Talk:Tornadoes of 2022/Archive 2

Bolding ratings in remade tornado outbreak tables
Okay; I asked USM about why he is bolding ratings when he was modernizing the tables for the older outbreaks. However, I did not get a response, so I'm bringing it here. Was there a consensus to do this or was this just done by personal preference? Otherwise, I do not understand this practice. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This was something that is present throughout multiple outbreak articles since years ago, the clearest and most relevant example being the 2011 Super Outbreak article. But it has indeed stopped happening for later years, and I have not seen boldened ratings in any article dating from 2014 and up. Since there are a larger quantity of articled that do not emply this trait, I would like to removed boldened ratings from all articles. Or, agree on a consensus that ratings must me boldened since a certain year down, and without it since a certain year to present date. Mjeims (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The bolding was removed in accordance with a FLC in 2013 (Featured list candidates/List of tornadoes in the 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak/archive1) that made a MOS-compliant tornado table. I spent a good deal of time reworking the tables to make them what they are now. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 07:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing in MOS prevents bolding in tables. Only in prose. That FLC was pushed in error by the reviewer. United States Man (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The general consensus has been to remove bolding. This is only time I've ever seen bolding readded. To be frank and honest with you, I see no benefit in bolding. Why are we adding it back now? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Use of the NCEI reports
Are we using the NCEI for final reports or not? I've tried to address this issue on two pages and have been reverted on BOTH. For the List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2020 list page, I was told that a tornado in Oregon was confirmed, even though the 4 sources provided were using preliminary information. I was also told I should "KNOW BETTER" about these situation. The NCEI did not list the tornado and that's why I removed since the NCEI report is used to confirm ALL the tornadoes we list. Then, the 2020 Easter tornado outbreak is in desperate need of NCEI source (it has almost none), but every time I add an update tag it gets removed. THEN I got insulted saying that the DAT was enough and if I didn't like it, I should do it myself. WHY THE HELL SHOULD I DO ANYTHING WHEN I GET THAT ATTITUDE??? I worked on adding sources to almost all of the Tornado outbreak of January 10–11, 2020 and don't have time to always add sources, ESPECIALLY to an outbreak, that had 141 TORNADOES IN IT. I need an answer to this because I'm honestly sick and tired of dealing with this. I'm not adding NCEI sources to all the tornadoes of 2020 and don't accuse me of not working enough to add them. Do it myself? Why don't YOU help yourself? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about the situations described above, but as sort of decided in the Tornadoes of 2021 fatality difference discussion, NCDC (NCEI) are what we go with. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don’t paste update tags all over the place if the information is up to date. Lack of sourcing does not constitute an update tag. Also, as I’ve now said in three different places, NCEI is known for errors, so while it is generally the final place of information as far as location, time, path length/width, etc., it has been known to miss or delete information as well. If information is supported by reliable sources elsewhere, those sources can also be used. This is Wikipedia, not NOAA. United States Man (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Tornado counts are considered preliminary until final publication in the database of the National Centers for Environmental Information." Are we following this or not? If we aren't, this statement needs to change. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 06:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * not using NCEI is ridiculous, they are our final and most reliable source. Half of these errors is just stubbornness from editors. Especially from USM. 70.183.136.26 (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * NCEI is known to have errors. As someone who has gone through each entry from 2018 through present, I have documented a few dozen errors for each of those years. Some more evident than others such as backward paths and typos. They also occasionally miss tornadoes that were surveyed, have PNS issued, but are not included in Storm Data, and were not reclassified another type of severe wind event. There are going to be errors when you have a database this large and with submissions from over a hundred WFOs. NCEI should be the most used source, but I think common sense in this situation should be used. A tornado is missing form Storm Data, but confirmed by PNS or other reputable source should still be included. Supportstorm (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

NCEI deaths errors
A uses added two deaths to tornadoes that occurred in March. While this is normally a case of vandalism, it appears to actually be because of 2 ghastly errors made in the final NCEI reports. Can someone look into this? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like NCEI lists three deaths that were not included in the intial counts for March . It might be worth reaching out to NCEI. Some of the added deaths may be from the injured who died after survey results were released. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean two. (the first link only list an injury) ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:21, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops. Grabbed the wrong link for the first one. this was the one I mean to grab. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh. Lol! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:29, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is stupid. If NECI says there was a death, there was a death. This happens all the time in TCRs. Just add them. 209.173.24.98 (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So an update (July 19 — April Reports released):


 * 1) NWS confirmed in a message that the PA fatality was a mistake. It has since been removed.
 * 2) The Pope, MS tornado specifically states in the report no fatalities occurred, but one injury did. The report table shows 1 fatality/0 injury, so that is a safe assumption it is also a typo. We don’t have any NWS direct confirmation messages saying it is a mistake, so we need to keep it on the charts for now to not violate WP:OR.
 * 3) I had a friend send a message to NWS about if the Crockett, Texas tornado had a fatality, they liked the message, but never responded, which almost seems like it did have a fatality. No confirmation on typo or not, so we have to keep it as well, but I am not somehow thinking it really had a fatality.
 * 4) No “new” fatality reports in the April report release, besides the one from Pembroke which was known. The April reports list 49 tornadic injuries, so we will need to check the Wikipedia charts to make sure we listed all of them. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the updated info. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

May NCEI reports
Hey ya'll! Just wanted to let you know that the May NCEI reports are out, so we can start working on adding them here. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I will start looking through them. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent outbreaks on the portal
. Also who made the portal. I just realized I haven't been updating the recent outbreaks page on the portal, but I do think it would be something other members should pick up. I'm going to keep slowly working through the anniversaries because I have a copy of Significant Tornadoes, but aside from that I might not be very active since I have things off-wiki to sort out. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've noticed them, buttttttttttt college has started back up and I'm really busy. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Most Chinese tornado surveys on Twitter are not "amateur"
There is a misunderstanding regarding the validity of the map surveys posted on Twitter following tornadoes in China. While these map surveys are posted by amateur weather enthusiasts, these surveys are directly sourced from the CMA or other more local but official meteorological bureaus in China, such as the Jiangsu Weather Bureau, so they are indeed official. These Twitter users are in contact with the CMA, and are simply posting the survey results. The Twitter users themselves are not the ones doing the surveys. I will be adding the EF2 rating back to the Guangzhou tornado because of this. Below are CMA and JWB survey maps from the Guangzhou EF2, and a more recent one from the July 20 tornado event, respectively. All this information posted by these accounts is official, and when used as a source last year, the ratings posted by these users were confirmed when CMA released their 2021 tornado totals.

-https://twitter.com/CyanideCN_/status/1537801700093792256

-https://twitter.com/CyanideCN_/status/1549925696541077505

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * So we are considering posts about tornado surveys from Twitter user @CyanideCN_ to be a RS, correct? Just sort of asking because I started a discussion about it earler on the talk page (Talk:Tornadoes of 2022/Archive 1). The main problem is this twitter user never does a reply tweet to the original source of the information, also doesn't always give the original source even was asked. I don't disagree that they could easily be from CMA (as it almost for sure is), but the problem is, there is no verification links to information from a twitter user whos' bio is "Procrastinator | Severe weather enthusiast".  I would love to use them as a RS source for Chinese tornado surveys, but the verification link issue is why I struggle with it. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

So there is a group of Chinese meteorological enthusiasts who I have been in contact with, and I can confirm personally that their connections to Chinese meteorological officials is legitimate. The aforementioned twitter user is one of the people within this group. I have even been sent files of official Chinese tornado surveys and research journals that would otherwise not be accessible to the public. One of the reasons you may not be able to see any official documentation within these survey maps may very well be because they simply aren't in English. Also, the CMA isn't the only entity conducting official tornado surveys. For example, the recent July 20 event was surveyed by the Jiangsu Weather Bureau. I personally know these are legit and reliable, and it would be a huge waste of great Chinese tornado survey information that would otherwise not be available to people outside of China if we discontinue use of these sources. But if others are not comfortable with this, there's only so much I can do. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 22:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * I am ok with it, but I feel like some of the other main editors on this page should say if they are or no ok with it. I think having a WP:Weather discussion from the main contributors agreeing that they can be trusted is ok. I ran into problems on the Portal:Current events when I tried to post the EF3 killer because they weren't RS, and I had no discussions to link to for a dispute/discussion. If everyone else is ok with it, I am 100% on board. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a single EF3. It was an EF2, an EF3, and two EF1s. This is why it's so important to get this information published. Without it, we're just posting inaccurate info due to us here in the United States not getting the full story. Lets hear what others say, but I personally have no problem with it. Honestly, the thought of doing away with what is pretty much our only consistent source for tornado ratings in China is a real bummer, so lets consider that too. Now with that said, even if we decide not to use the ratings, can we at least use these sources to describe the damage and/or fatalities?

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * I would say we can. I personally think there is 0 issues with using them, especially since you explained they are somewhat connected with official meteorological agencies. Honestly, I don’t think anyone will say we can’t use them, but a brief discussion to simulate like a “RS discussion” would be a formality, so it couldn’t be challenge as not RS on WP:Weather/Portal:CE things. Formality more or less because their bio does not contain any references to a government organization and they are not a verified account, which means WP:RS really says it shouldn’t be used, but the exceptions criteria can be met with any consensus, so like if a few people in WP:Weather agree, we should be perfectly find to continue to use them as a source for China tornado surveys. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Nws confirms two tornadoes one In Illinois on the 18th rated a ef1 and on the 19th in new York rated a ef0
Please update the tornadoes in September 2022 and I found this from the storm reports with damage surveys but this is not posted on Iowa state uni page 2600:8800:609E:1900:7DA5:B95E:884:DE4A (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible threat
Should we add the threat for tornadoes from Hurricane Ian? There's already been a few reported tornadoes and there's a greater threat for them in the very near future. TheGamerKlak (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledged but not confirmed tornado?
This was a tornado in New York on July 18th that isn't in the SPC database and I can't find an official report, but there are multiple videos and the NWS Albany acknowledges it as an EFU in a Tweet.

What would be the correct way to add this, if it's well sourced enough at all?

Video from NW

Video from SW

Far video Weatherkidnh (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It can likely be added. Sometimes tornadoes don't immediately enter into the NCDC database. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning tornado emergencies in tornado summaries
I'd like to bode this question so I don't have to strangle someone again: I believe that a tornado that gets a tornado emergency issued on it should have such warning mentioned in their summary as long as it is not mentioned elsewhere in said outbreak article. Can I get a second opinion on this? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In general I am opposed to it. If it is relevant to the storm it could be included. I relented to you for April 2014 event because I'm growing tired of your edit warring and ill behavior. United States Man (talk) 01:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Not the place to say that bro. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:07, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes. I saw that dispute and was going to comment. I do think it's something that warrants mention. It's relatively uncommon and is kind of an indicator of persevered intensity, at least while warnings are being issued. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, since we have an entire article dedicated to a list of United States tornado emergencies, and every time a tornado emergency is issued, it makes national headlines (even if there isn't a tornado like April 15, 2022), it should be mentioned somewhere in the summary of a tornado. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It is an event rare and impactful enough (at least, most times), to warrant some sort of mention. As @ChessEric explains, despite a tornado emergency not granting a guarantee intense/violent intensity to a tornado, it means a tornado, or a menacing supercell, came close to causing a racket over a populated area, and this should be enough to give the tornado/storm merit enough to honor that "occurrence" of a tornado emergency being issued in it's summary. As for disputes, I feel like it is much better to discuss this sort of topics before inmediately reverting/reestating edits which cause conflicts. Mjeims (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * i agree with what @Elijahandskip has said
 * JimmyTheMarble (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree similarly to what @Mjeims said above. Mmapgamerboy (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion
An article covering a tornado that happened this year, 2022 San José Tornado and Thunderstorms, has been nominated for deletion. I figured those involved in tornado articles should know. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

United States lists
I thought it would be best to ask here whether I should merge all the article of US tornadoes in 2022 rather than having different articles for every couple months. I'll also do this for previous years if other editors think it's a good idea for me to do. I think it should be done because there's not much point having separate articles for random months, and it would just be easier to have them all in one article for each year. If I do it I'll need an admin to delete the other articles and to merge the page histories (if needed). Thanks, greyzxq  talk 20:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason we keep lists separated by month is so that they are not excessively long. An average year sees about 1200-1300 tornadoes in the U.S. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand about article lengths, but because they're separated into sections by month it's not different to the current articles except that the next months are easier to find rather than having to go to a different article. greyzxq talk 20:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Tornadic injuries - Notable or not
Just wanting to start a discussion because I don’t think we have really had any tornadoes that have injured a person, but may not actually be notable at the same time. In this edit, removed two waterspouts (different days), that injured three people (2 and 1). Obviously, every tornadic death will be included for obvious reasons, but does tornadic injuries give any justification for mentioning here? Never expected this question to come up, because generally speaking, most tornadic injuries occur from tornadoes that people won’t question being on the list (Like F2/EF2+) or part of an outbreak, but I guess we should at least discuss these three tornadic injuries. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried to hash out some criteria as to when a tornado or outbreak qualifies for an article last year, but u|ChessEric was the only one to respond. One of the criteria I laid out was "a significant number of injuries." The severity of the injuries may be worth considering as well. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Accidently removed a ton of info
Hey everyone, my apologies for deleting all that info in Tornadoes of May 2022. It was not my intention to do so, and I have no idea what happened. I must have made some sort of mistake, but I have no idea what. I just wanted to add some extra detail and sourcing, but obviously something went wrong. Will try again tomorrow but more carefully. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * Yeah, saw that. I left a message on your talk page about what might have gone wrong. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

November 4th (potential tornado outbreak)
I don't know if anyone is online currently but when the pre frontal supercells start producing tornadoes should we make a artical? just wondering Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * A draft has to come before the article itself. I've commited that mistake before. Plus, no supercells are currently ongoing yet. But if an outbreak is to happen, a draft has to be made before we publish an article and expand it properly. Mjeims (talk) 18:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Let’s not start a draft at least until a few of the tornadoes are confirmed. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * currently one supercell with a large lowering im pretty sure Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Major tornado outbreake ongoing Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Draft has been started: Draft:Tornado outbreak of November 4–5, 2022. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgot to ping., , . Elijahandskip (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ummmm...I made this. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll just use the page for something else. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, the tornado outbreak looks to be a significant event. Sarrail (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. We got a major outbreak today. Its time to get working. Mjeims (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sarrail (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Which one should we work in? I'm leaning more on @Sarrail's version for now. Mjeims (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Same draft. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

October European Outbreak Article?
Hey so I know the significant Arklatex outbreak that just occurred is the priority, but what's the deal with the October Europe outbreak article? It was agreed that we'd either add a table and make it an outbreak article that explains beyond the EF3 in Bihucourt, France or we'd get rid of it altogether. So far, neither of those actions have been taken, so what are we doing? I'll gladly fill out a table, but I have issues with finding specifics such as counties/regions for European events, so I'd need someone to at least help set that part up before I get to work and fill in the rest. But if nobody wants to do that, I say lets just pull the article and I'll cover all 9 tornadoes in a section summary. The way it is now serves no real purpose. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * Update: I caved, added a table, and moved it.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Is IDABEL an EF4?
On the Nov. 4-5 Tornado Outbreak page, it said “Idabel was an EF4,” or something like that. So was that a vandal or was it true? 2601:248:681:25A0:0:0:0:3F6C (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * no, some ip prerated it as a ef4+ for no reason Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * nvm Lolkikmoddi-h3t3 :D (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Be careful with hyperbole
I'm noticing lately that any tornado that causes even just one fatality is being described as "deadly". While technically correct, when a word is overused, it loses its impact and significance. The word "deadly" should be reserved for tornadoes that result in a considerable number of fatalities. Remember, we're here to provide accurate and unbiased information, not sensationalize. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12


 * I agree that it is overused sometimes—I think it should be used less and even when it is used "fatal" is often a more clinical and accurate word—it tells you that caused a fatality or multiple fatalities but it doesn't make it sound quite as sensational. Penitentes (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Using photos with no clear public domain or permission?
I am suspicious of at least one of the photos being used in sections and articles here. The photo of the actual Clarksville, TX tornado itself seem to have just been pulled from Twitter. It seems like that would be against the rules but I am not entirely clear on that, and nobody has brought it up or tried to take it down. Is this allowed? TornadoInformation12 (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * I actually asked a mod via the Wikipedia discord because I was suspicious of that as well. (Also, I did try to remove it, but the original uploaded, said he got permission for it and re-added it). Basically, the photographer agreed publicly on Twitter it could be uploaded on Wikipedia, but never specified what copyright license it could be uploaded as. So, unless someone found that out and emailed the volunteer copyright thingy, the image is set for deletion in a few days. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Alec never specified any sort of license for the image, so I assumed that since he granted us permission to use it that it was public domain. I’m not very well educated in the many different kinds of licenses, so if you could ask him on twitter and show the list of licenses to him on Wikipedia for uploading images, we could get this whole situation resolved I would believe. Thanks. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"Tornado outbreak sequence of May 1–5, 2022" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Tornado outbreak sequence of May 1–5, 2022 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 22 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jay 💬 07:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Can we add damage photos from the Northern Tornadoes Project?
The Northern Tornadoes Project is the most accurate, up to date, and comprehensive database of recent tornadoes in Canada, and has something called the NTP Dashboard, which is essentially the Canadian equivalent of the Damage Assessment Toolkit. It includes damage points and damage pictures, and I was wondering if I could add photos from it to the Tornadoes of 2022 page, and if so, what permission would it fall under? I don't know a lot about this topic, so any help would be appreciated. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12?

Possible November 29 outbreak
Hello! Seeing the likelyhood of an outbreak today, I went ahead and began creating the draft for its article. I know no tornadoes have been confirmed as of now, but its good to have something to start from, like we did last time. I've already written a meteorological synopsis and some basic info, and the template is ready to begin receiving new info. If, with luck, no significant outbreak develops, then we may delete the page, but here is the initial draft from which to work on: Draft: Tornado outbreak of November 29, 2022. Then again, it may be WP: TOOSOON, but its just a draft, and it may be eliminated if needed. Mjeims (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Fatality errors for two tornadoes this year
Good morning, I would like to note that two tornadoes listed as having caused a fatality this year are errors, thanks to erroneous NCDC reports. The first is the EF-2 that impacted Crockett, Texas on March 21, 2022; the NCDC entry, though it lists a fatality occurring, does not mention the fatality in the event narrative. The NWS Houston webpage on the outbreak and the original PNS also do not list a fatality as having occurred, only 10 injuries. Additionally, the fatality details are not listed in the entry, rather they were set to the entries that we saw with the other NCDC fatality errors this year. Tornado Outbreak - March 21/22, 2022 (weather.gov) Storm Events Database - Event Details | National Centers for Environmental Information (noaa.gov)

The second fatality error this year is the Panola County, Mississippi EF-1 on March 30, 2022. Unlike the above error, the erroneous fatality was actually removed and only one injury occurred, though the default fatality detail table still remains. This fatality, like the above entry, is not listed in the event narrative, nor is it seen on the NWS Jackson CWA/statewide tornado count page and the NWS Memphis webpage for the outbreak. The original PNS also does not mention this fatality, like the above entry, 2022 NWS Jackson/Mississippi Tornado Information (weather.gov) March 30, 2022 Tornadoes (weather.gov) Storm Events Database - Event Details | National Centers for Environmental Information (noaa.gov)

With this information in mind, we should be at 19 US fatalities and 28 worldwide fatalities for the year, not 21 and 30. Thank you! Gio52903 (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked at all the available information for the Mississippi and found no evidence of a fatality except a mistake in the NCDC report and the fact that SPC has it listed here. This local news article about the tornado states that is was a minor injury. Memphis and NCDC also list an injury, but accidentally lists a death in the table at the bottom of the NCDC storm report. I think this is a likely error on SPC's part, unless the person died later on after the event. United States Man (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This was discussed a few months ago. Basically out of the three incorrect NCEI database fatalities, only one has a confirmation publically from NWS that it was wrong. The Crockett, TX and Pope, MS tornadoes do not have public confirmations that they were wrong while Lairdsville, PA does. Both local NWS offices were asked, but neither replied about the inaccurate reports. So, all we have to go on is the NCEI database reports (which NWS has directed me in the past saying they are official). Its sad, but due to Wikipedia’s WP:OR policy, the official reports state two extra fatalities, and NOAA refuses to acknowledge they are inaccurate, therefore, we must add them. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Bringing back old articles that got removed?
I know this is regarding old information, but I have to post if here for visibility. So between the Iowa tornado outbreak of July 2018, and the recent Tornado outbreak of November 29–30, 2022, I think that the removal of the August 24, 2016 tornado outbreak article from a few years ago is unfounded when compared to other articles that cover outbreaks of roughly the same level of significance. The August 2016 event was also highly anomalous due to it being totally unexpected and off-season as well, so it was overall a significant event. The January 22-23, 2012 outbreak page disappeared years ago too, and I also think that one was article worthy, especially compared to how liberal the criteria for an outbreak article is now. It produced fatalities, and multiple strong tornadoes hit towns in Alabama and Arkansas, including a fatal EF3 in the Birmingham metro. If we're going to relax the criteria for article worthy events as we have in recent years, there should be year-to-year consistency. The removal of those articles at the time didn't sit well with me, and they especially don't sit well with me now considering other more recent articles. Is there a way to retrieve these old articles? They were good quality and I want to bring them back. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12


 * The Tornado outbreak of August 24, 2016 and the January 22–23, 2012 tornado outbreak articles were just redirected back to the main page. The history is still there from before it was redirected, so it's literally as simple as hitting the undo button. Now getting consensus for it is a different story, but the articles are technically still there. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I also want to add that I also thought the Tornado outbreak of August 24, 2016 article should've have stayed. The Tornado outbreak of November 29–30, 2022 is an article that I believe was prematurely added in, especially since the low-end EF3 ratings for the two strongest tornadoes were based on tree damage. However, I've also had a problem with putting in articles too early (i.e. Tornado outbreak of May 2–4, 2021), so I can't really say anything, can I? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 2021 & 2022 involved a number of premature articles, including ones I did premature. I’m planning to be a stone-walling cold case in the future to make sure every, single article has notability proven before it gets moved into mainspace. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok well I think we should at the very least agree to bring the full the August 2016 tornado outbreak article back. That never should have been removed, and I don't know if we'll be able to get much discussion going about it, so lets just do it. I know it apparently is as simple as hitting an undo button, but am not familiar with bringing back an article that redirects to the main page, so can someone either instruct me in detail or take care of it themselves?

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12!


 * I did it myself, so don't worry about it. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say starting a discussion on the respective Tornadoes of (year) article, with a ping for the editor who redirected it. If there is a consensus to bring it back, someone just reverts the redirection and that should bring it back. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I quickly got reverted so that will be necessary. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm bringing back the articles and converting them to drafts for now. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

November 29-30 is questionable + premature creation of outbreak articles
Honestly, I don't really care that much either way, but I'm still on the fence about whether I want to keep this article or not. It was a rather small outbreak, and both EF3s really didn't hit much besides trees. There were also other tornado outbreaks of a similar caliber this year that don't have full articles, and I believe this has to do with forecast expectations skewing people's decision making when it comes to creating full articles. By that, I mean I feel that if it's a Moderate or High Risk day, or discussion by the SPC and the weather community is very strongly worded, I feel like some of you just pull the trigger on articles as soon as a strong tornado or two are confirmed. Had this been a less potent setup that just overperformed a bit, I really don't think an article would have been made. The same thing happened with the March 16-18 2021 outbreak. I think everyone here knows that the High Risk skewed everyone's expectations, as in any other circumstance, there is no way we would have made an article for an outbreak that produced 4 EF2s at it's worst (we really should get rid of that one).

The takeaway from this is that while people here are getting better at not jumping the gun, there's still some premature decision making going on, and articles are going up too quickly. We also need to be sure we aren't allowing things like hype, wording, or the forecasted potential severity of an outbreak have any influence on whether an article is created. I think some of you still approach this with a mindset of "There's gonna be a big outbreak tomorrow", and go into it with expectations and bias from the very beginning. I've been doing this long enough to know that going into it with a neutral mindset is important. In the end, the thing that determines an outbreak's notability is the damage surveys, so we need to wait longer and let more surveys come in from now on. However, nights like December 10-11, 2021 are an exception, as it was very obvious early on that catastrophic damage and many fatalities had occurred. That isn't common though. So yeah, lets be a little more conservative with jumping on the article train next year. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
 * As I mentioned above, I’m stone-walling any future pre-mature creations. It is for sure out of hand and not to mention having two sock-masters in the middle of tons of these articles/discussions doesn’t help the matter. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment about the Tornado outbreak of November 29–30, 2022. I had just made a hidden section for the outbreak and then the article got put out there, which honestly ticked me off since we've had this problem for most of the year. However, the Tornado outbreak of March 16–18, 2021 has the distinction of being the sixth-largest tornado event in the Alabama history and included a significant blizzard so I think that should be left alone. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 04:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we give Andover its own article?
Honestly, i think we should give the Andover tornado its own article. Being so highly-documented through videos and photographs, i think we should make an article about it. I'd even appreciate the entire April 29–30 outbreak as a whole. I know it only tracked 12 miles and lasted 21 minutes, and was EF3, but it was still a notable event, especially considering ESSL's AMS conference of its possible EF5 intensity (although that was disproven here). Poodle23 (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm starting a draft; if many people object to this, i'll delete it. Poodle23 (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It wasn’t disproven at all. Just the source wasn’t good/strong enough for the list of possible F5/EF5 tornadoes. I’m neutral on the article idea and I’ll wait till others comment to give an opinion. P.S. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright. Poodle23 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: You can find the draft at Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 29–30, 2022. Poodle23 (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I really think this should be left alone. Other than the Andover tornado, this was not a notable outbreak at all. All the other tornadoes were rated EF1 or lower. Other than The Weather Channel's Deadline to Disaster episode on the EF3 Andover tornado, which I plan to watch, there isn't anything else on this outbreak. I think the other membes will say the same thing. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Soo... do we go Andover only or do we scrap the whole thing? Poodle23 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You're honestly the only one who wants an Andover article, so without community support, scrap it. It didn't kill anyone, didn't hit a major metro area, and wasn't violent, so why make an article? Just because it was really well documented and visually impressive? While it was pretty much considered the "tornado of the year" in the chasing community, that doesn't really mean anything in terms of human impact or historical significance. Articles about individual tornadoes are reserved for the worst of the worst, or for very anomalous or historic events. Andover just doesn't come close.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12!


 * added speedy deletion. Poodle23 (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've deleted it for you. If anyone wants it back, feel free to ask me on my talk page or see WP:REFUND. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 15:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m personally weak oppose to neutral on the article, mainly because 3 people were killed coming back from storm chasing on a car crash on I-35. This article doesn’t do a perfect job of describing just how tragic to the weather chasing community that loss was. 12.207.51.104 (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's still not enough for an article. I also want to point out that I go to OU, so the tragedy was somewhat personal to me. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

March 29-31 tornado total discrepancy (UPDATE YOUR TABLES!)
So the summary for this outbreak listed 92 on the "Tornadoes of 2022" main page, with 23 EF0s. The article itself lists 90 tornadoes total, with 21 EF0s. I have no idea where the upped total came from, but I know for sure there were only 21 EF0s in the article table, so I reverted the 92 back to 90.

Let me explain something. If you find more tornadoes that are missing from table, you ABSOLUTELY have to add them to the table! When you just up the main page tornado total and call it done, it creates a massive headache for other editors, who have no idea what specific tornadoes are upping the total if they aren't in the table. All this does is create a discrepancy, and then other editors have to hunt down the missing tornadoes with no info to go on. It's lazy, non-constructive editing, plain and simple. From now on, if I see a tornado outbreak total on the main page that doesn't correlate with the table, I will revert it until the other editor can provide the necessary information. Not gonna waste my time cleaning up others messes, so if you're going to do it, please do it the right way. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12


 * I wonder if someone mis-interrupted how the NCEI reports work. Two of the EF0 tornadoes crossed county lines and so more than one report was made for them. Its entirely possible that someone thought that there were two reports for two tornadoes rather than just one. Just a thought. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)