Talk:Tornado outbreak of May 15–17, 2013

More to come?
Looks like tornado activity is supposed to continue through the weekend. This will probably need to be expanded and could wind up becoming a sequence. Just throwing this out here (I know it is WP:CRYSTAL). United States Man (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point. There may have been a tornado or two near Shreveport, LA earlier today as well. Sharkguy05 (talk) 22:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05
 * Just update the article and move the page if/when necessary. Simple as that. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nobody likes a smart aleck. Just making sure attention doesn't fall from this page. United States Man (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

For the record, SPC is saying that they suspect that the day with the biggest tornado potential is actually going to be Monday; the models are too divergent from Tuesday on to make Day 6 through Day 8 forecasts, but there should be plenty of "fuel" for further outbreaks on Tuesday and Wednesday, too. Let's keep an eye on things... rdfox 76 (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I get for watching The Weather Channel. I thought the big one was supposed to be Sunday (I should know better). United States Man (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from non-article related discussions on this page. Talk pages meant for constructive conversations on how to improve the article, and not to be used as a forum (WP:FORUM). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * See my comment above: "Nobody likes a smart aleck." Have a little fun. Its not like we're filling up the page with useless rants about TWC. That's where WP:FORUM would apply. United States Man (talk) 23:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As for TWC's info, BTW, SPC's D4-8 Outlook indicates that the biggest severe weather day overall will be Sunday, but the tornado threat is bigger on Monday. However, given that both of these were in the D4-8 outlook at least as of Wednesday, I suspect we're in for something big on both days--large forecast areas that far out tend to indicate that HIGH risk issuances are likely when they come around to D1 and even D2... rdfox 76 (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to note, though, in that regard that two outbreaks in April this year were not as significant as the day 4-8 outlooks seemed to imply, so I wouldn't set my expectations too high. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I moved the page as a result of tornadoes from May 16 and 17 associated with the same system. United States Man (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Today and beyond should be a new article once warranted (assuming it is). It could go on for several days though... CrazyC83 (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we make it a sequence. Mainly because there were tornadoes associated with both systems on the same day. Making two different articles would cause confusion. United States Man (talk) 19:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It's easy to differentiate the tornadoes from the two systems, they didn't occur in the same general area in quick succession. It's also better to keep this outbreak separate due to its notability in Texas (from a technical standpoint, outbreaks did not occur from this system on 5/16 and 5/17 as six tornadoes did not touch down). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "six tornadoes did not touch down"? Anyway, if you don't want to make it a sequence then the new article should start today (the 18th) and the TX, MN, and NE tornadoes from the 17th should be left out. If it is made a sequence, then those can be included as well. United States Man (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As a general rule of thumb, a tornado outbreak is defined as at least six to ten tornadoes touching down over the course of less than 12 hours (not exactly sure on the exact duration, 12 is a rough estimate). For it to be a tornado outbreak sequence, there would have to be a string of these outbreaks with no more than a day in between them. With May 15 being an outbreak, the three days between that and the expected event today would be too long. I'm not exactly sure how related yesterday's TX tornadoes were but the ones in NE and MN are related to the upcoming event and should be mentioned. It's fine if the article dates overlap since they're different events. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see now. The TX tornado may have been related (I'm not sure), but I think it would be a good idea to go ahead and include it. United States Man (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not entirely sure about the tornadoes from yesterday either, there were a whole bunch of low rolling around. I'm fine either way about including them or not, though this seems like it'll mostly be a large hail event. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I really wasn't expecting anything big (tornado-wise) either. We may not even need an outbreak page. United States Man (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

When I checked, it looked like this forecast severe weather is from the same slow-moving system. So should this count as an outbreak sequence article if Sunday and Monday turn out to be significant? TornadoLGS (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * According to Cyclonebiskit, it would not be a sequence because May 16 and 17 were small events. So we would start a new outbreak page, assuming there is not a forecast fail over the next two days.United States Man (talk) 04:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's the same system May 18-20 (as suggested by the forecasts) would be a single tornado outbreak per previous wiki articles. A sequence would be two or more defined systems producing outbreaks in rapid succession that are relatively difficult to differentiate whereas this would be a single system producing back-to-back outbreaks, generally considered one overall outbreak. The tornadoes listed in this article are easy to tell apart from the other system so it can be kept a separate event. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)