Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 19–20, 2023

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Low‑importance

	Weather portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tornadoes portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Low-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Fujiwhara Effect[edit]

I'm not a meteorologist, so I don't want to touch this subject myself, but a lot of news coverage and discussion has been around the Fujiwhara Effect and it's correlation to the erratic movement of the circulation in April 19th's large supercell. I definitely think it should have a mention. Wikiwillz (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That's what I did based on a NWS Norman tweet. ChessEric 21:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

Hey. It’s Visibility. I just wanted to say, should this be moved into the article namespace yet? There has already been a confirmed EF3+ tornado, plus the additional risk of more tornadoes. 66.50.50.100 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary?[edit]

I think this event is really skirting notability for its own standalone section. There are multiple strong tornadoes, one of which killed 3 people, but none of them impacted major cities and the worst damage is only confined to a handful of structures. The majority of the outbreak will have been driven by a single supercell. This is not a meaningful multi-day outbreak. It won't be the most useless article in history if it's kept, but I do think this information can comfortably fit within a subsection. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I actually do think this one is necessary. After the surveys are completed we can reassess, though. United States Man (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if that's the case, why does April 4-5, which produced more tornadoes and caused more fatalities, not get an article, yet this one does? What makes this article absolutely necessary, but not that other one? I have concerns about the seemingly fluid, subjective, and ambiguous manner of rationale that seems to go into differentiating which outbreaks get an article, and which ones don't. There is no consistency here.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I believe that the event, particularly the monster storm on the 19th, affected a significant portion of the population in a highly concentrated area, which led to increased media attention. Additionally, although not necessarily substantial evidence, platforms such as Twitter saw more than 10 times the engagement and discussion about the storms and tornadoes compared to those on the 4th and 5th. I think the unusual nature of the storms and the general public fear on the 19th warrant a standalone article. Wikiwillz (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 4-5 definitely deserved an article, and I was shocked one was not created. I also think this is notable enough, but if more tornadoes aren’t confirmed (which usually happens), I’d be open to merging. 108.58.27.76 (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is likely another Andrew5 sock and should be ignored. United States Man (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wxtrackercody and TornadoInformation12: Pinging users who participated already. I am fine with merging this back to the main page if y'all are. Don't see much significance at this point. United States Man (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for the creation of the article!

Tails Wx 23:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do we keep cole tornado ef3+ or EF3?[edit]

Why is it plus on tornado page but for theboutbreak its just EF3? I decided to change the tornado page to regular ef3 because humans seem to be in a civil war over these pages that are related Colin777724 (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of right now, there's no reason to believe NWS Norman would increase the rating. But I do agree there should be continuity. Wikiwillz (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. We don't need the plus anymore. ChessEric 02:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add other tornadoes, remove April 20, or leave as is?[edit]

The same system that produced the tornadoes on April 19 has continued to produce tornadoes for 5 straight days and yesterday saw several tornadoes, including an EF2 tornado in New York. Normally, we would put all the tornadoes from the same system into one outbreak article. However, April 19 was clearly the "main day" for the outbreak and it just doesn't feel right to add the other days. Long story short, I came up with this question. Should we (a) include all the days this system produced tornadoes, (b) remove the three weak tornadoes from April 20, or (c) leave the article as is due to the non-tornadic effects (Chicago got beat up by wind and hail on April 20)? ChessEric 22:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think just merge the whole page back to the main page. United States Man (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Usually I would disagree with you, but it's sensible to merge this back onto the main page. Poodle23 (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's back[edit]

I restored the page Creeperboy22011 (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did consensus change? I wasn’t aware of another discussion that overturned the overall consensus above that this article wasn’t necessary. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

RESULT WAS MERGED

Discussion was assessed to be a merge and was merged by User:2600:1014:B1A4:F0DB:0:1A:E6FF:4E01 on 4 March 2023. Formal closure is being done as a formality/technicality by me with no influence as I was involved. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose merging this article into Tornadoes of 2023#April 19–20. There is a very unclear consensus about whether this tornado outbreak needs an article and there is a chance past discussions have been tainted by block-evaders Andrew5 or (Lokicat3345), with at least one confirmed case of this. A formal-setting discussion (Merge proposal) can help establish whether this article actually has notability or not. Note, I am proposing it, but I have not fully decided on a “Support” or “Oppose” on this proposal. I just know this article needs a formal discussion about whether it should exist or not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Remaining neutral for now. I need time to assess all the past discussions as well as how the article looks and check for any additional notability boosts (like academic papers) in the last year about the outbreak. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge – I had a chance to do some decent searching about the outbreak and main tornadoes from the outbreak. I could not locate any academic articles even mentioning a tornado from the outbreak and, excluding 2 news reports in October 2023, there has been no mention in any news outlets about the outbreak or tornadoes since July 2023. As much as I would love for this to be an article, it actually seems to fail the lasting coverage needed under WP:NEVENT. Also, a sock being determined to restore the article is why I am not a “weak support” and instead a full support. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – A seemingly “new” user restores this and then immediately posts about it here with no reasoning? This should have just been reverted. United States Man (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up United States Man, I would have just reverted, however, consensus in long-time editors is iffy on it (Talk:Tornadoes of 2023/Archive 4#April 19-20). That is why I did not just revert and decided to start the discussion that others have seemingly wanted to start. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dont merge-The article is over 35 k bytes. It had multiple large tornadoes. Also, most of the tornadoes occurred in a major metropolitan area. 2600:1014:B1EA:2470:0:A:9272:D401 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. This event has sufficent references to establish stand-alone notability even if most of them are from NWS/NOAA or IEM archives of that information. That said, I was not involved in whatever previous discussions may have occurred and if the previous consensus was to merge I lean toward that decision being upheld. I disagree with the other don't merge vote in that I don't think size of the page is sufficient enough to establish notability. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 18:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Despite my oppose vote, it appears likely to me that the action leading this discussion was taken by a sock puppet. I do not have what I feel like is enough evidence to take this up with the admins formally but I think it is worth watching. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 18:54, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DJ Cane: — The restoring account was in fact a SOCK account which has now been blocked. Doing the ping reply since you had your suspisions as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow up! DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 00:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: I would stay neutral, however I don't think that's particularly useful since I don't have too much to add. The event is pretty unique from multiple perspectives which created enough attention in the public sphere to satiate any requirements for notability. The question of merging would be mainly an aesthetics and ease of reading debate, in which I think either decision is fine, however it may be better to just keep it as is. Wikiwillz (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support merge I experienced this day firsthand and came close to seeing my first ever tornado. That being said, I'm really not feeling this one because the info within this article can fit into the main article. This is likely due to how conditional the threat was that day and how localized it was. This was a hard decision for me to make, but I'm going to say merge here. ChessEric 21:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The user who restored the page was block-evader Lokicat3345, whose new SOCK account is now blocked. Discussion can remain open still due to thoughts from other editors as well who are still in the middle on this being an article or not. Just a note for future closer. (Consider this a SOCK “!Vote” for keeping the article). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge! I didn't find much lasting and sustained coverage of the tornado outbreak. However, I did find this after July 2023 but that's not enough sustained coverage. ~ Tails Wx (🐾, me!) 00:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.