if we work on it.
  • That can be removed. It needs to go on another page.

As far as what you created:

  • I do not agree with the notion of 20 tornadoes being the definition of a tornado outbreak, especially since many tornadoes before 1990 were not counted or were actually tornado families.
  • Too many of the outbreaks do not have SPC outlooks so I do not believe that is a good idea.
  • That could work, but again like I said before, the average reader is not looking for that definition of tornadoes, so it bests to list each tornado rating individually.
  • The maps can be made. There being made for individual outbreaks now, so I do not see why they can not be done.
  • Why are we removing the summary section? This allows the reader to look up specific outbreaks without guessing.

There are ways to make the table better, but I believe there is another way to do this without removing so many outbreaks, which are made for research purposes. Maybe splitting up the page by years is good, but not a wholesale removal of so many outbreaks.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any outbreak can be significant for any reason. That was my point though. Using that logic means that there can never be any clear, objective standard for what belongs and what doesn't. Having 20 tornadoes as the threshold disproportionately impacts the list with regard to older outbreaks, but that's the nature of the official tornado database as it stands. Like I said, this isn't a list for every notable tornado event in history, that's far too broad and arbitrary. If the list is broken down by decade, then the SPC outlook can be a column after 1980 when convective outlooks became operational. As the primary creator of the maps, they are made utilizing our tornado tables...which do not exist at all, do not exist in proper format, or otherwise contain inaccurate information as I've come across many times in older articles. I'm not comfortable making them until each outbreak has been improved to modern standards. Lastly, re: summaries, as I said in my original post the vast majority of them are not sourced. That is not a miniscule issue, it's a grave violation of Wikipedia policy. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 23:25, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I can add sources. That's what I've been doing and continue to do. I will admit that the creation of the maps is A LOT of work (I'm taking a GIS course right now and I HATE it. XD),so if you don't want to continue that, that's fine. I feel like splitting then by decade is the best idea. What we can do is set up the outbreak page so that instead of showing all the outbreaks, there are links for each decade. That way, we can keep all the outbreaks and at the same time, not having such a long page. Of course, we have to wait for the opinion of the others, but that's just my two cents. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think most of the points TropicalAnalyst brings up up seem good. My main objection is number of tornadoes being the sole criterion for inclusion. I'm wouldn't support including events that had few or no significant tornadoes while leaving out major historic outbreaks like the 1966 Candlestick Park tornado outbreak or the Great Natchez tornado. I think casualties and significant tornadoes are more important for an outbreak than just the number of tornadoes. The title of this page also indicates that it can include individual tornadoes, rather than just outbreaks, so a going based just on the number of tornadoes in an outbreak would imply moving this page. While having objective criteria is a good idea, I think it's too reductive to have just one criterion. For instance, we tried to hammer out criteria for inclusion at yearly articles here. I'm not suggesting those as criteria, but just giving an example of how a system of multiple criteria might work. Modifying your criteria, I suggest something more like:
(1) An outbreak of 20 or more tornadoes, of which at least 2 were significant. OR
(2) A tornado or outbreak which produces 10 or more fatalities.
We could also set different thresholds for different time periods. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this, I've noticed some papers that compare tornado statistics across years exclude F0/EF0 tornadoes, so going based on a count excluding F0/EF0 and EFU tornadoes might also be worth considering. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely love the intent here. We are trying to simplify and specify the whole tornado spectrum within Wikipedia, and making it easier for viewers to get all the details more easily, as they will be more easily accessible. I viewed your Sandbox, and I very much like how simple each outbreak is made, showing different elements of them in a short, simple format. However, while I would be surely be down to execute the pertinent changes over the coming months, there are some things that I still have my doubts about, some of which have been already discussed above:
  • I agree with both ChessEric and TornadoLGS that we cannot redefine the notion of the number of tornadoes needed for an event to be considered an outbreak. While you cited that each tornado outbreak is significant for different reasons, there has been already a tendency and even agreeance over the years that 6 tornadoes in a single day already constitute an "outbreak". Of course, articles do not exist for each day in recorded history with 6 or more tornadoes, as there are variables (as you said before), that make outbreaks more significant than others, apart from tornado intensities. We have to maintain, in that sense, what we have been doing already.
  • I do disagree with ChessEric in the sense that it is a bad idea including outlooks. While he is correct in the sense that older tornado outbreaks occurred on the days when SPC outlooks still did not exist, that doesn't mean that each different tornado day did not have a metereological statement made by weather analysts that day, showcasing the conditions that we today understand as favorable for severe weather. For example, the "Backgroud" sections of the 1965 Palm Sunday tornado outbreak, and the Tri-State tornado outbreak do not include an SPC outlook (as they are too old), but they do cite the meteorological conditions recorded for that day, which did not need an SPC outlook to understand that conditions were favorable for tornadoes that day(s). In the table present in TropicalAnalyst's sandbox, we can include that information instead of an image of the SPC outlook for that day, as I believe it holds similar validity.
  • With the emphasis that you make that all this is very U.S oriented, you also mean that this same process be conducted for "outbreaks" on other countries (e.g Mexico, Canada), to cover for them? Or are you simply trying to explain that it is necessary to clarify that all the information currently present has to be made easy for a reader to understand how centered around the U.S it is?
Those would be my takes. But it is certainly a reviewable matter, that I'm curious to see how we proceed with. I'll bring two other users who I believe can provide interesting opinions on this process. Elijahandskip and MarioProtIV. Mjeims (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A total overhaul is definitely long-overdue, but it will be an uncomfortable and tedious process (much like other overhauls we've done in recent years such as the E/F5 list and reworking the bulk tornado tables themselves). Some definitive cut-off point is desperately needed, this can't just be a dumping ground for small outbreaks with articles or isolated significant events. The definition of a "tornado outbreak" is somewhat arbitrary and unclear, but I'm leaning in favor of the proposed 20 tornado cutoff, at least for much if not all of the NCEI-era. This is especially true for the last 20 years where if we use 6 tornadoes to define an outbreak we'd be including those random days with 8-10 landspouts in northeastern Colorado. Pre-1950, where we have to largely rely on Grazulis and Ludlum, there needs to be a different criteria for inclusion. I don't think a column for SPC outlook is necessary, it's not entirely representative of what happened during the outbreak. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was mulling around creating a "List of fatal tornadoes in the United States" article but even just barely looking into it this would also be a ridiculous undertaking. There are 616 fatal tornadoes from 1991–2022, so this list would far-exceed 1,000 events and likely need multiple sub-lists. This would, however, complement the outbreak list and allow us to maintain a more strict definition here in favor of the more isolated events being highlighted in that article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth mentioning, in this case, that this is a list of tornadoes and outbreaks, rather than strictly a list of outbreaks. So I don't think the definition of what does or does not count as an outbreak is much of a factor. Did you see my proposal above? TornadoLGS (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The points articulated by TropicalAnalystwx13 are good starting points of consideration as this list is in dire need of restructuring. Starting from a broad list of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks, an arbitrary threshold based on tornado count alone would exclude some very important tornadoes, as TornadoLGS notes, and I'm not sure what the value of a separate list of tornado outbreaks meeting such an arbitrary threshold would achieve. Maybe a list could feature separate sections for "large" outbreaks and deadly outbreaks not meeting such size criteria. TornadoLGS' criteria for inclusion seems to be a good starting point. Ćwik et al. (2021) might also provide some useful inspiration for criteria. Disagree with noting the SPC highest categorical outlook as they are not necessarily representative of the tornado potential for the day nor do they always highlight the same areas as the outbreak. --TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 15:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There do need to be exceptions to this cutoff of 20, such as March 2–3, 2020, which only resulted in 15 tornadoes but arguably two of the most impactful tornadoes in Tennessee history.
I think the loose criteria that’s been used here is that is it gets an article, it gets placed here, but there are more impactful events with less tornadoes that get on here ahead of bigger events with weaker tornadoes that don’t get articles. I can see the problem there. United States Man (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support removing any of the columns we have now, including the summary section, as that can easily be sourced with a little work. The maps column I would be okay with, however, since those same maps are generally already in the outbreak articles. United States Man (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something just came to mind here that I had realized before. You wanted to add SPC outlooks to the outbreaks, but I don't think its a good idea because it (a) doesn't accurately depict the severity of (1) the day or (2) each day (in the case of multi-day outbreaks) and/or (b) may (1) not live up to or (2) exceed the risk that was assigned for it. However, I will agree on one thing; some of the outbreaks in the table do not have articles and there are no plans to make one for it. THOSE need to be removed. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_North_American_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks&oldid=1203671157"