Talk:April 2022 North American storm complex

Notability
Why is this rush to be the first to create an article STILL going on? This tornado event has done nothing to warrant an article; barely even a section at the yearly page at this point. United States Man (talk) 00:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This thing has barely begun and it's much too soon to see how significant it will be. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I put it into draft space so it could be worked on and if notability was proven, it can be moved. The tornado emergency gives new notability too the outbreak, but not enough.  I made a note when creating that I put it into draft space on purpose for notability reasons.  That is one of the purposes for draftspace; improving articles/current events until they are ready for mainspace. We need to not speedy create mainspace articles like the WikiProject normally does, and instead do draft articles.  I know Tropical Cyclones get draft articles days before they are moved into mainspace, so I see no issues with creating this ongoing tornado outbreak draft article. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think a draft page is harmless. If the event ends up not being notable enough for a sub-article, the information can just be rewritten/condensed and merged into the annual article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I also agree that having a draft is not being presumptuous. Its just "setting up" the future article, and can be easily removed if the need for an article does not materialize. Although, the conditions for severe tornadoes and blizzard conditions are pretty apparent for today and tomorrow, so Im sure having this draft will help us to wait and see if the need for the article will be needed or not. Mjeims (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with people circumnavigating a non article-worthy event by calling it a "storm complex" "blizzard" or "floods". While sometimes it is justified if the non-tornadic element of a severe weather event is truly significant. However, with this one, I do not find it to be very notable in any sense, and I think the act of calling it something other than a tornado outbreak is a way to basically get an unnecessary article going without calling it a tornado outbreak. What happened over the past 3 days is just normal spring weather, and falls short of a genuinely significant severe weather event. We still have to get through the rest of April, May, and June. There are going to be more significant outbreaks than this, and I think while this deserves a section in "Tornadoes of 2022", I don't think this needs a full article.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * I agree. United States Man (talk) 02:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am going to stay neutral in this, but I am curious why it was moved to mainspace in the first place. I started it in a draft state on purpose so notability could be determined without a painful AfD process, which is what we will have to go through. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We can just merge it if the tornado event is lackluster. United States Man (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

So what’s the status? Are we keeping this or not? The only difference from earlier is a bunch of additional weak tornadoes have been confirmed. I’m on the fence about this one. If it meets the article criteria, it does so just barely. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 21:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Bold title in lead
Per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE, restating the article's title in the lead in boldface should be avoided if the title is descriptive rather than a name for the event. I'm not advocating for any particular wording, but we should avoid the bold title in this case. This issue is pretty widespread in tornado outbreak articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I should note that Tornado outbreak and floods of April 28 – May 1, 2017 and Tornado outbreak and blizzard of April 13–15, 2018 seem fine with the setup identical to here which I went with. Both the tornado outbreak and blizzard are definitely gonna the central parts of this storm. If the outbreak underperforms and the blizzard becomes more notable I can change the name to give more weight to the blizzard. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * We should not be bolding the title in the lead. I support removing the bold. United States Man (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, because using bold titles for such articles goes against MOS, I've been considering going through a bunch of storm articles and changing the leads accordingly. I'll post something on the WikiProject talk page about it. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the continual insistence of bolding the lead. MOS:BOLDTITLE does not apply:
 * "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence"
 * Not a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, so it fails.


 * "Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way"
 * The whole first sentence has to be written around the bolded title, so not accommodated in a natural way.


 * For these reasons, it fails MOS:BOLDTITLE. United States Man (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been going back and removing bold titles from outbreak articles because it isn't necessary to put the title again. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Adding unconfirmed reports
This is partially my bad, because I was one of the ones who started doing this. However, it really is a bad idea to be adding to the table based on the SPC reports page, because many of those are duplicates and have the wrong location (coords) based on observation point. It is best that we wait until a tornado has been surveyed to add it. insists on continuing to do this, even though adding duplicate reports of tornadoes is surely counterproductive and will get in the way later. United States Man (talk) 02:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion about this, I have just been doing it since it has been the norm. One pro is having the shell already made so it is known which offices had tornado reports/confirmed (spotted) tornadoes, which are some of the SPC reports.  One con is since SPC lists unconfirmed reports and possibly reports over the same tornado, which can lead to duplicates or no tornadoes being on the chart. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually do not mind adding the reports. However, as you did in the previous outbreak article and what I did today, we should hide those tornadoes to avoid confusion and to have a template already set up. Also, we should add in the TDS reports, not just every report we see. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless the tornado hit a major city (resulting in widespread coverage) and/or caused significant casualties, I don't support adding any reported or radar confirmed tornadoes to the table. There's no reason to jump the gun, we can add them when they're confirmed. Doing so just makes a messy table of estimated times, locations, missing path lengths and widths, etc. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm against adding any unconfirmed tornadoes as well. We used to do it years ago but it becomes incredibly confusing with conflicting reports and differing information from survey results. It also opens the door for a lot of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH trying to piece together longer track tornadoes. We're not a breaking news site so there's no issue waiting for survey results to add them to the table. I'm not entirely sure I've liked the recent trend of adding "confirmed by tornado debris signature" entries, either. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Tropical Analyst and Cyclonebiskit. Unless we have a clear cut case of a tornado causing major damage and/or receiving significant media coverage, we should wait until some form of survey confirmation. We've already had OR and SYNTH issue come up with some unconfirmed tornadoes this year. I don't think unconfirmed SPC reports adds much benefit since most, if not all of the information about a reported tornado will change with the survey, many reports will be duplicates, and it won't be clear how any tornado families might break down. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with ChessEric here – inserting them with a hidden comment should work well, especially in cases where it's likely it'll be confirmed. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  23:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Tornado emergency mentioning in summary box
claims "once surveys come out, we drop mention of any tornado emergencies", though the Allendale tornado just a few days ago still has the mentioning in the summary box. I have never heard that "guideline" before about dropping the mentioning of it, so do we drop it or not, because either the Allendale summary is wrong or United States Man is wrong. Anyone know? Elijahandskip (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well since United States Man removed it a 2nd time, I went ahead and removed it from the Allendale tornado as well. If anyone thinks this is wrong, feel free to revert. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

April 10 gone?
Was there vandalism for the tornadoes on April 10 or was it removed for an ok reason? Also the 12th is gone too, and in my time it's the 13th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:681:25A0:0:0:0:45D8 (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Those tornadoes were just hidden. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it or not related to a winter storm?
Can somebody explain to me why this article that describe this complex as : "an extratropical cyclone, a tornado outbreak and a winter storm" does not have the category Category:2021–22 North American winter?

Pierre cb (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 14 April 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. United States Man (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022 North American storm complex → Tornado outbreak of April 11–13, 2022 – This thing where editors want to make up these complex names for systems where the tornado outbreaks have the more dominant impact over the winter storms is getting ridiculous. The article name does not match the layout of the article with the MS documenting the conditions for the tornado outbreak, not the whole system. I'm not saying the blizzard is not notable; I'm saying that it has not caused as much of an impact as the large area of severe weather has. I also want to point out that this situation is different from the March 2021 North American blizzard article from last year because that system had a very small area of severe weather that occurred mainly on one day while the winter storm impacts lasted much longer than that. The bottom line is this: the severe weather and tornado outbreak is the most impactful part of this article and the title needs to reflect this. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Retracting move request The tornado impacts were not as high as I thought they would be and the article as a whole will need all the impacts if we're going to keep it. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Renaming to the proposed name would actually give the outbreak WP:UNDUE/WP:PROPORTIONAL weight, given the blizzard had significant and record-breaking impacts in North Dakota and surrounding regions. This has been done before with the December 2015 North American storm complex which also had a significant tornado outbreak but also a record breaking blizzard in Texas as well. The current title fits perfectly, although given how the event unfolded I might be more inclined to prioritize the blizzard and rename to April 2022 North American blizzard since the tornado outbreak busted pretty badly and only was at its worst during one day similar to the March 2021 storm. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 18:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: I want to point out that the Moderate risk was for strong tornadoes AND significant damaging winds. We didn't have much of the former, but we did have a lot of the latter, so it was not a bust. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional move: I also want to point out that the article you mentioned featured a tornado outbreak, a winter storm, a blizzard, an ice storm, and flooding among other things. The winter weather here didn't even reach Illinois and all I keep seeing are daily records being broken. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Support Neutral – However, it would make even more sense to dump this altogether into a section at Tornadoes of 2022. United States Man (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * After a bit more thought, the tornado event by itself cannot stand as an article, so it either should significantly incorporate the blizzard (and remain at this title) or be merged completely. United States Man (talk) 19:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm not sure which way I lean on this at the moment. One thought, though, is this might be comparable to the October 2013 North American storm complex, which was actually saved from deletion by merging the tornado outbreak and blizzard articles. In response to ChessEric, though. If April 13 was more of a thunderstorm wind event than an tornado event, that would tend to favor a storm complex title over a tornado outbreak. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that. It was more so a response to the claim that yesterday was a bust, which is not true. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think since the blizzard had record breaking proportions, and the wind and precipitation events were also so large it should stay a storm complex. Wikiwillz (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Why not include the blizzard? Of course, we could move and add a section for that, however per opposes above, this move may be needed to be reconsidered. Oppose. Severe  storm  28  22:52, 14 April 2022 (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.

Stop jumping the gun, please
This is specifically directed at user Elijahandskip. I have on multiple occasions reverted you after you added extra dates to an outbreak based entirely on tornado emergencies and without any discussion with this community, yet you tried to extend this to today's date (the 15th). I have on multiple occasioned explained that tornado emergencies alone do NOT confirm that a violent tornado has occurred, and that major damage needs to be confirmed first, but you did it anyway. Whether people want to hear this or not, tornado emergencies are overused these days and are frequently issued with not enough basis, and frequently, no major damage occurs. For example, the recent Mayflower, AR tornado emergency produced nothing more than a brief EF1. But most irritating of all, you tried to add a tornado that has absolutely nothing to do with the weather system that produced the previous ones within this article. This says to me you aren't really paying attention to the synopsis of these weather events, and are just trying to tack on as many tornadoes to one article as you can. The bottom line is, myself and other users are getting increasingly annoyed at hasty additions with not enough basis, clearly added by excitable users geeking out over real time tornado coverage, unable to approach this in an objective manor or wait for the facts. The fact that this has been explained multiple times already suggests that this user is willfully ignoring the requests made by others, and is therefore being disruptive to the editing process. I think I speak for others when I say we are getting sick of this. If it keeps going on, I'm just going to start reverting without informing this user of their mistakes or trying to give constructive criticism, because it is clearly falling on deaf ears, and I'm not going to waste more time typing up stuff like this. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * Actually, the source I listed was directly from the National Weather Service confirming the tornado. Please do not accuse me of adding it "based entirely on tornado emergencies".  I understand to stop jumping the gun, but also, I do not accept the accusations that are false. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * A confirmed tornado does not mean that a significant tornado has occurred, so you are missing the point. It doesn't matter anyway, because the storm system that produced the tornadoes from April 11-13 is over the Atlantic Ocean right now! It ended days ago! Today's tornadic activity has absolutely nothing to do with the storm system article is written about. Pay closer attention, get your facts straight, and stop making expansions based on preliminary information.
 * TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * For proof, The source listed in this addition was NWS Little Rock Tweet which says "Tornado on the ground". So while I am listening to stop jumping the gun, I am also going to warn you to not make false accusations against me. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, I am not denying a tornado occurred, I'm denying it had anything to do with the April 11-13 storm system, and I am denying there is any evidence that it was significant. You are addressing things that have nothing to do with what I'm concerned about, so my point still stands 100%. My "accusations" are justified.
 * TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * I do agree that a tornado emergency in and of itself, does not mean that a tornado was significant. SPC reports do indicate that there was a wedge. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't negate the fact that this is a completely different parent storm system. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is funny since nothing actually touched down. LOL! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Your accusations are not justified, so I ask that you recant them specifically. I will admit I did jump the gun and did not read the synopsis section.  I do read the criticism given to me.  Previously, I jumped the gun with the tornado emergency source.  This time, I jumped the gun with a NWS source confirming the tornado emergency.  For jumping the gun, I am sorry for that and I will not jump the gun again and I will make sure to read the meteorological synopsis sections before adding tornadoes.  We are in a miscommunication state currently, because you are fixated on me jumping the gun and adding a tornado to a storm that didn't belong.  I have now apologized for that, so I would kindly ask you recant the accusation that you say is "justified", when in fact, it is a straight lie. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My accusations are that you added a tornado to an unrelated article, and made a decision based on a preliminary report. Both of these things happened, and you just said so yourself, so it isn't debatable. So no, there's nothing to recant. This conversation is over.
 * TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)TornadoInfomration12
 * Agreed. I am going to hide the tornado sections due to the preliminary information. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

EF3 Texas tornado section naming
I respect why TI12 changed the end point for EF3 tornado in Texas from Bell County to Salado. However, I do not agree with it because the tornado was WELL west of Salado and the end point was not even close to there. I know this tornado is mostly being called the Salado tornado, but I really think we should switch it back to Bell County. If not that then lets put it as something like Bell County–Salado like we did with the Putnam County–Cookeville, Tennessee section in the Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. United States Man (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying my suggestion is fine or the way it is right now is fine? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe United States Man is fine with you changing the section renamed "Bell County-Salado". Severe  storm  28  11:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fine with changing it . United States Man (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. I gotcha. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Same as USM. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Salado, Texas tornado radar image
Since there is a section describing the EF3 Salado, Texas tornado, why don't we add a radar image to it? Up to you. Severe storm  28  00:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. I add radar images all the time. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Blank table sections
Just wondering why some of those Mississippi EF1s are blank? I'm assuming they are tracks that have been added to the DAT but no details are available yet? That's fine, I'm just trying to figure out of they are actually supposed to be there or not. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * That was my editing process. Please excuse it ;) United States Man (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)