Talk:List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes

Issue with Grazulis
I realize that one issue with pre-1950 tornadoes in the U.S. is that most of them were rated by Grazulis. Honestly, I would rather not have the same reference repeated hundreds of times. I was thinking, instead of instead citing him at the bottom of each table where we include his material. This would be similar to the format we used for tables on outbreak pages before 2013. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * With how many he did before 1950, I agree that the pre 2013 chart format would be best, just without the rating column. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll take care of that. I'm part way through finishing off 1880 and 1881. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

2017 China Triple EF4
How should the fatalities/injuries be listed for the three EF4s in China during 2017. The source combined the fatalities and injuries between the three consecutive EF4s, so should it just be listed on all three with a note or some other way? ,, , . Elijahandskip (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If the source is not clear on how many people were killed by each tornado, then we can only say how many people died from the event as a whole. Maybe put a 3 with an asterisk for the first one. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can also take a look at the entries for March 20, 1875 as an example, since there is at least one instance where it is unclear which of two tornadoes caused some of the deaths. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what to do so I'll go with on this one. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

1851 Sicily tornadoes
Is there a source for an F4 rating for the 1851 Sicily tornadoes? I can only see one of the two sources, which does not seem to say anything about a rating. Both sources are also present at the article for this event, but no rating is mentioned there. I can see that added the entry, so where did you get the rating info? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just doubled checked. I guess that might have been an accidental addition since I swear I saw it on ESWD, but when I just went to double check, ESWD doesn’t even have the tornadoes documented. Weird. I really don’t remember when I saw it (or even if I really did see it) since ESWD nor the two sources in the article have a rating mentioned. I guess we should remove that. Good catch! Elijahandskip (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It might have been removed. There was another tornado on Wikipedia (I forget which one) with a reference to ESWD, but I couldn't find it there when I checked the date. TornadoLGS (talk)
 * I’m friends with one of the ESWD documenters, so I can ask them to take a look at the reversion history of that date so we can know if it was removed. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

2023 Kingston tornado
What's wrong with adding the 2023 Kingston tornado to the possible EF4 list? I see nothing wrong with it; it had a reference that I checked, and the NWS literally said what was said in the tornado description. Pinging Elijah and United States Man to make their arguments here.

Poodle23 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a possible EF4. I don't know what reference you have. The survey makes vague reference to possible higher wind speeds, but it would be 150 vs. 160. Stop wishcasting tornadoes to have higher ratings. Don't make a mockery of this page right off the bat. United States Man (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is almost the exact same style of wording which got the Mayfield tornado added to the list of possible F5/EF5s. NWS point blank said, “Based on the damage scene and contextual evidence, it is plausible that winds were stronger. However, with only manufactured homes in the path, there appear to be no damage indicators that will allow a higher rating.” The 2021 WK tornado’s addition to the F5/EF5 list was, “the tornado damage rating might have been higher had more wind resistant structures been encountered…” They are almost identical in their meaning, so yeah, this should be on the possible F4/EF4 list. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC about if the 2023 Kingston tornado qualifies as a possible EF4
Does the Old Kingston–Titus–Equality–Lake Martin–Penton, Alabama EF3 tornado on January 12, 2023 qualify for the article’s list of possible F4/EF4 tornadoes with no official rating or lower rating?

Elijahandskip (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 1 — Yes, it qualifies for the list of possible F4 and EF4 tornadoes.
 * Option 2 — No, it does not qualify for the list of possible F4 and EF4 tornadoes.

Discussion

 * Option 1 — I believe it qualifies for the list. The National Weather Service said the following in the damage survey from the tornado: “Based on the damage scene and contextual evidence, it is plausible that winds were stronger. However, with only manufactured homes in the path, there appear to be no damage indicators that will allow a higher rating.” Last year, it was determined a similarly worded statement was a viable reason for the addition of the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado to the list of list of possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes officially rated F4/EF4/T9 or lower. The statement was, “the tornado damage rating might have been higher had more wind resistant structures been encountered…” Since the ideology is the same between them, aka higher intensity tornado that did not hit a structure worthy of a higher rating, the tornado qualifies for the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 2 — While I normally look at the logic of previously included tornadoes and the wording used by the official NWS statements and that would seem to imply that the tornado may have been of a higher rating, the wording here includes that the "winds were stronger". In cases like the 2014 Mayflower EF4, or the Rochelle-Fairdale EF4 in 2015, in both cases the wording included that a "higher rating" may have been needed had the tornado struck more structurally sound structures upon which to inflict the damage. Both were rated as high-end EF4's. As this tornado was rated at a mid-range EF3, the wording "higher winds" does not necessarily imply that these higher winds would have warranted a higher rating (like, EF3 to EF4) had the tornado struck more solid structures, but rather a re-evaluation of its current rating, like assessing it a high-end EF3, for example. Because of that ambiguity in the descriptions, I lean towards the latter option. Mjeims (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 2 - Almost certainly an EF4 in reality, but "it is plausible that winds were stronger" can mean 160 mph vs. 150 mph, not necessarily EF4. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 18:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just an extra comment: If it was just that statement, I would agree with you. However, the exact next sentence says “However, with only manufactured homes in the path, there appear to be no damage indicators that will allow a higher rating.” NWS mentions that they were held back on the “rating”, not just the possibility of higher winds. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ”Rating” means wind speeds in this case. United States Man (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds a little like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEELIJAHANDSKIP. Poodle23 (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 1 Full wording says this: Based on the damage scene and contextual evidence, it is plausible that winds were stronger. However, with only manufactured homes in the path, there appear to be no damage indicators that will allow a higher rating. It doesn't just talk about higher winds, it also says "higher rating" which means it could be a possible EF4. A few people here use the "150 vs 160 mph" argument, but I believe it is false due to the actual wording. Poodle23 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC
 * Option 2 Find a reliable source that directly speculates that the tornado was an EF4, otherwise its not our job to speculate about what higher rating and higher winds may mean. After all we wouldn't speculate that something was a Category 4 tropical cyclone on wiki, unless we had a reliable source telling us it was a Cat 4.Jason Rees (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 2 – per Jason Rees and Cody, in addition to arguments I’ve made against this before. No source explicitly states this was possibly an EF4, because it wasn’t. Elijahandskip’s wishcasting with these “possible lists” over and over isn’t helping the cause. United States Man (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As a personal request, I would like you to stop saying I am “wishcasting” as I am not. I am just trying to repair and create lists, with community feedback and consensus, which you yourself said were a “sham”. Please focus on the content rather than the editor. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears to me that you are going through every possible online source, looking and looking for the slightest sentence or statement in order to try to add something to these lists. That isn’t useful nor helpful. The fact is that very very few tornadoes actually have concrete written evidence that they could be higher on the scale. United States Man (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 2 ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 2 (invited by the bot) Even with the extra latitude given by the squishy title ("possible")(which makes my thought not a slam-dunk)  I think that the inclusion criteria would be a source that mentions EF4 et al as a possibility rather than an editor deriving it from a source. North8000 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 2 Per United States Man and North8000. Penitentes (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 2 I think this is really getting into WP:SYNTH territory. Especially since the estimated winds of 150 mph are only mid-EF3 and we have the whole 155-165 mph range that could qualify this tornado as "stronger" without bumping it up to EF4. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Option 2 Summoned by bot. The article says we need "photographic analysis and eyewitness accounts", or other "evidence pointing to an F4/EF4 or equivalent rating". I don't see that here.  STEM info  (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I will note that is for tornadoes prior to 1950, since there is no official ratings for those in the US. There is a similar section on the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes, which in all honesty, should be on this article. This article was created last year, with the other one (F5/EF5s) was created many years ago. Not saying you are wrong at all, but the need for “photographic analysis and eyewitness accounts” is more on the line of WP:OR (not your comment, the section wording that is), so the wording for the section should probably be changed to reflect it’s F5/EF5 counterpart. Food for thought in the future I guess. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's hard for bot-summoned laymen to understand what's original research or not, but if the wording is misleading, it should be fixed. STEM info  (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

1990 Mobara tornado
I wonder if there are any photographs of the F4 damage from that tornado and what was the reason why JMA went to the F3 rating for that tornado Alvaro Ivan Daniswara 2017 (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

March 21 2013 Mulwala tornado
I couldn't help but notice that it was only officially rated as an F3 by BOM. I can't find any official sources rating it as an ef/f4. Woodsy104 (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Disputed F5/EF5 ratings
So a little thought. We have a section for unofficial F4/EF4 tornadoes either rated F3/EF3 or lower or with no official rating. Should we also, in some capacity, include tornadoes with disputed F5/EF5 ratings? TornadoLGS (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)