Talk:2011 Super Outbreak/Archive 3

"First EF5 tornado in Mississippi since the Candlestick Park tornado on May 3, 1966"?
I'm questioning the following statement from the "Philadelphia tornado" section of this article:

This marks the first EF5 tornado in Mississippi since the Candlestick Park tornado on May 3, 1966.

Nope. Unless we're talking strictly about touchdowns, in which case we should say so. --Tkynerd (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * According to this article the F5 damage took place in Louisiana. So it doesn't count as an F5 for Mississippi where damage from this tornado was no higher than F4. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Then I will reword it for clarity. Thank you for the clarification. --Tkynerd (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Article for the Hackleburg tornado, and question on the Vilonia tornado
I would say that the Hackleburg tornado deserves its own article considering that it was actually deadlier than the Tuscaloosa tornado and one of the costliest in U.S. history. It was even mentioned that an article should be created for that one when the Tuscaloosa tornado's article was proposed. There are a couple points I would like to bring up, however. First, should there be a more concise name for this article? "2011 Hackleburg–Phil Campbell-Tanner-Huntland tornado" seems like a mouthful to me. Second, the section for this tornado is longer than any other single tornado section I know of in an outbreak article, which is part of the reason I think it should get an article. If the tornado gets its own article should the section in the outbreak article be trimmed a bit?

On another note, does the Vilonia tornado really need its own section here? It was a fairly significant tornado but it just doesn't compare to the other storms in the "Most significant tornadoes" section. It was less significant than other tornadoes that didn't make the list such as the Section–Trenton tornado. Looking at the page history I have found that the section for the Vilonia tornado was added before the violent tornadoes of April 27 occurred. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Vilonia needs to stay. I know it wasa only an EF2 but it received alot of news coverage before the big ones hit in MS, AL, TN, and GA. As for the the Hackleburg tornado, it should have an article as it was the strongest and deadliest of the outbreak. 2011 Hackleburg-Phil Campbell, Alabama tornado or something similar should work. You can create it or I can if you don't want to. I will, however, go ahead and start a sandbox. I'm glad you thought of that because I never would have.


 * And, the section should be trimmed but I will work on formatting and such because the fatality table gets in the way of the pictures. I don't want to do much to it because it is nominated for GA status. Also, those other EF4s and most of the EF3s are covered enough in their damage descriptions on the List page. United States Man (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll start a sandbox as well, though I may be busy later this week. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Move to 2011 Super Outbreak
EXTREME SUPPORT This is getting as ridiculous as the wiki politics over changing the Syrian Uprising article to Syrian Civil War was when it was clearly known it had become a civil war! This outbreak has shattered the 1974 Super Outbreak in regards of total tornadoes and damage caused so it obviously qualifies as an equal or is greater than the 1974 Super Outbreak. There are many information sources out there that now refer to this outbreak as the 2011 Super Outbreak, to many to list. It is slowly but surely becoming common to call this outbreak a Super Outbreak and there will likely come a day soon that the name of this article will need to be changed. This also means that the original Super Outbreak will need to be changed just a little to the 1974 Super Outbreak, I don't understand why that is so difficult to do. I also don't see a reason why this would be confusing to people since in the near future there will by two Super Outbreaks in common knowledge, there is also the possibility that there could be more Super Outbreaks in the future. Many Scientist back in the 70s that are still alive today thought the an outbreak on the scale of 1974 wouldn't happen again in there lifetime, but it did and in some aspects was worse than 1974. In addition, eventually the generation that was alive during the 1974 Super Outbreak will be outnumbered and replaced by people who were alive only during the 2011 Super Outbreak. I say there is plenty to back moving the article and the bickering needs to end. Its time to change this article's title! Stormchaser89 (talk) 10:50pm, 17 October 2012 (US Central)


 * I hate to rain on your parade, but there have been at least five discussions about this and no progress has been made. What makes you so sure this time? United States Man (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - a redirect is fine. I see no evidence in this latest motion to move that says objectively how a move is better. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I have always been against this. I don't know why people keep trying to move this page. United States Man (talk) 13:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Previous discussions of this have shown that there is no consistent name for this outbreak. Nothing in that regard seems to have changed since the last time this was discussed. TornadoLGS (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 8 ball icon.svg The Magic 8-Ball says: "No." It also says that this is unnecessary and wonders why we have to keep going over this again and again. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 21:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The same thing that I have been thinking since that explosion in April 2012. United States Man (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Supercell tracks
What does anyone think of this? United States Man (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks really good. If we put it up though, it should have some sort of a lede that briefly explains the idea of a supercell and a tornado family. Would it be possible to make something like this for other major outbreaks? Only the most extreme ones, though. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If I could find sources for it, I would make some. But, I haven't seen anything like that except for this outbreak. United States Man (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. My only other remark would be that we could have the Tuscaloosa and Hackleburg tornadoes link to their articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did that. So, I was thinking that maybe it wouldn't fit in this page but it could possibly go in the list page under the tornadoes list. United States Man (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

so this is the outbreak with the most tornado in the 24 hr...
and the Super Outbreak is 2 but what was the 3? I wanted to know for a long time what was the outbreak with the 3 most tornadoes in 24 hr, does any one know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godjira999 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not exactly sure, but the two (what would be the third) largest in recent memory are April 15, 2011 and April 14, 2012, both with about 80 tornadoes. United States Man (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Prevalence of the word "Super" associated with this event
OK it's been a few years and we need to talk about this again. For anyone who is automatically going to get dismissive, I'd recommend that you actually hear me out on this and look at this subject objectively since it's been a while. Anyone who watches the Weather Channel will have noticed that over the past few years, this event is commonly referred to as the "2011 Super Outbreak", the "April 2011 Super Outbreak" or the "Super Outbreak of 2011" or some derivative of this type whenever it is discussed or an anniversary rolls around. I've heard Dr. Greg Forbes refer to the event as this multiple times now. Even more significant, AMS research articles and National Weather Service WFOs still refer to this event as the "2011 Super Outbreak", especially NWS Huntsville. Below is a brief list of different significant media and governmental sources that refer to this event as the 2011 Super Outbreak, or some similar derivative:

http://www.weather.com/news/news/tornado-super-outbreak-20120427#/1 http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00036.1 http://www.hsvcity.org/cyber/DardenApril2011SuperOutbreak_Overview_CityMeeting.pdf https://ams.confex.com/ams/93Annual/webprogram/Paper214058.html http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/two-years-later-lessons-learne/11067336 http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ohx/?n=stormsurvey0426-2742011 https://ams.confex.com/ams/93Annual/webprogram/Paper223690.html

Keep in mind that this is just the tip of the iceburg. I scraped these together after just a few minutes of research. So with the presence of countless reliable scientific, government, and media sources referring to this event as the 2011 Super Outbreak, including on television years after this event, are we going to keep ignoring this? It is at this point, basically undeniable that this event is to some extent, popularly known as the the 2011 Super Outbreak or something similar. I am not suggesting that we move the article, but I am going to add a sourced, bolded mention of this in the article intro. At this point, it is simply worthy of mention in some way. Feel free to discuss further. Sharkguy05 (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05
 * The AMS papers are more than enough to convince me that we should move the article to 2011 Super Outbreak. WP:COMMONNAME promotes that we use the most recognizable name for an event and that title more than fits the bill. It's no longer an objective issue as it's widely accepted as what to refer to the outbreak. The current WP:SEVERE naming convention appears to be in lieu of concrete naming standards for outbreaks. When they do have solid names, such as in this case, we should take advantage of such. The 1974 Super Outbreak should also be used to specify the year, as it's currently located at just Super Outbreak. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

We should get a little more discussion/consensus before we go for a total article move, but I'd say it's clear enough that moving it is at least an option. Sharkguy05 (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05

This needs to be moved back; there was never a move discussion and such a move has already been defeated numerous times. I don't care who refers to it by what name, a consensus hasn't been reached here. United States Man (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I went the WP:BOLD route since its been years since the previous discussions, all of which are rendered moot by the above links provided by . Personally don't see any controversy in the move, which is why I went ahead with it. Name is widely recognized by many institutions and beyond meets criteria of WP:COMMONNAME. Moving it back would be pointless. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are the same links brought up in the last discussion; the fact is this was soundly defeated about four or five previous times. There is nothing new now to support moving it. If you want it moved, you need to move it back and start a proper move discussion. Just because you want to use your administrative powers to be "bold" doesn't mean you can override prior discussion and perform a controversial move. United States Man (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And the last tangible discussion in 2011–2012 was dropped before a proper consensus was met. Going against proper reasoning in favor of process doesn't do any good here. The sources are clear and no one provided solid reasoning against it, it was just allowed to rot. General idea was in favor of moving the page, but no one went ahead with it for what it's worth... ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I know that particular discussion was a mess, but there were two or three discussions after that in which it was easily decided that the name would not be changed and that there wouldn't even be a mention of "2011 Super Outbreak" in the article. So you are going directly against a clear consensus on those. If you could get consensus now to support moving, then fine, but until then, it needs to be moved back. United States Man (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A "clear consensus" in reference to a discussion in 2012 that didn't provide clear consensus. The result was no consensus, with one oppose being simply because "Super Outbreak" didn't include tornado and another being a "weak oppose". Furthermore, another oppose has been rendered moot as it has become the common name to refer to this event. Subsequent move requests simply just doubled back to this move request one claiming clear consensus, of which there was not. I'm not changing my viewpoint here and stand firm with WP:COMMONNAME per the sources provided numerous times. It's the name used at multiple levels, including professional meteorologists. A move discussion is a waste of time. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As you wish, master... United States Man (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 2011 Super Outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Three+women+seriously+hurt+spring+windstorm+whips+through+Ottawa/4691025/story.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:45, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Dead links
References 3, 47, 56, 63, 78, 99, 107, 147, 148, 149, 150, 155, and 160 are all dead and need either mirrors or new references. Jdcomix (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 one external links on 2011 Super Outbreak. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42760079/ns/weather/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27arkansas.html?_r=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430133118/http://www.littlerock.af.mil:80/news/story.asp?id=123253582 to http://www.littlerock.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123253582
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120819115842/http://supercellweather.com/Debris%20Ball2.png to http://supercellweather.com/Debris%20Ball2.png
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121006024251/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/2011-tornadoes-record-most-in-day_n_856542.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/02/2011-tornadoes-record-most-in-day_n_856542.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429052340/http://www.todaysthv.com:80/news/article/154941/2/120-Guardsmen-called-to-assist-in-Vilonia-Hot-Springs-Village to http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/154941/2/120-Guardsmen-called-to-assist-in-Vilonia-Hot-Springs-Village
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140502002121/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lzk/?n=svr0414c.htm to http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lzk/?n=svr0414c.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402135837/http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=assessing_the_damage_in_onta_280411?ref=ccbox_weather_category1 to http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=assessing_the_damage_in_onta_280411?ref=ccbox_weather_category1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110502204825/http://www.theweathernetwork.com:80/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=winds_whip_through_ontario_280411?ref=ccbox_weather_topstories to http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=winds_whip_through_ontario_280411?ref=ccbox_weather_topstories
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323170111/http://zone911.fm93.com/actualites/accidents/item/12689-des-vents-violents-causent-des-d%C3%A9sagr%C3%A9ments-dans-la-r%C3%A9gion-de-montr%C3%A9al to http://zone911.fm93.com/actualites/accidents/item/12689-des-vents-violents-causent-des-d%C3%A9sagr%C3%A9ments-dans-la-r%C3%A9gion-de-montr%C3%A9al
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110509034424/http://www.wsoctv.com:80/news/27722984/detail.html to http://www.wsoctv.com/news/27722984/detail.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Splitting off controversy
redirected the article on the Lakeview/Rising Fawn EF5. He claims that it "wasn't notable" because the rating holds no weight. In contrast, the twister killed 25 people which IMO is enough to have it split off for. Could you please elaborate how you think it's not notable? Because it was actually one of the deadliest of the outbreak (although the Tuscaloosa and Hackleburg top it though, but still, 25 deaths is a lot from an EF5.) --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I could go either way on this, but I'm currently leaning toward keeping the article. A death toll of 25, more than the 2013 Moore tornado I might add, and an EF5 rating give it a good deal of notability. Would be nice if we had a damage estimate. On the other hand I don't recall this tornado getting as much media coverage as Smithville or Phil Campbell. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All I'm gonna say on this is if an article is split off from a parent, then something is supposed to be added to expand on said subject. That is definitely not the case here. It's more or less the same as what was included in the patent page, so it makes no sense to split this off. Now if you want to expand the article and add more than just a path and damage summary, then please by all means go ahead, but the way it is now is really unacceptable. United States Man (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Also real interesting how you just revert all my edits and say "contested" just because you don't like it, but whatever... United States Man (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly the reason we started splitting off some tornadoes was to trim down on the very long main article. TornadoLGS (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 Super Outbreak. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42760079/ns/weather/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27arkansas.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131225183242/http://www.myfoxorlando.com/video?clipId=7236537&autostart=true to http://www.myfoxorlando.com/video?clipId=7236537&autostart=true
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Three%2Bwomen%2Bseriously%2Bhurt%2Bspring%2Bwindstorm%2Bwhips%2Bthrough%2BOttawa/4691025/story.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 Super Outbreak. 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:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120707190019/http://daltondailycitizen.com/local/x58991204/Ringgold-devastated-after-tornado-touchdown to http://daltondailycitizen.com/local/x58991204/Ringgold-devastated-after-tornado-touchdown
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130115090443/http://lejournaldemontreal.canoe.ca/actualites/faitsdiversetjudiciaires/archives/2011/04/20110428-162908.html to http://lejournaldemontreal.canoe.ca/actualites/faitsdiversetjudiciaires/archives/2011/04/20110428-162908.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

May 2003 tornado outbreak sequence
I'm not exactly sure where, but I think the May 2003 tornado outbreak sequence should be mentioned in some limited sense. Master of Time  ( talk ) 00:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC)