Talk:Tornadoes of 2023/Archive 1

2023 suggested changes and improvements

Hello everyone! Thanks for all your help in documenting the tornadoes that occurred in 2022. As we start the new year, there are some things that I'd like to suggest going into the new year.

(1) As we discussed in the talk page for the previous year, it is time to retire the "Inflation Adjusted Annual Tornado Running Total" provided by the Storm Prediction Center. The averages on the chart have not been updated for over a decade and it is really not giving an accurate depiction of the true number of tornadoes in a given year. In its place, Supportstorm has been gracious enough to make a map that I assume is through GIS to add all the tornado tracks throughout the year and that's what we should go with from now on.

(2) I believe the wording for the tornado reports and tornadoes confirmed in the lead should be changed. Tornadoes reported merely mean area points of damage, and not necessarily for one tornado or even, as with the case with April 15 tornado emergency gaffe in Arkansas, any tornado at all. While I do not think it's necessary to remove the tornado report numbers like we did for each individual month, the wording should point out this difference by, for example, saying something to the effect of "there have been 'x' tornado reports and 'y' confirmed tornadoes in the United States in 2023." In this way, we don't confuse readers into thinking that there were tornadoes that were reported that just weren't confirmed or vice versa.

(3) I still think the wording "outbreak of mostly weak tornadoes" is used too much. We discussed this last year briefly, but I don't think that was enough to see the changes necessary. We should come up with alternate wordings for this or mix up what we're saying so we aren't saying the same thing over and over again.

(4) We have repeatedly been having issues with editors moving tornado outbreak articles to the main space too early and we got to get that under control. My policy has always been to wait for a really significant tornado or a large number of tornadoes to even make a SECTION. I've had issues with making articles prematurely too, so I understand the want to be the publisher of a major outbreak article, but not every outbreak needs an article. If you want to start an article, make sure you look at the Wikipedia:SVR/T before making it so you know the guidelines behind making an article. I will admit that someone will need to update that page though.

(5) We had a number of issues where editors, including me, were arguing over how articles and/or sections should be formatted. Such discussions need to be brought to the talk pages so we can all come up with a solution so that we aren't attacking each other/edit warring. This is crucial for the future of this project.

(6) I think we should start thinking about revamping past tornado year articles, so they give better, more accurate, and detailed information. I started that process back in 2020 and have continued to do it off and on. Similar to how the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones works to make all their articles GAs, we should start doing the same thing. In this way, we can provide more information that is accurate and easy to understand. I want to add that the sources used for past tornado years also needs to be updated because the NWS has changed their links to tornado events, which makes it difficult to figure out what each reference should lead to.

(7) Nothing against IP addresses, but we had several issues with them fighting with editors this past year. I have no idea where that started/came from, but we need to monitor these more closely this year, especially since a number of them were sock puppets. Edit histories for these addresses need to be looked into more often for suspicious activities and issues that come up with them need to be handled accordingly.

(8) We should evaluate which title a tornado outbreak article should have depending on the impacts caused by each system. Simply listing it as "Tornado outbreak of 'month' 'day,' 2023" may not be enough as we saw a number of weather events get the "storm complex" designation this year. Each event is different, so we need to check which non-tornadic impacts were most present from a system that produced a tornado outbreak. Additionally, we should consider looking into other non-tornadic impacts so that we don't miss anything important (i.e., the 60+ wildfires sparked throughout Alabama from intense gradient winds ahead of the severe storm complex during the Tornado outbreak of March 29–31, 2022).

(9) Impacts from tornado outbreaks need to be looked into more often to add as much information to outbreak articles as possible. I, for one, liking adding Amtrak impacts as this seems to be an afterthought compared to travel by road and airplanes. School closures, evacuations, and other events should also be looked into if they are associated with the tornado events.

That's all I have for now. I hope everyone has a great new year and I look forward to working with you guys in 2023. Cheers! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I fully agree with these suggested changes and I love them! Elijahandskip (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Reminder about town names and tornado locations

Was going through some old articles, and found multiple tornadoes, especially in the December 10-11, 2021 outbreak article, listed as striking towns that they did not hit. Braggadocio, MO was listed as taking a strike from the Tri-State EF4, when it should have said "S of Braggadocio". In the March 24-28, 2021 article, Ohatchee was also listed with just the town name itself, despite the fact that the town was only side-swiped. The changes were made fairly recently, and were in good faith, but detracted from the accuracy of the articles, so I had to fix them.

Here's the deal of how it works, using the name "Smithville" as a hypothetical example.

-If the tornado passes north of town, the designation should be "N of Smithville"

-If the tornado sideswipes the northern fringes, or only causes damage in that one specific part of town, the designation should be "Northern Smithville"

-If there's damage throughout a majority of the town, or the circulation of the tornado impacted most or all of the town, or the path goes right through the middle of the town, the designation should just be "Smithville"

I'm just seeing too many designations where just the town name is listed, despite the towns not being hit. Please refer to this as we get 2023 started. I've had to make a lot of corrections in relation to this issue as of late. Oh and one more thing, when it comes to long-trackers, you should list no more than three town names in the table. You can get more detailed in the full summary, but I do not want to see "N of___, to ___, to____, to ____ to SE of ______". It simply isn't necessary, and looks really bad.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

January 11-12

I've committed this mistake before. I'm talking about creating a draft/article of an ongoing outbreak excessively early, and it ends up not being significant enough to warrant an article (see, for example, the Tornado outbreak of November 29–30, 2022). However, what is going on in Mississippi, Alabama, and eventually in Tennessee and Georgia is very concerning, and we already have many reports of severe damage coming from this unexpected bout of tornadoes that is unfolding. I already have a draft going but not published yet for public editing, but I want to ask for consensus before publishing it. ¿Do we have confidence this will end up being article-worthy?

Tagging the following editors for their opinions: @TornadoInformation12, Elijahandskip, TornadoLGS, TropicalAnalystwx13, United States Man, Supportstorm, Poodle23, JimmyTheMarble, Cyclonebiskit, Ionmars10, and Sarrail:

Mjeims (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m personally Ok with drafts being created. For example, the January 2–4, 2023 event had a draft that was created and worked on, until we saw the event wouldn’t be notable enough for mainspace, then deleted it. A new thing in 2023 a few editors seem to be ok with is having a consensus before moving a draft into mainspace. So go ahead and create the draft, but 3-4 editors need to have agreement on the talk page before moving it into mainspace. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Drafts are fine at any point, they're just drafts. It's way too early to publish an actual article until we see how many tornadoes occur at least. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 17:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Why wasn't I tagged? XD

I'd wait still, but I added a section for it. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Here it is boys/gals. Draft:Tornado outbreak of January 11–12, 2023. Thinks are going crazy right now. Sorry ChessEric, forgot about you! Mjeims (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Remember to sign off! LOL! We'll see if we need it, but a draft is warranted based on what's already happened, especially with the storm that hit Selma. That storm just prompted TOR-E for Autauga County. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mjeims: This may need to be moved already. This Selma storm has one of the most violent signatures I've seen since the tornadoes that occurred last year at the beginning of November. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

We have the TOR-E and the Selma storm, but lets hold it for a little longer. We don't even have the table going on yet. Mjeims (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Getting very close. Tornado is STILL on the ground and storms are forming ahead of the line in Georgia. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This event will probably be remembered for a singular tornado, so either of two options seems neutral to me:

Make an article entirely about the main tornado, or Make an article about the tornado outbreak with a section about the main tornado. Poodle23 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

And i honestly wasn't watching during the Selma tornado, so IDK how significant it was. Poodle23 (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, that the Selma tornado was not the only one that has caused severe damage today. There have been many. It will not be possible to create an article for the Selma tornado and NOT create one for the whole outbreak, simply placing the totnadoes in the January 2023 article. As with the December 2021 oubreak, the article for the outbreak itself exists, with the singular Mayfield article as well. So that may be what we do with this ones. Mjeims (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Poodle23 (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

So normally, I'd say we should have waited longer, but today was one of those events where you could tell early on we had a major tornado outbreak in process. Overall though, I appreciate you guys taking the more cautious approach and discussing this before making the article. In terms of making an article for the most significant tornado of the outbreak, lets wait on that. Single tornado articles are reserved for the absolute worst of the worst. Think Hackleburg-Phil Cambell, Joplin, Moore, or Mayfield. I haven't seen anything quite of that caliber yet with this outbreak.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I know, but then why do we have an article about this tornado? Poodle23 (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

No idea. I say this is likely some "IMBY" phenomenon, which stands for "in my back yard". This term refers to the tendency for weather hobbyist to hone in and have bias towards events that happened close to where they live. This sometimes results in people starting articles that aren't needed, because they want to see "their" tornado have a big write-up dedicated to it. A good example of IMBY was back in the early 2010s, when we had a guy would add huuuuuge, overly-detailed paragraphs about how each respective outbreak affected Michigan, even if it was just a single EF0 or something and the main part of the outbreak happened elsewhere.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

There is evidence to that. I checked an old version of his user page and it said he was an engineer working near Huntsville, Alabama. Poodle23 (talk) 00:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup, no surprise there. Classic IMBY.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

The tornado article came before the outbreak article was made, so that's probably why its still there. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

In fact, i have started a deletion discussion here. Poodle23 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Site Update

Wow. The new interface is not good in my opinion. It makes the tornado table narrow, constricted, and no longer easy to read. Looks like we'll have to make a full summary for the Eutaw/Duncan, AL EF2 in the Jan 12 article because the table summary now takes up my entire computer monitor. Should we maybe consider doing away with the coordinates column? I really don't want to do that though, and I don't want to spare details in the table summaries either. Not really sure what to do besides utilize more full summaries and try to write as concisely as possible. This really is a bummer. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

You can change back to the old interface under preferences>appearance. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 03:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I switched it back. I don't think we need to change anything on the tables. United States Man (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok I wondered if there was an opt out option available. That's a relief.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

I switched back immediately. My reaction to the new look was, "WTF?" XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Tornado total

Sorry 'bout that US Man. I probably did something wrong in my calculations, which resulted in me saying the totals were 98. Poodle23 (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Gonna ping him so he can see this. @United States Man: Poodle23 (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Now its 100. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible Jan. 24 outbreak

We've got a tornado emergency for the southern Houston metro area tornado, putting this out there as the severe weather day develops in case we feel like starting a draft today. Penitentes (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Deer Park looks like an EF2, but there was another tornado i caught on Ryan Halls livestream, and the debris ball looked like it had a bit of black in there (it was near DeQuincy, Louisiana).

And yes, i know we don't pre-rate tornadoes, so please don't blast me with "don't assume it". Poodle23 (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we? I mean, I've got some free time, but even after the Deer Park tornado and the Taylor Landing wedge, I feel not enough tornadoes have touched down to warrant even a draft. If you feel different and think we should get a draft going, that would be okay. Mjeims (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Just wait for right now please. United States Man (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I second that. Poodle23 (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Whoooo... I'm gonna say it once again, please don't blast me with "don't assume it", but we might make an article considering Deer Park was upgraded to an EF3 + it literally happened in one of the largest cities in the US. Poodle23 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it. I know its a large metropolitan area, but there are not enough (at least, yet) surrounding tornadoes and reports of mass fatalities or injuries in Houston. It's a similar scenario to the Gaylord EF3 from last year: Very notable on its own, but not sufficient enough to get that article going. But, if we get more people that are with you on this one, I would happily get the draft going. Mjeims (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

This guy decided to make an article about the outbreak here, which i PRODed. Anyways, i guess we can just shrug that off for the most part. Poodle23 (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and sent it to AfD. It should get snowballed there. United States Man (talk) 02:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

"Snowballed" XD Poodle23 (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, WP:SNOW is an actual essay on WP. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to wring someone's neck now. How many times do we have to go through this s*** before people get it? At least it wasn't one of you guys. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. OBL is a few days newer to WP than me, and he probably doesn't spend much time on talk pages. Maybe that's why he didn't notice this. Poodle23 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Image/caption disputes need to stop

Its only 26 days into the new year, and I've already seen multiple disputes between what photos should be added, which photos should be combined into one thumbnail, which photos should be removed, which photo is better, and even whether or not a photo is a candidate for deletion. This is sickening, especially with radar shots since a lot of those images are literally the exact same thing (this thing where we want. Also, if US Man has to ask me to solve ANY sort of dispute you guys have, then there are some SERIOUS problems (dude has never asked me favors until the dispute over the Tornado outbreak of January 12, 2023 meteorological synopsis photo). Please get it together people. We are already having trouble with IPs again, and the LAST thing we need is to have silly disputes over photos and the captions they have. Also, no personal attacks. That's just rude. Stop acting like being behind a screen and not directly talking to someone as an excuse to say whatever the heck you want. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. This problem is most common with Nick, who uses the windspeed ranges that the "general public" accept; for example, he considers 125 mph winds "mid-range" EF2, which i think is nonsense. Poodle23 (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it wasn't crazy reasoning—125 mph is right in the middle of the 111-135 mph range—but the survey did describe the daycare damage as high-end EF2. So what's the right approach? Only use terms like "low-end" or "high-end" when the NWS or another authority does? There should be some kind of consistency, especially when damage is already assigned a rating and windspeed to work with, without ending up over-classifying everything. Penitentes (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into what was probably a simple mistake from surveyors. Possibly a mental error caused one person to write "high-end" when another person assigned 125 to it. Not a big deal. United States Man (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The description said higher-end, not high-end by the way. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, let's only try to add long captions to small images 2 or 3 times in every tornado year article. Poodle23 (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Stop pointing fingers guys. Everyone needs to evaluate their actions in these situations. This is why I ALSO said that these type of disputes should go into the talk page. Still, I'm tired of seeing disputes over images! Enough is enough. If you guys can't do that, then what's the point of even adding them? You might as well put every image you want to add onto the talk pages to discuss their inclusion into articles before adding them in, which is a HUGE waste of time. Again, get it together people. I don't to be dealing with this all year. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally Image/caption disputes needs to stop. Its silly and absolutely ridiculous, and I agree with Eric above. Lets edit Wikipedia without having a inage/caption dispute please. (Y'all probably never saw my username but I'm very new and hoping to help in any way in the future) Fairlydaisy04 (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fairlydaisy04: Welcome! I hope we can get along! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:15, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Fairlydaisy04 (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

SPC Tornado count for January

SPC tweeted earlier today that there was 124 tornadoes during January. We only have 123, so we are missing one somewhere and I have no idea where/when it was. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

According to their chart we're missing an EF1. Might it be the Louisiana 1/24 EF2 track that was originally thought to be a separate EF2 and EF1? Penitentes (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

That's a recent change only on DAT, so very likely. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 17:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The NWS Lake Charles confirmed that two tornado tracks were actually 1. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Warning for today (2/8/2023)

I'm going to say this before anything happens today. I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY PREMATURE ARTICLES BEING MADE. This includes drafts. The premature creation of articles is basically someone who is trying to take all the credit for making it. I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT TODAY. PERIOD. That is all. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Most of us haver learned from it already, and we have created articles starting from drafts, in orther to make it easy to delete if necessary. Gotta stay on the lookout for those sock accounts that do create the articles, though. Mjeims (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Fairlydaisy04 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Creating Tornado outbreak of January 24–25, 2023 as an article

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.

---

Should Tornado outbreak of January 24–25, 2023 be created as a stand-alone article based on the information in Tornadoes of 2023#January 24–25? The page was originally created as a stand-alone article, before being nominated for deletion and it was deleted.

1. Yes, it is notable enough for a stand-alone article.
2. No, it is not notable enough for a stand-alone article.

Elijahandskip (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Option 2 — This was started from advice given at AN/I, which was to hold a new discussion to avoid canvassing. Now that the tornado outbreak is over and the statistics are on from it, I can safely vote option 2. Unfortunately, there was a fatality from the strongest tornado of the outbreak, the Deer Park EF3. That said, only 14 other weaker tornadoes occurred during the outbreak. Tornadoes of 2023#January 24–25 sums up the event nicely, so there is no reason to create a stand-alone article. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 — Tornadoes of 2023#January 24–25 is a good summary of the events. I don't really understand how much more can be stated in a new article. If there is enough to talk about, then go ahead, but I don't see a lot to talk about. Cessaune [talk] 15:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. Event doesn't pass WP:NWEATHER guidelines. The EF3 Pasadena, Texas tornado is the only sign of notability, and per Elijahandskip, the other 14 weaker tornadoes combined with the Pasadena tornado doesn't merit a stand-alone article, and can be said in section of Tornadoes of 2023#January 24–25. Tails Wx 15:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 (invited by the bot) For reasons given above. Some policy/guideline considerations can be given for this. One is that the topic of the article would need coverage as such for wp:notability, not coverage of individual tornadoes within it. But in the end, the type of enclyclopedic coverage that people would want to read years from now could easily be in just a section of an article. North8000 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• No – Why are you even having this discussion. Just let this go. United States Man (talk) 23:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Per a discussion at AN/I, it was recommended to redo this discussion as it was potentially involved in canvassing. So, it is being redone. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  You're letting it get to you... United States Man (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 for the reasons cited earlier. Note that the initator of this discussion has also started a DRV about the same matter. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• COMMENT Removed the RfC tag per WP:RFCNOT which forbids its usage for article split proposals. Noah^Talk 13:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 — Per reasons cited above. Not enough content or notability outside the Pasadena EF3, and maybe the Orange County - Calcasieu Parish EF2. Mjeims (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 – The only notable tornado of this outbreak was an EF3 tornado in Houston, but even then, it was lower-bound since the maximum winds were 140 mph. Plus, it was a small outbreak, with only 15 tornadoes confirmed, which is definitely not notable enough, and there were no fatalities. Poodle23 (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

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.

February 15-16

We've got a possible two-day tornado outbreak spanning the 15th through the 16th. I would like to remind everyone (as ChessEric has done) to not create an article. Wait until the outbreak ends, and then we start a draft. Poodle23 (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

If it's even notable, that is. Poodle23 (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

We've now got consecutive enhanced risk days with hatched areas for tornadoes. Truer than ever to not jump the gun early. Mjeims (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Sheesh. The February 16 enhanced risk covers a big chunk of the eastern US, kinda reminds me of Veterans Day 2002. I wasn't there, but I did watch a video on it[1]. Poodle23 (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, most of the tornadoes don't look significant, so an article is most likely not needed. More incoming information can be told in the section Tornadoes of 2023#February 15–16, this tornado outbreak honestly was weaker than expected, and really doesn't merit an article. Tails Wx 23:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank god these two days busted. It was too widespread and I was becoming concerned. Mjeims (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The only one concerning to me was the Smithville, Mississippi tornado, but regardless, this might be the same case like the January 24–25 event, where only one tornado doesn't merit an article and doesn't pass WP:NWEATHER. And the "one tornado"–I mean the Pasadena tornado. Tails Wx 00:26, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The Smithville tornado produced mainly tree damage along a river as I understand. United States Man (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Are there any tornadoes so far looking significant? Because I heard that very few tornadoes occurred, and if this is the case, then we can hold off creating an article. Tails Wx 13:09, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Three tornado reports in MS, one completed survey in AR, several more to be surveyed today in TN. No deaths reported, no major communities heavily impacted. A garden-variety event (as much as any tornado event can be, I guess). Penitentes (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

There we’re at least 11 tracks in MS, TN, AR, and maybe one in GA. None of them appear very significant, even though there’s a couple in the EF2 range. A section is fine and discussion can be dropped. United States Man (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

'[Month] [day] event' question

Hey: perhaps a silly question, but re: the monthly tornado lists, is there a specific motivation for having days labeled 'January 18 event' instead of just 'January 18' (for example)?

• The tables are broken out by day, not by event, and frequently tornadoes that occurred on either side of midnight will thus land in different tables and therefore 'events'.
• Plenty of tornadoes are a one-off—see yesterday's New Jersey spin-up—and can't reasonably be described as constituting an event of their own.
• Grouping things by event is what the "Tornadoes of [year]" and outbreak articles are for.

It's a small thing, but hey, removing redundancies is a fun part of the Wikipedia project. Penitentes (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...I honestly don't know. It was like that when I got on and I've never questioned it. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No, and ideally they shouldn't even be split by day. The standard on Wikipedia, and in the very few featured lists that have been nominated for tornado activity, is for there to be a single table spanning all days. Now, for editing purposes, it makes sense to keep them divided early on. After NCEI is complete, though, we should ideally be merging the lists into single tables. That gives the added benefit of sorting tornadoes for an entire month rather than just one day. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 21:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make article harder to navigate though? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The list would become incredibly difficult to navigate, resulting in loss of readability. This would also result in the loss of editing ease, because lumping it all together would make editing quite difficult. For the reader, it is much easier to be able to use the table of contents to select a specific date rather than having to parse through one endless list. United States Man (talk) 02:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's what I said. It's not feasible during the time when lists need to be edited in any meaningful way. Well after NCEI has been updated though, there's really no substantive reason to keep them separate. That's a problem for well in the future though, there are still tens of thousands of tornadoes that don't exist in lists. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 04:50, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Tornado outbreak of January 12, 2023

I started a discussion here, but nobody saw it so I thought I'd bring it here. Should we revert back to what the article had before about the tornadoes southwest of Experiment until we get a clearer picture of what happened down there (i.e., a PNS)? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it makes sense to prioritize the latest PNS over the DAT. The first represents intentional communication to the public and the latter is a primarily internal tool with lots of minor errors (like the incorrect polygon dates and wind speeds we all know and love). Penitentes (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

February 26

We've been very fortunate as these last events have mostly busted and turned out to be much less significant than expected (for example, February 15-16). However, a Day 5 enhanced risk is very concerning and rare, and it is stationed over an all-too familiar area in the Lower Plains. However, as always, lets not jump ahead of time. However, as of now, this setup looks eerily similar to the one present on April 2012, or November 2015. Certainly pretty rare in this section Tornado Alley this early in the year, so it has to be taken with precaution. Mjeims (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I will say that the threat for strong tornadoes was conditional, so they didn't really bust. I live in tornado alley, so I'll be monitoring that closely. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Definitely got an interesting day ahead of us. Make sure to not be premature with section writing and article making please. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Honestly one of the more fascinating forecasts I've seen. It's the first derecho specific forecast I've seen since the May 2022 one, so this will be interesting. Mjeims (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I have started a draft at Draft:February 2023 Oklahoma derecho and will update as the event unfolded. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 18:51, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I believe this will be linked up with the effects out west, so the title may be subject to change. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you even OK bro? A tornado literally just went right near you. Hope you were protected and your community/neighbours are OK. Mjeims (talk) 03:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Bro. The tornado in Norman went over where I used to live. O_o Thankfully, I'm fine. I live on the north side of town now. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh and we also have no power. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Good to hear you're okay, ChessEric! I hope your family, community, and neighbors are ok as well. That tornado outbreak was scary, the next severe outbreak's targeting the Midwest, where I am. :( Anyways, the derecho draft, if we add the confimed tornadoes as well, might be ready for mainspace! Tails Wx 14:15, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Aaaand a tornado watch for our area. Great. Time to possibly add this to the derecho draft. If anything happens, should we create a separate section for the Midwestern severe storms (if anything significant happens) or rename it? Tails Wx 16:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I changed that from a derecho article to a tornado outbreak article by the way. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"Storm Complex"

I have some issues about this designation for certain articles. I'm not gonna mince words, I think you guys are trying to be slick by using it to side-step the normal criteria for an outbreak. When an event doesn't quite meet the full article criteria and you guys want to make an article anyway, you label it as a "Storm Complex" to force it into existence. Regarding the recent article, you clearly already tried to force it by calling it a derecho without that designation being officially confirmed, and then changed it to storm complex when it become clear that shoe didn't fit either. If it doesn't meet the criteria, why do you feel the need to force it? This is clearly a continuation of the long-standing issue of people here being too trigger-happy with article creation. Can we PLEASE put an end to this ongoing issue? As you can tell, I don't approve, but if I'm in the minority here there's nothing I can do. Thoughts?

EDIT: Ok sorry to back-pedal a bit, but I think the non-severe impacts on the west coast are JUST enough to make this article worthy. If you want to keep the article, I won't have a problem with that. With that said, my point still stands regarding not using this designation to justify article creation for future events. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2023 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

This is a bunch of ranting for no reason. Andrew Lyons (SPC) has confirmed they are treating it as a serial derecho. It was originally named derecho because that by far received more coverage than the tornadoes (thus not naming it tornado outbreak per WP:COMMONNAME). Then, I explored media coverage online and talked to a WPC forecaster offline, both of which consider the derecho as part of the same system that led to impacts across the West U.S. Those impacts (such as the Los Angeles County blizzard warning) were widely covered by the media too, meaning there is contention for WP:COMMONNAME between the derecho and California impacts. It doesn't make sense to name the article "February 2023 derecho, winter storm, and tornado outbreak" or "February 2023 Western storm and Oklahoma derecho" or anything other than North American storm complex, which is already the standard set by the weather wikiproject generally. The name has nothing to do with anybody being antsy to make an article or creating justification out of thin air. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 04:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I really didn't like the idea of clumping all this together because its confusing. The non-tornadic impacts are currently just for the first system; the only thing for the second system is the tornadoes, the derecho (which in my opinion is very borderline, and I'm almost inclined to totally disregard the tweet), and the snow impacts in NYC metro (which I added on a whim). However, I'm also willing to see the article through. It will take A LOT of work to add all the impacts in. There was still severe weather from the first system and winter weather impacts from the second system that need to be added, not to mention all the impacts and the aftermath from the systems. I wish you luck on your quest!...okay sorry. I couldn't help it. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

March 1—2 incoming outbreak

Seeing the warnings, outlooks, and parameters in place for today, tomorrow, and possibly March 3, I'm pretty certain this is the most severe stretch of severe weather we've expected since last December. Nothing is certain yet though, so I've gone ahead and creat a draft for what may happen today and in the coming days. You can fint it here (it is currently listed as March 1–2 when it should be just March 1 for now, as I messed up and created duplicates with that name. That one should still be floating around, so if someone can delete it or move it, it would be great XD). Mjeims (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like the only possible tornado today was in California. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Guess so! But I mean, it is a draft, so it was not to egregious to have had it ready had yesterday been more active. Mjeims (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

There was one confirmed south of Hackleburg, Alabama

Fairlydaisy04 (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

As of now, there were less tornadoes than I thought there were to be, but there's also wind and flooding impacts around the DFW area. I'm not sure if this merits an article, but I'll wait until the end of the day as another severe weather outbreak is likely this afternoon across Kentucky! Tails Wx 17:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mjeims, ChessEric, and Tails Wx: There have been multiple fatalities in Alabama today due to non-thunderstorm gradient winds. It might be worth an article on the whole system, with the few confirmed tornadoes being included. United States Man (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

...really? I'm surprised that you of all people are saying that! XD If you think an article on the system is warranted, then I trust your judgement and say let's go. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The wind reports really did significantly increase from the last time I checked it! I do think this may be an article now! Even our street is a river now, this can be included as well! ;) Tails Wx 22:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Then, what title do we give it to get it moved? Mjeims (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak of March 1–2. What do y'all think? Tails Wx 00:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No. It wasn't a significant tornado outbreak. The wind event of March 2 and March 3 is a huge story. United States Man (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm out, the only option I can think of is March 2023 North American storm complex, but I'm not confident that the winter side of the storm system is significant enough in order to be named into storm complex. Tails Wx 01:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

There are more than enough winter storm impacts. I'm seeing multiple PNSs of snow and ice totals being issued, so the question about winter weather impacts being enough has been solved. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)