Talk:List of United States tornadoes in 1946

Page Progress
January ✅

February ✅

March ✅

April ✅

May ✅

June ✅

July ✅

August ✅

September ✅

October ✅

November ✅

December ✅

Elijahandskip (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

"17,600 yards wide"
I can't be the only one who has a problem with this. There are two tornadoes listed as having a width of 17,600 yards (10 miles) and about six more with ridiculously high widths. These are clearly unreliable estimates and possibly mistakes. Lets use WP:COMMONSENSE here and if not remove them, add a footnote saying the width. There is already a consensus to remove unreliable information/mistakes (established here). Yes, it is from the unreliable, pre-150 US Weather Bureau era, but's misleading to say that there were two tornadoes in one year that were 10 miles wide. Infinity (talk - contributions) 00:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We can't just deprecate the US Weather Bureau (despite them being obvious errors). There is a reason NOAA started in 1950 for their record keeping. Pre-1950 USWB records are full of errors. WP:UNKNOWN & WP:OR are at play here. If we exclude those tornadoes, we are doing "original research" to say USWB messed up. If we mark the widths as unknown, well, WP:UNKNOWN. I would go along with a footnote style idea to say the officially widest recognized tornado is 2013 El Reno tornado at 2.6 miles wide. So here is what I will do. The tornadoes have to stay, but as soon as I post this, I will write up a footnote and put it on all 7 of the tornadoes USWB marked wider than El Reno. I think that's the best way we can do it, since removal isn't really an option (as that is basically a deprecation of USWB (US Government) official documents). Elijahandskip (talk) 00:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

footnote complete. Here is what I put, The officially recognized widest tornado in history is the 2013 El Reno tornado, with a width of 2.6 mi. This tornado was marked by the United States Weather Bureau to have been wider than the 2013 El Reno tornado. However, due to recognition of that tornado as the widest tornado, it is should be taken that this width is most likely an error from the U.S. Weather Bureau. Feel free to change the wording for it, but I have (and will) make sure it is on every tornado marked by USWB to be wider than 2013 El Reno. Cheers! Elijahandskip (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that looks good. Infinity (talk - contributions) 00:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

MWR interpretation
Just to let those working on this article know, in the character of the storm field, if it gives 'do' that does not mean tornado, it's a repeat character type of the last one listed. Several of these tornadoes in the article are not actually tornadoes. Supportstorm (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you link to where that is mentioned in the MWR articles? Would help out trying to sort these out. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's heavily inferred this is the intended way to read the table. For example the November 7th NE "tornado" makes no sense in the context of a snowstorm. The entry has snowfall above and do after which just means the below entry was also snowfall. Supportstorm (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed these entries. Next step would be to look at the yearbook and Weather Bureau Technical Paper No. 20 to check for missing tornadoes and revise the width and length in the article to those listed by Thomas P. Grazulis. His research is regarded as more reliable than whatever the MWR has. Supportstorm (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The widths are a combination of Grazulis and USWB. In the charts, all the X to Y widths are Grazulis and USWB widths/lengths. Some Grazulis tornadoes didn’t have widths or lengths, but USWB had a width/length or vise versa. Since we have two separate sources (with neither being classified official sources), both should be listed per WP:VNT. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not clear from the article which is which and I wasn't clued in until you told me. Either create a separate table column to list length/width of both sources or add notes to tell readers which value is coming from which source. Supportstorm (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn’t really a need to do that since pre-1950 US tornadoes have no official information. WP:VNT basically says both can be used and there really isn’t a need to split Grazulis vs USWB stuff. That would give undue weight to Grazulis info, which is already borderline since all the ratings listed are from him. The only way this can be an article is with other sources besides Grazulis, which means all the USWB stuff as well as any newspaper stuff found. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Aside from that, what's the call? Should the 'do' reports be noted as tornadoes, or should they not? I'm working on a 1945 tornado list and I'm not sure by this discussion if the 'do' reports be used in the list. Pinging and. Tails  Wx  21:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If a "do" appears under a "tornado", "small tornado" or "tornadoes", include it. If the full-named event above it isn't one of those, don't include it. The "do" is basically a repeat the previous event' thing. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Copy editing - Table formatting suggestion/question
I’m going to go through the text in the tables first, then the footnotes, formatting, and anything else I’ve missed. The table formatting is kind of a mess currently though. What do people think of formatting it like this:


 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="width:100%;"

! rowspan="2"|F# ! class="unsortable" | Location / County (Parish) !State !Time (Local) !Path length !Max path width ! colspan="5" | Summary In Stoneburg, a church was obliterated, with debris splintered and scattered for a mile. That said, a linen scarf was untouched that laid on the pulpit. Elsewhere along the tornado's track, an elderly man was killed and his wife injured after their house was destroyed. A "prominent elderly couple" were killed after their homes and every barn on their new ranch was leveled. The U.S. Weather Bureau considered this tornado and the following tornado the same, while Grazulis split the tornadoes up. In total, three people were killed, 15 others were injured, and the tornado caused $112,000 (1946 USD) in damage. A home on the north side of Sanger was leveled and three others were leveled east of the town. East of Sanger, a nine-year-old girl was killed by flying debris while she ran for the storm cellar. The U.S. Weather Bureau considered this tornado and the following tornado the same, while Grazulis split the tornadoes up. In total, one person was killed and five others were injured.
 * +List of confirmed tornadoes – Saturday, May 18, 1946
 * bgcolor="" rowspan="2"|FU
 * Beloit / Lyon
 * IA
 * 18:30
 * 2 to 3 mi
 * >0 yd
 * colspan="5" |Several trees were uprooted, and small buildings and windmills were damaged.
 * bgcolor="" rowspan="2"|F4
 * SE of Stoneburg to NE of Bowie / Clay, Montague, Denton
 * TX
 * 19:00
 * 30 mi
 * 400 yd
 * colspan="5" |3 dead & 15 injured -
 * 30 mi
 * 400 yd
 * colspan="5" |3 dead & 15 injured -
 * colspan="5" |3 dead & 15 injured -
 * bgcolor="" rowspan="2" |F4
 * Around Sanger / Denton
 * TX
 * 20:00
 * 8 mi
 * 200 yd
 * colspan="5" |1 dead & 5 injured -
 * colspan="5" |1 dead & 5 injured -
 * colspan="5" |1 dead & 5 injured -
 * }

Instead of the current format:


 * {| class="wikitable sortable" style="width:100%;"

! scope="col" style="width:3%; text-align:center;" |F#
 * +List of confirmed tornadoes – Saturday, May 18, 1946

! scope="col" style="width:9%; text-align:center;" class="unsortable" |Location ! scope="col" style="width:6%; text-align:center;" class="unsortable" |County / Parish ! scope="col" style="width:5%; text-align:center;" |State ! scope="col" style="width:6%; text-align:center;" |Time (Local) ! scope="col" style="width:6%; text-align:center;" |Path length ! scope="col" style="width:6%; text-align:center;" |Max width ! scope="col" class="unsortable" style="width:48%; text-align:center;" |Summary
 * bgcolor="" |FU
 * Beloit
 * Lyon
 * IA
 * 18:30
 * 2 to 3 mi
 * >0 yd
 * Several trees were uprooted, and small buildings and windmills were damaged.
 * bgcolor="" |F4
 * SE of Stoneburg to NE of Bowie
 * Clay, Montague, Denton
 * TX
 * 19:00
 * 30 mi
 * 400 yd
 * 3 deaths &#x2013; In Stoneburg, a church was obliterated, with debris splintered and scattered for a mile. That said, a linen scarf was untouched that laid on the pulpit. Elsewhere along the tornado's track, an elderly man was killed and his wife injured after their house was destroyed. A "prominent elderly couple" were killed after their homes and every barn on their new ranch was leveled. The U.S. Weather Bureau considered this tornado and the following tornado the same, while Grazulis split the tornadoes up. In total, three people were killed, 15 others were injured, and the tornado caused $112,000 (1946 USD) in damage.
 * bgcolor="" |F4
 * Around Sanger
 * Denton
 * TX
 * 20:00
 * 8 mi
 * 200 yd
 * 1 death &#x2013; A home on the north side of Sanger was leveled and three others were leveled east of the town. East of Sanger, a nine-year-old girl was killed by flying debris while she ran for the storm cellar. The U.S. Weather Bureau considered this tornado and the following tornado the same, while Grazulis split the tornadoes up. In total, one person was killed and five others were injured.
 * }
 * 200 yd
 * 1 death &#x2013; A home on the north side of Sanger was leveled and three others were leveled east of the town. East of Sanger, a nine-year-old girl was killed by flying debris while she ran for the storm cellar. The U.S. Weather Bureau considered this tornado and the following tornado the same, while Grazulis split the tornadoes up. In total, one person was killed and five others were injured.
 * }
 * Either will display:


 * Argenti Aertheri (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure! I can take the helm of the proposal. WeatherWriter (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Copy editing issues/questions/status
As of June 23 I’ve done a once over for January-April, but I’ve already run into a few issues (besides the table formatting, that’s its own thing) Actually, suggestions on how to handle Grazulis in general? This currently reads a lot like a summary of his book. Much of this article comes from a single source, reputable source or not, that doesn’t sit right. At least 15 lists tornadoes cite only his book (which is cited in at least 3 different ways) Argenti Aertheri (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) There are a lot of quotation marks without linked citations making it nearly impossible to tell if they’re part of a later citation or scare quotes. If the former, include a citation with quotation, if the latter, drop the quotes.
 * 2) Does every day/table need a section header and then a table caption immediately after when both say virtually the same thing? Can the captions be dropped or would that cause some sort issue?
 * 3) Quite a few tornadoes have a width/length of “>0 yd (0 m)”, if it’s unknown, just say that.
 * 4) Suggestions on how to handle tornadoes with no real information besides “Grazulis says a tornado occurred”?
 * Hey ! I’ll try my best to answer some of the questions, but obviously I hope others add their comments and thoughts as well.
 * Yeah, the quotation issue needs to be addressed. I’ll have to go back through to figure out what quotes need a citation and such. I thought (probably wrong though) that most of the quotes had a source at the end of the sentence. That probably created some confusion, however, since the two main sources are the US Government and Grazulis.
 * I’m not exactly sure. Almost all the tornado charts on Wikipedia have a section header (I’m assuming you are referring to the “List of confirmed tornadoes – Friday, January 4, 1946” type of headers). That might need to be a question for WikiProject Weather through some formalized vote since articles like List of United States tornadoes in June 2023 (current month’s tornado chart) and List of tornadoes in the 2011 Super Outbreak (Top importance list article for WP Weather) use it. The charts were basically a copy/paste from all the other list articles.
 * The “>0 yd (0 m)” was to satisfy WP:UNKNOWN, since for those, neither Grazulis nor the US Government said the specified detail (width or path length) and they didn’t say it was “unknown”. That can be an easy fix though. Hopefully someone else jumps in for this question.
 * Grazulis is an oddity. The book being cited is nearly 1,500 pages long and it is basically every significant tornado in the US from 1680 to 1991. The modern day National Weather Service basically cites his book for every article they publish for any tornadoes prior to 1950 (can back that up with sources if needed). There was a few instances were Grazulis documented a tornado (through newer research he did during the 80s and 90s) that the then US Weather Bureau did not document or vice versa. I’m not exactly sure how to treat it besides just a large source. His research does often differ slightly from what the US Government (US Weather Bureau back in the 40s or modern day National Weather Service) say and publish as he doesn’t always agree with the ratings given to tornadoes. The book is weird since on one hand, it is an extremely large database. On the other hand though, it isn’t an official-style database as it point blank disagrees with some of the widely published (US Government and media publication) tornadoes. A good example (while not exactly applicable in this article) is the 1953 Worcester tornado (also another article in need of some work…time to add this to my long list of weather articles in need of help) . In the large book, Grazulis rated the tornado F5 (different than the F4 rating from the National Weather Service) and he spent half a page explaining why it was “F5” rather than “F4”. I’ve always interpreted the book as equivalent to one huge academic paper. The first 300 pages are not part of the tornado database either, but rather more of an actual academic paper, explains how tornadoes form, what outbreaks are, ect…. I hope this helped explain why Grazulis is a source for basically everything listed in the article. In any case, for most of the tornadoes here, there is other sources like the US Government or newspapers to help with citations. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Another thing I forgot to mention is that Grazulis’s book(s) are cited on probably nearly a thousand articles. Some big name ones like the 1974 Super Outbreak, List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes and really just about every tornado-related article up through 1991. WeatherWriter (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it’s been weird trying to tweak sentences without knowing what’s a direct quote and what isn’t.
 * I’m face-palming, hard. I don’t know why that didn’t occur to me! Forget I asked, it was just a tiny thing vaguely bothering me, nothing worth making a fuss.
 * Maybe instead of “>0” we could use an em-dash? Though the width of a tornado 80 years might actually be unknowable.
 * I worded my question poorly, I’m not questioning his expertise, it just sits weird that this list, and the others, are largely based on a single source. An expert’s books that are, in essence, databases, is certainly a good source. I guess I was questioning whether tornadoes only mentioned by him should be included, but looking at it again it makes sense!
 * Argenti Aertheri (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Since it is a citation mess (probably the best word to describe it), should the citation go directly at the end of the quote rather than at the end of the sentence, or should I alter the wording to say who said the quote and leave the citations at the end of the sentence?
 * 3. Yeah, em-dash would probably be best. If the US Government nor Grazulis listed the detail, it is surely forgotten and unknown for history. Sadly, we can’t just put that it is unknown because of the no original research rule. But yeah, putting “&ndash ;” in place of those >0 things would make the charts cleaner and still show the unknown aspect. I’ll get to work on that as well.
 * WeatherWriter (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I’d say handle the quotes on a case by case basis. For example I’d leave the first quotation marks here alone, and either drop the second, or expand the quoted text
 * "The US Weather Bureau describes it as a 'small tornado', with a path length of 4–5 miles, while stating that about 45 buildings were 'demolished' and that 50 other buildings were damaged."
 * I’m less concerned whether each quote has an inline citation, my concern is more with the times it could be mistaken for scare quotes. So the above sentence could become:
 * ... stating that about 45 buildings were demolished and that 50 other buildings were damaged.
 * ... stating that "about 45 buildings were demolished" and that 50 other buildings were damaged.
 * ... stating that "about 45 buildings were demolished and that 50 other buildings were damaged".
 * ... stating that around 45 buildings were destroyed and another 50 damaged.
 * My preference is for the final option, but any of them work. Though I am guessing on where the quote begins and ends, so please check the source(s) if you go for those. Thanks :)


 * 08:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC) ETA: Assume a anywhere it says several, some, many, a few, about, dozens, hundreds, or anything similar. I’m not going to turn this into tag hell when I know it’s being worked on 😀
 * I got some unfortunate news. Most of the times where it says those words are actually the words from US Weather Bureau or Grazulis or both. When I go back through for the quote check later today, I’ll make sure none of those words are from an editor adding them in. Would it be best to add an in-line citation right after those type of words if that is actually the word used? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m going to need to think about this and get back to you. Especially since I didn’t realize the book is well over 1,000 pages and there are no page numbers given. Citing the page number for every time the exact number was lost to history seems a bit excessive, but as it stands I couldn’t check anything even if I had the book (I don’t, and apparently can’t easily get it). Perhaps it would be best to include something in the opening? Maybe give the chapter and page number range, and, if possible, an exact quote from Grazulis about how some details were just never recorded? I don’t know the best answer here, I’ll do some more research later though and see what I can dig up. ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 00:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just a head’s up that the citation for “Grazulis book” (reference #1) has the pages for the 1946 tornadoes listed in the citation; 922–925. I’m not sure if that covers what you are thinking about, but I wanted to make sure you knew about that. Out of the entire book, only those 4 pages contain information related to tornadoes on this article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, that works for the citation then! But for the imprecise numbers? I don’t think there’s going to be a one size fits all approach, unfortunately. It would be nice if there was a quote from Grazulis saying he was a precise as records allowed.
 * I’ll go through and the ones that really leave me scratching my head, and deal with the rest as best as I can. I didn’t want to litter a work in progress with inline tags, but I’ve finished everything except May and June (oof!) so I guess we’ve reached that point.  ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 09:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I finished May and June 🎊 I’ve also started a semi-final pass through, and am done through May (I am beginning to hate May). I figure I’ll give it one last look once you and the weather project have gone through the tags. ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 01:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * 13:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC) ETA: Found a biggie, May 16: "A large family home, "shacks" (smaller homes)..." Does the source actually use the word "shack"? IMO, that word is a bit too loaded for the context, either directly quote the whole phrase, or let’s drop it and just say "one large home, and several smaller homes" (replacing several with an exact number if possible)
 * ~ Argenti Aertheri (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The exact quote from the US Weather Bureau for this one was “Negro shacks and other miscellaneous farm buildings…” Sadly, this is pre-civil rights movement, so open racism was still super prevalent. Probably replacing it will smaller homes would be best. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:22, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do, thanks for checking ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 00:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m finally done! Everything’s been double checked, all the tables converted, and the citations given a once over. The Grazulis book is cited three times as the tables being imported from other places count as a new citation, I don’t know if there’s a way around that, or if it matters. Please ping me once you look at the inline tags @WeatherWriter, I’m invested at this point Face-smile.svg ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 04:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Will do! I’ll spend some time today and tomorrow to go through the in-line citations! Thank you so much for the time you spent already on this list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Quotation checks
The done/not done is just for checking quotes and who said what.

January ✅
 * Jan 6 Seven Pines tornado says “nearly every building…”, which is from the US Weather Bureau (USWB) and is cited at the end of the sentence. Would it be best to put that in quotes, as those three words are the direct words from USWB? Other than that, January is done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

February ✅
 * Feb 27 has a set of quotations around “demolished”. That is from the USWB source at the end of that sentence. Should something be included about USWB being the one to say the house was demolished, or is the citation at the end of the sentence ok for that one? Besides that question, February is done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

March ✅
 * March 15, I think, is cited ok. It mentions the USWB and Grazulis info separately and says “USWB” or “Grazulis” before saying their info. It feels a little messy still, but I’m not sure how else to change it and everything is cited properly. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * March 27 — Both USWB and Grazulis say “several barns”, no numbers given, and both citations are at the end of the sentence. Should “several barns” be put in quotes or would it be fine given this circumstance? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

April ✅
 * April 5 — Grazulis said, “A large barn and a smaller barn were destroyed on separate farms.” USWB says, “Large barn and several small farm buildings demolished.” This one for sure needs improvement. Should I split up the Grazulis and USWB information into two sentences, or should I put quotes (or a citation for USWB) after the …several smaller farm building… in the article? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

May ✅
 * May 16 — “smaller homes” was Wiki-added on purpose due to USWB saying “Negro shacks and other farm buildings”. Making a note of that here, but we should ignore that.
 * May 18 (FU) — Only source is USWB and no numbers given. Best as is.
 * May 18 — The relevant tag: Not sure what to do here. The relevance (coming from someone who is mid-college for a meteorology degree) is that untouched scarf is the reason it wasn’t marked as an F5 tornado. Grazulis did not specifically state that though, so I can’t put it in the article. He did specifically mention the scarf being untouched though. Would it be best to remove it, or leave it since it is something important for meteorology-readers, but irrelevant for general readers?
 * May 23 (first F3) — Says several buildings on six farms. Given Grazulis says the number of farms, but not the total number of farm buildings, the “several” should be fine.
 * May 23 (“Feelers”) — Another instance of Grazulis using quotes himself. More research for me. I added a citation after the quote for that reason.
 * May 23 (Ray/Carrol count) — Grazulis said “Homes and barns were destroyed all along the track.” Article says, A long-tracked and intense tornado damaged or destroyed numerous homes and barns. It should be fine, since it re-words what he said and keeps the meaning. Should “numerous” be removed, or would it be fine given the plural nature of the quote from Grazulis?
 * May 24 (first tornado and F3 tornado) — That first sentence is like a “lead” sort of for these tornadoes. Numbers are given in following sentences, so it should be fine.
 * May 29 (clarify) — USWB said, “Chief loss in wheat ranging from 25 to 100 percent.” Nothing else. Not sure what else to say. A LOL facepalm moment for anyone trying to understand what the heck they mean.
 * May 30 (FU) — No numbers were given.
 * May 30 (F2 #1) — Grazulis said, “Homes, barbs and businesses were unroofed”. I added quotes as I realize that was another accidental plagarism of Grazulis I did. Whoops.
 * May 31 (F2) — “Several” is used by USWB, so the article’s Multiple should be fine. No specific numbers given for how many buildings. Just four farms.

June

July

August

September

October

November

December ✅
 * Dec 28 (first tornado) — What is the MOS rules for how many words can be directly said in a row without quotes? The article says, Dozens of homes and thousands of trees were damaged or destroyed. The exact quote from Grazulis (I added the citation at the end of the sentence) is “Losses included dozens of homes and thousands of trees”. Dozens of homes and thousands of trees is seven duplicate words. I’m not sure what the MOS rule would be in this circumstance. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Dec 29 — Weird situation again. So Grazulis actually put that phrase in quotes, so it wasn’t from him. I added a citation at the end of the quote, but I need to try to look where the heck he got that quote from. I’m guessing some newspaper? Anyway, Grazulis also says “About 100 trucks were destroyed along with several buildings”. USWB clarifies those buildings were military buildings and also says “several stock and tobacco barns”. How should the few times of “several” be handled here since no numbers (except the 100 trucks) is given from either source, but USWB is the only one to mention the buildings being military, stock, and tobacco related? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Ending signature to not get unsigned on talk page. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just wanting to ping you. I got Jan—April and December done. I’ll finish the rest tomorrow. I removed a few several, but I got a handful of questions for the best way to handle certain tornadoes. At least instead of sorting 100+ tornadoes, I might be able to make it only 10-12 that need some MOS research work. If you have a question from the months I went though that I didn’t make a note of here, let me know. I’m just letting you know about these months already done so you get the MOS questions broken up some. Getting some sleep now before I hit May and June (painful months). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Jan 6: edited to include direct quote
 * Feb 27: dropped the quotes
 * March 15: stuck a line break between the two
 * March 27: ignoring it
 * April 5: hmmm “At least two farms were damaged, with a large barn and other smaller buildings being destroyed”?
 * May 16: yep
 * May 18 (FU): agree, leave as is
 * May 18: Did any semi-reliable, quotable, source say that? Until just now I thought it was noted as a religious thing, hence the tag. If you can find any kind of quote to back your speculation, cite it, otherwise I think drop it probably. As someone whose only tornado experience involved a basement I didn’t see the weather connection.
 * May 23 (first F3): agreed
 * May (“feelers”): good luck!
 * May 23 (Ray, Carrol): leave it
 * May 24: ok, leave as is
 * May 29: well that’s just dandy. I rewrote it a tiny bit so it should be clear that the confusion comes straight from the government.
 * May (FU): k
 * May (F2 #1): ok, I swapped your “ out for ". iOS default and MoS disagree on that one.
 * May 31 (F2): ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argenti Aertheri (talk • contribs) 07:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Dec 28: Your tactful implication was correct, I was (accidentally) plagiarizing Grazulis. I’ve reworked the entry.
 * Dec 29: rewrote it a bit, take a look and let me know what you think.
 * Good luck on May-June, they’re a lot! ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 04:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually, I should get the since I’m the one who accidentally plagiarized Grazulis. Whoops. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Trout for everyone then! I stumbled upon the actual MoS answer to the question btw: Close paraphrasing. I’ll look at May and then update my list, seems like the easiest way to keep things compact and legible. ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 07:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * — Curtesy ping since May is done. The hour I got for this got used up basically fully for May. June hopefully won’t be too bad since there isn’t a large outbreak in it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Trout for everyone then! I stumbled upon the actual MoS answer to the question btw: Close paraphrasing. I’ll look at May and then update my list, seems like the easiest way to keep things compact and legible. ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 07:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * — Curtesy ping since May is done. The hour I got for this got used up basically fully for May. June hopefully won’t be too bad since there isn’t a large outbreak in it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)