Talk:Tornado outbreak sequence of May 2019

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

Solved[edit]

Expand article scope and title to include the storms of May 17-19[edit]

Why not include the tornado outbreak of May 17-19 into this article, since there was continuing effect on the ground? Other weather articles include multiple storm systems which occur in close temporal proximity and have influence or waves of influence in common areas on the ground. Thankfully most of these tornadoes missed the most populated areas (which both makes them more difficult to categorize and significantly alters news coverage). - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expand article scope and title to include May 23[edit]

As tornado have occurred on the 23rd[1], and this page is ongoing, the title of the page (Tornado outbreak of May 20–22, 2019) should be changed to Tornado outbreak of May 20–23, 2019. EDIT: cool thanks 0w0 catt0s (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=CRH&product=TOR&issuedby=ILX

Unsolved[edit]

Experiences[edit]

...The ongoing flooding associated with the continual storms is creating its own concerns, and should probably have its own section within this article -- not least since there were more deaths and property damage from the rain / flooding than there were from the tornadoes themselves. During these storms, many people were faced with the dilemma of whether to shelter in a basement (tornado) or high ground (flash flooding). - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions? Or should I just be bold on Monday? - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenebris: I think a section about how the same storm system caused flooding would be appropriate, but it doesn't need to be too long. I'm a relatively new editor so I don't know for sure though. Tornadotom666 (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issued Warnings on the 24th[edit]

List of Offices and times for later lookup on the 24th (Note: each office may have issued multiple warnings. Looking at references, check these by clicking on "Versions"): (Office):(Number of warn versions):(Number of warns)(Ref)

  • Quad Cities, IA IL:12:6[1]
  • Lincoln IL:6:3[2]
  • Omaha/Valley Nebraska:8:4[3]
  • Midland/Odessa TX:2:1[4]
  • LUBBOCK TX:2:1[5]
  • Wichita KS:8:4[6]
  • Topeka KS:6:3[7]
  • EASTERN ND/GRAND FORKS ND:9:5[8]
  • Kansas City/Pleasant Hill MO:7:4[9]
  • La Crosse WI:(8)5:4(3)[10]
  • Sacramento CA:(1)2:1[11]

0w0 catt0s (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC) NOTE: maybe it would be a good idea to turn this into arraylist of multiple days.[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=CRH&product=TOR&issuedby=DVN
  2. ^ https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=CRH&product=TOR&issuedby=ILX
  3. ^ https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=CRH&product=TOR&issuedby=OAX
  4. ^ https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=CRH&product=TOR&issuedby=MAF
  5. ^ https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=CRH&issuedby=LUB&product=TOR&format=CI
  6. ^ https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=CRH&product=TOR&issuedby=ICT
  7. ^ https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=CRH&product=TOR&issuedby=TOP
  8. ^ https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=CRH&product=TOR&issuedby=FGF
  9. ^ https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=CRH&product=TOR&issuedby=EAX
  10. ^ https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=CRH&product=TOR&issuedby=ARX
  11. ^ https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=CRH&product=TOR&issuedby=STO

Notable Tornadoes?[edit]

Is a Notable Tornadoes section appropriate for this article? Tornadotom666 (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC) No, this is the references for the tornado warnings issued today. this is for later reference to add.0w0 catt0s (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado warnings are not confirmed tornadoes, so no need to compile a list. :) @Tornadotom666: we'll need one when local offices decide they think it's important to, you know, give us information. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 23:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC) I know what a warning means. This is simply information to add to the "Meteorological synopsis" section.23:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)0w0 catt0s (talk)[reply]
@TropicalAnalystwx13: Sorry, I think my question might have been misinterpreted... I was talking about how this article, for example, has a section for one of the more damaging tornadoes, and that maybe some tornadoes like Golden City or Jefferson City could get one here. Or do you mean the issue is that we don't have sufficient information yet? If so, https://apps.dat.noaa.gov/StormDamage/DamageViewer/ has a lot of detailed damage information that could be used (I'm not sure how citeable it is though). Tornadotom666 (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The information we have is the history of information. When warnings were issued, not if they happened or not, damage estimates, etc, are what I am recording. This information can be built on later, for example "At * a tornado warning was issued for *, however, no tornado touched down."0w0 catt0s (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

I have moved the article from its previous tornado sequence designation to simply "Tornado outbreak of May 2019." We have no reliable sources referring to this event as a tornado outbreak sequence, and I reached out to the SPC WCM for his input but he noted there is no official definition of a sequence. Therefore, we are technically in violation of Wikipedia rules, including WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OR. The lack of delineated dates also limits us from adding days to the title. Finally, although there have been other events that qualify as tornado outbreaks this month, this is the only one that has required an article, and so the current broad-brushed title is not an issue. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At least add the dates (17th to however long this lasts).

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

TornadoInformation is right, the dates should be added considering all the tornadoes cams from basically the same system (except the first two days) --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment highlights why we don't have dates. The storm system that produced the May 17-19 was only a shortwave within the broader Southwest US trough. Subsequent outbreaks were from separate shortwaves within the same regime flow as well, so they're likely considered the same event. If we broke up based on differing shortwaves, the record-breaking May 3-11, 2003 outbreak sequence would be a bunch of separate events. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is why it should be an outbreak sequence article. Because that's what it is. You've sacrificed practicality and consistency in order to adhere to some minor technicalities. You may be right about everything you said, but the overall quality of the article is now decreased slightly.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

It's an article title and the changes better adhere to WP:MOSTITLE. Calling it an outbreak sequence violates WP:OR, as mentioned by TAWX13, and should be avoided. No quality is lost by having it at this title. Cases of official "outbreak sequences" are few and far between and we shouldn't (and can't) be making them up on our own analyses. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have outbreak articles already in existence that consisted of more than one parent storm system, but were reported by the media as a single outbreak (like this one). What rules are we violating by not adding the dates, be it a a multi-system outbreak or not? It's too vague, and a throwback to the low-quality mid 2000's outbreak articles that I'm still going back and fixing. It's been well established that these outbreak article page titles are now to be written with the dates in which the tornadoes occurred. We can't have it both ways. I'm worried we're losing consistency and quality over minor technicalities here.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 TornadoInformation12 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I was under the impression that an event only qualified as a single outbreak if it was produced by a a single system. I understand that there is no formal definition of what constitutes an outbreak, but I thought there was a general consensus on the single system part. It doesn't seem appropriate to call it a single outbreak. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, that's why it's a sequence. A multi-system outbreak that lasts for many days. But since everyone here has to be overly-pedantic, lets just throw practicality out the window I guess. Regardless, once this is over, I'm adding the dates. You all are being needlessly difficult.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

Nobody disagrees that it's a sequence, but we have to follow Wikipedia rules. It's not about being pedantic. You are not immune to those rules either, so getting upset about it won't change a thing. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 19:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be called and Tornado outbreak sequence since this has been more of a series of Tornado outbreaks associated with multiple distinct weather systems over several days? As defined in the article "A tornado outbreak sequence, or tornado outbreak day sequence, sometimes referred to as an extended tornado outbreak, is a period of continuous or nearly continuous high tornado activity consisting of a series of tornado outbreaks over multiple days with no or very few days lacking tornado outbreaks". Thus it seems to me the title should be either Tornado outbreak sequence of May 2018 or May 2019 tornado outbreak sequence. Stormchaser89 (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Stormchaser89. This is NOT a 14-day outbreak, it is more accurately an outbreak sequence. IN addition, 1917, 1965, and 2003 have already done so and thus there is Wikipedia precedent on this. INFOWeather1 (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the issue is whether or not we agree that this is an outbreak sequence. The issue is that we don't have a source calling it an outbreak sequence, and to call it a sequence without a source would violate WP:NOR. But, considering that there seems to be an agreement that this does not constitute a single outbreak, I might suggest that WP:IAR can apply here. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the case then a rename to Tornado outbreak sequence of May 16–29, 2019 might be plausible. However I do agree this does not really form one large outbreak; rather, it’s a prolonged period of tornadoes which were separated into their own outbreaks per day or something. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MarioProtIV. If it really is a serious rule violation to call it a sequence then I'm okay with continuing to call it an outbreak, but I see no reason not to have the dates - the current title reads quite vague to me. Tornadotom666 (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sections on tornadoes[edit]

Hello! We need some some sections on tornadoes. I suggest we do Jefferson City and El Reno tornadoes as sections. User:She-Hulka

I'll get to it. I still have a lot of catch-up to do with the tables. El Reno was very brief though and doesn't need a section. I'm thinking Jefferson City and Ballinger.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)TornadoInformation12 Alright I hope we can get to them soon. Thank you User:She-Hulka[reply]

I started on the Jefferson City tornado. User:ComorosFlag

Might be preliminary but once we get rating and damage reports for Danya area tornado we should start on that one too. Looked very intense but for all I know could’ve busted. Will see. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV: Dayton area tornado was intense. I'm now guessing either EF 4 or EF 5. https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/breaking-large-destructive-tornado-reported-near-dayton-as-severe-storms-slam-ohio/70008380 NoahTalk 04:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Events[edit]

It seems a bit out of place, But I suggest we change this to be single section about major tornados, PDS's (Particularly Dangerous Situation.), and other significant events of the outbreak. Another thing to add may be the fact that there were tornado warnings issued in places that have not had such warnings in a long time, eg; New York, California, maybe Colorado. 0w0 catt0s (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good guess User:MarioProtIV Im putting it on EF3+ so we can put guesses but it has to be higher than EF2. Lets try and figure it out together User:She-Hulka

The dayton tornado was given a preliminary rating of an EF3 with 140mph winds. StormChaserJosh (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Areas with a high concentration of tornadoes on the 28th:

  • Lawrence, Kansas, North East East to Kansas City.
  • Near Hays, Kansas Northeast to Belleville, Kansas

0w0 catt0s (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lawrence, Kansas tornado had ground scouring, normally ground scouring happens when there is an EF5 tornado. StormChaserJosh (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pics[edit]

Hey, I have yet to contact the copyright owner, but I watched the stream of a storm chaser, and got a good cone-tornado picture to use. If this belong on the page, let me know, otherwise, no biggie, I will just not post it. Info: It is the tornado on May 22 around 10:45 PM UTC (5:45 CDT). it was by chaser "Tim Howard". the image is labeled as being "near Beardon, OK", Although I am not sure how accurate it is. 0w0 catt0s (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We need pics from the Celina, Ohio tornado damage, this also includes Dayton, Ohio. StormChaserJosh (talk) 13:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton Tornado[edit]

WP:NOTAFORUM ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:56, 29 May 2019 (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 saw some pictures of the Dayton tornadoes aftermath I believe it could be EF4 rated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by She-Hulka (talk • contribs)

@She-Hulka: it's not our place to make those speculations. We have to wait for official word from the NWS survey teams. Additions of intensities otherwise violate WP:OR. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking at damage and windspeeds to see the conclusion. I saw the ABC News website posted with the title "Many home and apartment complexes leveled". That gives me a clue from the height in damage shown to conclude its a high intensity tornado. User:She-Hulka

The EF4 rating is not official, the rating is a preliminary EF3.StormChaserJosh (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I swear to all my gods and my life its an EF4 I even compared it to other EF4 tornadoes and there damage. They matched pretty well. Of course it was small but still. User:She-Hulka

It is NOT an EF4, NWS Wilmington gave it a rating of at least an EF3.StormChaserJosh (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also the celina tornado, not sure if it is the same as the dayton tornado, but damage looks like an EF4 when it is viewed above, still waiting for info of this tornado, but EF5 is where nothing is left, but the celina looks to be rated a preliminary EF3 according to NWS Wilmington. StormChaserJosh (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celina tornado was given at least an EF3. StormChaserJosh (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would you all stop? Go find a weather forum.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I'm on the side of the Celina tornado as an EF4 it could be less, but like you said it looks like EF4 when seen from above User:ComorosFlag

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.

Section update[edit]

It is important that the section be updated to note there were two EF3 tornadoes in the Dayton area, not just one. The information in the section is not accurate as the survey results were released earlier. NoahTalk 03:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh that makes sence thank you for clearing it. User:ComorosFlag —Preceding undated comment added 13:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency[edit]

Could we please not edit the table of tornadoes on this article? For efficiency's sake I think it would be wise to edit that here and copy-paste into this article later. I'm not super familiar with how Wikipedia works yet but could we not also just transclude the whole section from the May 2019 tornadoes list? I just lost about 45 minutes of work putting in tornadoes over there because I didn't realize they had already been entered here. Tornadotom666 (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the main article for the outbreak, people will be coming here rather than the overall May list for information on these tornadoes. Updating this article is more pertinent. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is time to follow the precedent of 2011 Super Outbreak and create a separate list of tornadoes, per List of tornadoes in the 2011 Super Outbreak, and leave only the city-hitting EF3s discussion in the article as "Notable tornadoes". The list article would be linked in the main article. As it stands, I agree that the article is getting unwieldy, and we still have at least three more similar days ahead. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overview and Non-tornadic events sections[edit]

I am currently working on these two sections -- should have them filled out in a couple of hours. This includes the flooding discussion I mentioned earlier. Possibly the flooding alone might have enough for a stand-alone article. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have broken the surface, but there is still much to do. I am better at researching/writing than I am at coding the links. Could some kind soul take my bare urls in hand? Thanks greatly. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I will probably add several more links in about seven hours when I fill out the other non-tornadic / aftermath sections and try to finalize the flooding sections. This is just a brief glance-through to see where we are at. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Running late and out of town -- will hopefully get back to this on late Sunday or Monday. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Lawrence intensity[edit]

The change to EF3+ by another user, as far as I know, is unwarranted due to it being unrated at this moment. Source? 8medalkid (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@8medalkid: There has been no announcement from NWS Kansas City on any rating as far as I can tell so both were false and removed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

👌 8medalkid (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what do you think of the intensity, considering there were multiple homes down to clean slabs and there was ground scouring reported 8medalkid (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well not to intrude but I believe if said EF5 but it could be weaker if windspeeds are discovered. User:ComorosFlag —Preceding undated comment added 15:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there were multiple houses down to clean slabs, including one where it ripped holes into the basement roof. However, we do not know bolting and structural integrity of those homes, so we cannot determine ratings at this time. 8medalkid (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia's place to determine the rating. We only report what the surveys say. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://apps.dat.noaa.gov/stormdamage/damageviewer/ now has it at EF3 for only south of Lawrence. HurricaneGonzalo | Talk | Contribs 17:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lets keep it EF3+ just in case since HurricaneGonzalo said its only EF3 in south Lawrence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComorosFlag (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05/29/large-extremely-dangerous-tornado-rips-through-kansas-causing-multiple-injuries-catastrophic-damages/?utm_term=.4c37571629df This says its higher than EF3. User:ComorosFlag —Preceding undated comment added 18:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ComorosFlag: Washington Post doesn't override NWS surveys. Have to wait for it to appear in a public statement or the Damage Viewer. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 18:39, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok thank you for telling me User:ComorosFlag —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological Synopsis for May 26th-28th[edit]

We are missing meteorological synopses for May 26th-28th Noobeater007 (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

How exactly are we defining this outbreak? The record-setting tornadic part of it is between May 14 - May 28 (29th?), but both the storms and the tornadoes started before that; and we are currently calling the article the "May outbreak". I ask because I am trying to limit flood / flash flood effects to within the scope of the article. Oklahoma alone confirms eight storm-related deaths starting on May 1. Thus far, I have been using mid May as a soft limit, but there was significant flash flooding throughout the Plains/Midwest on May 1 and every day thereafter. This is also relevant for trying to pin down flood-related evacuations. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the news[edit]

I nominated this article for WP:ITN section when the outbreak became record-breaking. If you feel it is WP newsworthy, head over to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#Record-breaking_May_tornado_outbreak and post your vote. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split the list of tornadoes into separate article[edit]

It’s getting way too long now and it takes quite a while to scroll down to the notable tornadoes. Splitting the list of tornadoes would help because in cases when we’ve seen over 150–200 tornadoes in an outbreak we usually split it (such as April 14-16, 2011 and the 2011 Super Outbreak). Also the synopsis needs to be seriously condensed as it’s way too big even for a prolonged period like this. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 20:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use this List of tornadoes in the 2011 Super Outbreak as a template, and link it where the tornado section currently is. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful Tip[edit]

@TropicalAnalystwx13: If anyone is unsure of how many tornadoes of a certain rating there were on a day, you can do the following instead of counting manually: Go to this article, click "edit source" for the day you want, hit ctrl + f, and type in what you're looking for (storm, cat1, cat2, et cetera). The number it shows should be the number of tornadoes of that intensity. Hopefully that will help :) Tornadotom666 (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yessir, been doing that for years. It's just a lot of days to do it for if numbers go haywire lol. Thanks though. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Map requested[edit]

Somewhere WP has a U.S. map template which allows individual states to be coloured (usually used for election purposes). Could someone make up such a map, colouring in every state which has had a tornado during this outbreak, and using a different contrasting colour to indicate states which had only tornado warnings but no actual tornado (I think NY may have been one)? I would like to use it opposite the "Overview" section, since I think it would be useful to indicate the geographical scope of this outbreak. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done something like that before but it sounds interesting so I will try. Do you know where I can find out which states have had tornado warnings? Tornadotom666 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could only have suggested "the hard way" (no handy list except maybe this article itself, sometimes searches by state/news work ... unless noaa/weather.gov has an archive and/or full summary page?) -- but someone beat me to the actual making of the map. Nice job! Only one question -- would it be possible to add Ontario (Canada) to the "Tornado warnings" map and/or list? maybe as a circle north of Lake Superior, Huron or Erie? (May 25 - Little Abitibi-Kesagami Lake in Ontario, about halfway between Sudbury and James Bay). Several other places in Ontario and Quebec had tornado watches during that time, but we should only focus on the warnings. (The two June 2 Canadian tornadoes are outside the purview of this article ... even if one of them did hit Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories.) Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The End[edit]

What day was the last day of this outbreak? I don't see where it is specified on the article, but I assume it was May 29th because that is where the table stops. Tornadotom666 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full switch to sequence?[edit]

Has it been decided for sure that this tornado event will be referred to as an outbreak sequence? Right now the article has some inconsistency in terms. Tornadotom666 (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate Info[edit]

The overview intro is inaccurate, specifically "only four previous documented outbreaks have had more than 100 tornadoes". Not including sequences, there have been several outbreaks not listed in the section that have produced over 100 tornadoes, including Apr 14-16 2011 and May 22-25 2011. Including sequences, May 2003 and May 2004 both saw well over 100 tornadoes. This also isn't the best way to evaluate the significance of tornado events, as many weak tornadoes went unnoticed pre-1980. --TornadoList2016 (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoList2016: Agree with TornadoList2016. That's why I asked if we fully switched over to defining it as a sequence - a 12-day "outbreak" should not be in any way comparable to a 3-day one.
Since the last discussion, both The Washington Post and Dr. Masters have entertained the idea of it being a sequence. Not strong grounds, but good enough I guess. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 19:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that does work better. I should note, however, that the revision possibly errs in the opposite direction to make this sequence seem unremarkable except for its length. We should note that the actual number of tornadoes in this sequence was, at the very least, highly unusual, even compared to other sequences. Thus I do think that this kind of clustering should be specifically quantitatively noted relative to other comparable events, rather than removing them entirely. Also, in this case, a larger than usual percentage of weak tornadoes struck at more eastern areas which were more heavily populated, even in the pre-1980s. This is also an existing trend which has been noted in studies (linked in article) which specifically accounted for reporting bias. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton death[edit]

One death has been reported in Montgomery County. While it is interconnected with the Dayton storm as a whole, it is not yet known whether the death was specifically caused by the storm; and if so, whether by the tornado, flooding, or other related cause. I linked it in the Dayton-specific section, but I did not add it to the box. If the cause does turn out to be storm-related, one part of the Overview will also have to be adjusted. (Still an unusually low casualty rate for F/EF4 ... does anyone have stats on this?) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flooding and other effects[edit]

The more I research this, the more it seems that the flooding effects of this storm sequence were at least equal to if not more significant than the tornadic impact, and that is before hail and straight-line wind damage is added in (still working on those). I know people come here for the tornadoes, but please don't condense the non-tornadic parts into single paragraphs per section -- it is more complex than that. I am trying to keep a tight focus on the May events, but the overall non-tornadic section will end up as large as the tornadic section. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heat wave[edit]

Should more mention be made of the record-setting heat wave in the U.S. southeast? It was one of the contributing factors to the sequence, and probably deserves its own article in any case. (There may already be one -- I did not check.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 12:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornado_outbreak_sequence_of_May_2019&oldid=1210742192"