Talk:2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak/Archive 1

Alabama Tornado

In the tornado report log, the report of the Chapel Hill tornado sighting near Decatur Alabama can be removed. I believe it was the same 16.7 mile tornado path from Lawrence County. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronkt (talk • contribs) 01:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a possibilty that the two tornado reports for Walker County in the tornado log can be removed as that damage was done either by the same F2 tornado, or by straight line winds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronkt (talk • contribs) 02:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Super Tuesday 2008?

Maybe this should be merged with the main article on Super Tuesday (2008)? Is it truly remarkable as a weather phenomenon, such that it would deserve an article if it occurred on any other day? Or is it just a footnote to the election? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would have an article if it happened any day. Strongly oppose any merger. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. This would have an article if it happened of any day of the year. ---CWY2190^T^C 04:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially with between 13 and 16 fatalities (numbers are conflicting, 14 (13 from tornadoes) is the best guess I have so far once matching sources with reports). The Somerville death from the Commercial Appeal probably was due to straight-line winds as it does not match up with any tornado report. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose to the merge as it is like any other tornado outbreak and would have been warrented if it is was tommorrow or any other day. Now the article name/title may not be official though, that was a first suggestion and it was a coincidence that it happened on Super Tuesday - but that can be changed in the future.--JForget 04:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose; if I read the assessment criteria at WP:SEVERE correctly, this outbreak may actually qualify as a Mid-importance separate article; it certainly meets the criteria for a separate article. The Super Tuesday reference in the name is only a convenience for identifying which outbreak this is; it may well become Early February Tornado Outbreak of 2008 in short order, depending on whether the "Super Tuesday Outbreak" name becomes the accepted term for this outbreak. Rdfox 76 (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "early" modifier may not be required, after all February isn't usually a month in which we expect outbreaks. CrazyC83 (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the may 3 1999 outbreak it has a artical, and this one was on an election date, thus effecting the election it sould have its own artical and be mintioned in the super tuesday 08 artical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.131.253 (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Memphis it has been stated that the storms did not affect voting locations. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm officially an uninformed fool. :) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Merger would just confuse readers. Link to other article would be more appropriate. Trilobitealive (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mardi Gras Tornado Outbreak

can we call this outbreak that to, since it did happen on Fat Tuesday. --Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 09:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't happen in the area that such is well-observed. Hence using the term "Mardi Gras" is not exactly appropriate. (If the Gulf Coast was hard hit I would support such) CrazyC83 (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it happened on Mardi Gras! I think it should be called the Super Tuesday - Mardi Gras Outbreak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.112.226 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scary

It's pretty scary to be sitting here listening to the weather reports and see that there's already a wikipedia page on it. I'm glad to see that there's a recomendation on the page for 'Residents of areas affected by this tornado outbreak are advised to seek information from the respective authorities.' .... if anyone has the information, it might be very useful to provide a link or two. ColbyWolf (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there is a lot still to write here. The death toll will probably rise more, possibly above 50. CrazyC83 (talk) 12:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for that recommendation, it is a modified version of those used in hurricanes that was created in 2005. It is a disclaimer that this is not a place to go for warnings when you are in the area affected (the local media and NWS/local offices is where to go). Warnings come and go too fast for mention here, but watches are mentioned if people are updating. It is used when a severe weather event (a tornado outbreak, derecho or major hail event - although those rarely have articles) is ongoing and mentions all severe thunderstorm and tornado watches active at the time. It is also used on the section of the Tornadoes of 2008 page when there is no article for the event when there is at least a moderate risk of severe weather or if conditions warrant such. CrazyC83 (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a picture of the glow of the fire at the Columbia Gulf pumping station that could be seen for many miles away. Would this be good for the article?170.141.109.39 (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a good addition (perhaps maybe a Featured picture?) I had added that proposal on the last section after you added that comment.--JForget 20:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watch for vandalism.

This is now linked to the main page. ---CWY2190^T^C 16:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If necessary, it could be semi-protected. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do not be afraid of vandalism on the main page too much because it's simply checked a lot. it can only be temporary. it's the hidden little viewed pages that can be vandalized for long unnoticed. --Leladax (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adkins tornado video

Someone uploaded this on YouTube, should it be placed under external links?

Also, tornadoes have been confirmed in Menifee Co Kentucky http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx_nSAB6LWE Angry Aspie (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the supercell north of Little Rock which killed between 12 and 15 be warranted a section. This may potentially have been one single tornado but at least from the same supercell. That would mean that at least 45-50 deaths were from those 4 distincts supercells. 12-15 from the Oly to Poplar Bulff, MO (or perhaps even further north) supercell, 6 from the Memphis/Jackson storm, 3 from the Christian County supercell and 29 from the Nashville/southern Kentucky supercell. That last storm passed right over downtown Nashville by the way.--JForget 18:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now no due to lack of information, but if information increases (or especially if that is found to be one tornado), then probably yes. The Nashville area supercell did indeed pass over downtown Nashville, but I am not aware of any tornadoes touching down in Nashville or its larger suburbs (they sure got lucky, we could be dealing with 100 deaths instead of 50 had it touched down - it was clearly in a cycling mode when it went over the urban area) CrazyC83 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] Preliminary survey does indicate it was one tornado that caused all the deaths northeast of Nashville. Rating will likely be over EF2 especially if that tornado did crossed the state line into Kentucky since NWS Louisville had rated a tornado that crossed from Tennessee (presumably Macon County) into Monroe County as an EF3.I've removed the two reports from Trousdale and Sumner counties as a result but kept the Macon/Monroe separate for now but I will not be surprise if it was the same that crossed the state line--JForget 00:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct, and based on damage reports I am sure it was at least EF3 in Tennessee as well. I'd keep the Macon and Monroe tornadoes separate though until the offices confirm. (It is possible there were weaker satellite tornadoes in those counties, but those three belong as one tornado). CrazyC83 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly may be. I've also noticed that the Memphis and Jackson tornadoes were rated, but I don't see any link from the NWS Memphis homepage although I may presume that maybe local media such as NBC Memphis, may have some of that info but is there a source for that right now?--JForget 00:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This video shows the funnel cloud (at around 1:30-1:40), which later become the Macon Co. tornado right on top of the downtown area of Nashville. --JForget 01:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

Add some photos of the actual tornados in this outbreak. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't really do so until they become available on NWS sites. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it hit populated areas, probably a gallery section would be needed since maybe some will have personal pictures of the storm and damage. Although for damage pictures, I would only add dramatic damage images (EF3, EF4 or perhaps EF5 although I doubt there was an EF5 tornado) such as the Union University and the Shopping Mall and perhaps that gas plant which was the site of a spectacular fire after the tornado hit in Macon County. Actual images of the tornadoes/wall/funnel clouds, etc can be added too. --JForget 20:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NWS is one source for freely available images. If other people have photos which are uploaded to Wikipedia or Commons then they can also be used. Whether they are used depends upon what editors do and what is needed in the article. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WFO PAH has photos up at their website, I will upload a few and put the link under external links, in addition to WEHT's coverage, to give them an equal standing with WFIE. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded the following below photos [[Image:DemolishedGreenvillefactory.jpg]] and [[Image:RipleyMOdamage.jpg]] Feel free to use them as you see fit. (And yes, the above was intentional) Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of photos, can anyone confirm or deny that my crappy cellphone picture is a wall cloud? I'm calling it that because it looks like other pictures of wall clouds I've seen, but I have no experience in identifying such things. · jersyko talk 22:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be anything, the contrast really kills it, I would think it is the RFB (rain free base) but I don't see a defined wall cloud hanging below if that is the case although like I said, the quality is poor so I really can't tell. Theonlysilentbob (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell your friends that it is, but we're not going to call it that unless some expert considers it so. I won't be surprised if some blatantly obvious photos show up. -- SEWilco (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture looks to be a "beaver's tail" (That is what WFO PAH calls this in their spoter training sessions) on the northwestern side of the rain-free base. While I am by no means an expert, I am a SKYWARN spotter, hence my user name. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Shall we discuss this? Tornadoes occur all over the world. This particular outbreak occurred in the US. Disasters specific to that region should be named after that region.

For example 2007 United Kingdom floods, 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake.

This particular outbreak of tornadoes is only limited to the US, not anywhere else in the world. Therefor the title should be something along the lines of 2008 February United States tornadoes. Simply south (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of other such articles, and 95% of tornado outbreaks happen in (or primarily in) the United States. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^^^Unlike floods and earthquakes. ---CWY2190^T^C 20:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably primarily reported in the US. Simply south (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "tornado outbreak" should not be capitalized. Secondly, the name of the article needs to be made more specific; I think February 2008 United States tornado outbreak is the best name for the article. --Core desat 23:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. There are plenty of major outbreaks that have nicknames.. Palm Sunday & Super Outbreak both come to mind. A quick name like The Super Tuesday Outbreak is fine.. secondly most tornadoes and nearly all major outbreaks happen IN the United States. You people are so picky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.180.105 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} per the "95% of tornado outbreaks happen in ... the United States" - i.e. where is the evidence for this? Simply south (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Tornado and any of the tornadic climatology articles linked from it, including those at the Storm Prediction Center website. Rdfox 76 (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking through List_of_North_American_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks, it appears that the older outbreaks were named after region affected or holiday. But the newer ones (97/98 onward) are pretty much dates. Personally I think this is ridiculous and should only add "United States" if there is a tornado outbreak somewhere else in the world which is almost zero chance. I say keep it like it is, but if you must move it, make it February 2008 Mid-South Tornado Outbreak. ---CWY2190^T^C 00:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter because the media has already been calling it the Super Tuesday Outbreak, I doubt a Wiki article will change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.180.105 (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name should reflect the most common name given for the outbreak; I prefer my suggestion (or CWY2190's if "U.S." or "United States" is added to avoid confusion) above. 2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak could theoretically work if there is an explanation of the name in sources (the term "Super Tuesday" is meaningless outside the U.S., and this is the English Wikipedia, not the U.S. Wikipedia). Since there's this technicality, it would probably be best to leave it out. --Core desat 00:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the media is calling it the Super Tuesday outbreak, it should return to its original name...but only if they are consistently doing such. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just leave it as this name and mention what the Tuesday event is being called. If the Tuesday event grows "too much" then it can be split off. If all of February continues like this then it will get lost in the noise (the sound of which depends upon what's being thrown around...). -- SEWilco (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be called what the media and/or government sources called it (and for now should stay where it is, per conventions at WP:METEO and WP:SEVERE). As for the "meaningless outside the country" argument, that is irrelevant, it should be called what it is called in the place where it happened. (See Burns' Day storm, St. Elizabeth's flood)-Running On Brains 08:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NWS Birmingham is indeed calling it the Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak (even though all the tornadoes in their jurisdiction took place early Wednesday morning). CrazyC83 (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if NWS Birmingham is doing so, most likely that'll end up being the "official" name used by the entirety of NWS from here on out. If there's no objections, we should probably go back to 2008 Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak and maybe even cite NWS Birmingham as a reference for the name? Rdfox 76 (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original name was Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak of 2008. The "of 2008" part could be dropped if it becomes a popular name, but should be left for now for clarity. "February" is unnecessary as it only happens once in 2008. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media here is calling it the Super Tuesday outbreak, and with Birmingham also I suggest changing the name back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.180.105 (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a Google search of the media and found that several stations and organizations were calling it the Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak. CrazyC83 (talk) 05:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a sense that the consensus is now move it back to Super Tuesday Tornado Outbreak of 2008. Objections? -Running On Brains 05:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once a few more sources confirm it. CrazyC83 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NWS Mobile is also using the "Super Tuesday Outbreak" name, both on their front page and their outbreak information page. Rdfox 76 (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only an administrator can move it though to that location, I tried to move it but it wouldn't let me. CrazyC83 (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put in the request to have the redirect preventing you from moving it deleted and the page moved, following instructions at WP:RM. Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, since having two NWS offices calling it such gives it extra validation. It is clearly a trend. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that I'm late for the discussion, but that title looks good considering that at least two offices have used it so far. --JForget 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name now used by a third office - NWS Huntsville. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/hun/ does not call it the 2008 Super Tuesday tornado outbreak . There are no other Super Tuesday tornado outbreaks. This article should be called Super Tuesday tornado outbreak. Kingturtle (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separate tables for each state?

The tables are kind of large. Can the daily tables be split by state, so there will be a daily section with separate sections for each state? That will reduce edit conflicts and make it easier to view the info for each state. The sections should probably be called something like "February 5, Texas" so each day's headline is different. Same for the name of each table. -- SEWilco (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That creates too many small tables (usually). I tried to make breakpoints but was unable to. It is sorted by date (breakpoint is 0800 UTC to prevent time zone issues). Edit conflicts are seldom an issue, but this is (I believe) the first time a tornado outbreak article has made it to the main page. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about splitting out the larger Feb 4 AR, MS, TN tables from the rest? -- SEWilco (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not compute

In the February_2008_tornado_outbreak#Memphis_area_tornado section.. it says, A supercell thunderstorm moved across the Tennessee and Mississippi state-line and produced a tornado just after 5:30 PM CDT in southeastern Memphis after touching down south of the line in Southaven. How did it produce a tornado in Memphis, if it touched down south of the line in Southaven. As a resident of Mississippi, I know the tornado formed in Southaven first and moved across the line into the Memphis/Germantown area. I'm not exactly sure how to word this so I'll leave it to someone else. You just can't have a tornado touch down first before being produced. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 09:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It touched down in Southaven, then crossed the state line while on the ground. That section does need to be edited. CrazyC83 (talk) 12:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville Area and Predators Game

I don't think the info about the Preds game should be included. I was at the game and everything posted is true, however what does it really have to do with the tornado? If you want to leave it up, maybe keep the note about the game being nationally broadcast and who was playing. I don't think the score or JP Dumont are important to the article.170.141.109.39 (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The sentence, The game continued, with Nashville winning 1-0 on a J.P. Dumont goal just past the midway point of the third. should be removed as cruft and not related to the article. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 13:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. Anything not related to the storm itself (i.e. holding back the crowd) should be omitted. CrazyC83 (talk) 14:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that "Once the storms had passed, the game continued after a [insert length here] delay" would be reasonable to keep, but no, there's no need for the details of the final score or the scoring summary. Rdfox 76 (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Now that I've actually read the article (*blush*), I'd say the current language is the way to go. (Didn't realize when I first posted that that the game didn't have to be stopped for people to take shelter.) Rdfox 76 (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, indeed. Evacuating the crowd is the hard part. Players could rush to shelter on much shorter notice, and alerted coaching staff may have been monitoring the area by then. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damage photos from Memphis

The NWS posted pictures of the damage however with no text. I know the last image is from the mall but for conformation is the one above it the northeast corner of the mall with EF1 damage and is the overhead shot with a large section of the roof caved in/removed, the warehouse with the fatalities?JForget 17:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture shown above the Hickory Ridge Mall is the DSC Logistics warehouse where three deaths took place. jlf (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including the overhead/air shot as well? Because that may be the one from Memphis I will put on the article as well or on the Tornadoes of 2008 page (depending on where a picture of the Union University will be shown on NOAA or the gas plant explosion.--JForget 18:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for sure. Damage sustained in that picture is similar to the warehouse in Memphis, but Southaven MS also reported on a warehouse destroyed consistent with the damage in that picture. ~~The DSC Logistics facility is in Hickory Hill and the residential area in those pictures is not what I would expect to find in the Hickory Hill area.~~ NWS Memphis also reports on northern Mississippi. jlf (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tennessean out of Nashville reported that Southaven had minimal residential damage and the warehouse destroyed was in an industrial park; safe to say those pictures are all of the Memphis warehouse/residential area. jlf (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the image on the Tornadoes of 2008 page, since I won't to keep space for images of Union University when it will be available by NOAA or from an individual. There was no images in the February 5 section of that article yet and will have space for another one perhaps from Kentucky or Alabama--JForget 19:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I am not able to save pictures from the NWS Memphis surveys, wondering if anyone would be able to save one of the damage pictures of Union University? Thanks!.--JForget 01:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the pictures are in flash, and I can not save them either. Maybe you should ask the computer nerds at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science, they might have a sneaky way to get around it. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and left the message. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought though that since the damage will be visible for some time, I thought someone would have taken a picture anyways.--JForget 03:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Date, Feb 9?

Under "Meterological Synopsis", it says "A series of strong low pressure systems formed across the southern Plains on February 9...". Feb 9 is obviously an error (its Feb 7 as I write this). I would change it but I don't know what the proper date is. Dappawit (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed, thanks. jlf (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unconfirmed Deaths

Hardy, Sharp Co., AR and Hickman Co., TN deaths remain unconfirmed for the second day - WMC-TV out of Memphis originally reported these but no other local/national news source has confirmed. Both reports were probably confused with the 3 deaths in Hardin Co., TN. One death in the Shelby Co. tornado was misreported - the four deaths reported include the fatality in Fayette County (which is very close to Memphis). There have been no reported deaths at Hickory Ridge Mall; the news source confused the mall with the surrounding Hickory Hill area, where three of the deaths took place. So unless anybody has some serious objections to removing these three, we need to get the tallies straight before I add any more. jlf (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think indeed the death toll should be brought to its correct number, but the conflicting sources make it difficult. The Sharp and Hickman deaths are NOT included in the outbreak total (the total would be 66 if they were included), but the others are. Someone also added a 4th death in Lawrence County, AL that I have not heard of. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went back through the numbers, and reclassified the Hickory Hills Mall death as unconfirmed, and removed an unsourced 4th death from the Moulton EF4 (an update 30 minutes ago had it at 3). The correct death toll from tornadoes is now 56 and not 58. (If the unconfirmed deaths are all confirmed, it rises to 66) CrazyC83 (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lawrence Co. death was reported this morning by an Arkansas newspaper, but I haven't seen any other sources on it today. Thanks! (edited because i can't spell, or read) jlf (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found the confirmation of the 4th death there. Added the source and upped the death toll back to 58. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the NWS survey? confirms only 3 fatal in Lawrence as of 3:30 p.m. CST today. jlf (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was revised at about 5:00 pm CST to show 4 deaths. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One news source out of Alabama is reporting 6 deaths statewide as of 8:30 CST, but I'd like at least one more confirmation before adding to the total. jlf (talk) 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The SPC confirmed 6 deaths in Alabama, and you can't get any more official than that. They also revised downward the Arkansas death toll from 14 to 13, so the total (for now) remains 59. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Tennessean reported that over 200 people in Macon County TN are still missing, with search efforts taking up to a week to complete. I don't want to put this in the main article yet as some reports may be duplicates, just a heads-up. jlf (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that is really the case, that individual tornado (or supercell) might warrant a subarticle, but it is definitely not needed right now. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if only 30 of those are actual fatalities, it would make this the deadliest outbreak in the US since the Super Outbreak. Scary. -Running On Brains 05:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it would take 18 more to reach that level (77), since the May 31, 1985 outbreak had 76 US fatalities (the 88 total includes 12 in Canada). CrazyC83 (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more death reported in Macon County as a result of carbon monoxide poisoning from generator; medical examiners to decide later if death will be counted as caused by tornado (link). jlf (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would match Evansville's 25 deaths, and then any higher would be the deadliest single tornado since the Moore, OK tornado in 1999 (which killed 36). CrazyC83 (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Death toll in Macon County will rise" - article from The Tennessean reports that more tornado-related deaths will be announced today. Note: four deaths as a result of a traffic accident are NOT tornado- or storm-related. The Tennessean will be the best source for confirming fatalities in Middle Tennessee short of additional confirmation by national news sources. jlf (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final confirmation on the death(s) in Indiana - the car found submerged in the quarry in Newton County likely wrecked on Monday February 4th as a result of heavy fog and pre-existing flood conditions. jlf (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, that is different from previous reports so that should be removed from the article. The death toll is a flat 59 right now. (Flat meaning all deaths due to tornadoes, no other deaths due to other thunderstorm impacts - if any due to straight-line winds, hail, thunderstorm-related flooding or lightning are recorded, they count on the side as part of the outbreak but not in the tornado count. Same for the damage totals once they become available.) CrazyC83 (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a report that a resident died from CO poisoning from using a generator. Would this be included in the death toll? [2] -68.187.225.58 (talk) 06:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This death is totally unrelated to the storms in the Mid-South and Ohio Valley. Therefore, this death should not be included. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he was referring to the Carbon Monoxide (AKA CO) case already mentioned above. Is that going to be included at some point? If I'm not mistaken, they include deaths like that in tropical cyclone death tolls. -Running On Brains 16:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the death was in the area, it should be included, but the death was in Colorado. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was in Macon County, Tennessee. The place that was ravaged by the deadliest tornado. -Running On Brains 02:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CO not Colorado, I am so sorry. I did not realize this. It should go then. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton AR Tornado

The tornado that moved through Clinton AR was determined to have been a continuous path by NWS Little Rock. Bigphishy56 (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here is the link: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/lzk/cgi-bin/wxs1.php?pil=PNSMAIN&max=13

Possibly connects to Pope and Yell Co. damage path as well, flyover tomorrow should determine if it waas all one tornado. jlf (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was all a continuous path (or close to it), that tornado will need to be moved to a separate section as well since there will be so much information. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yea that's what I thought, it'll be 12 or 13 fatalities along a 120-mile path. This is crazy jlf (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious; other than the Tri-State Tornado, does anyone know of a list of the longest continuous damage paths recorded? I'm curious where the Clinton storm might rank if determined to be a continuous path all the way back to the Pope/Yell County path. Rdfox 76 (talk) 04:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The best you're gonna get is to look up individual state tornado climatology reports (such as this one or pull databases like this one). I'm not aware of any definitive tornado damage path lists for the US. I can tell you that 120-mile damage path is atypical and in the high-end range. jlf (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many reports in antiquity of paths over 100 miles, even over 150 miles, but Thomas Grazulis, head of the Tornado Project, says that these were almost without exception two or more separate tornadoes (save the Tri-State tornado). The last tornado with a reported path of over 100 miles was an F3 in Illinois on September 20, 2002, which was on the ground for 112 miles continuously (miraculously, no one died). The last one longer than 120 miles was another F3 in North Carolina, which was on the ground for 160 miles (though I seem to remember Grazulis having some doubt about that one).-Running On Brains 05:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, folks. I knew that 120 miles was an unusually long track, but I didn't realize there had been any 100-mile-plus single-tornado tracks confirmed since modern damage surveys started identifying tornado families training off the same mesocyclone. Interesting stuff. Rdfox 76 (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there isn't enough information available on that tornado to start a new section. Once the reports come in, that should be moved down (that makes 5!) - and since that was the first of the "major" supercells, that would go above the Memphis tornado. CrazyC83 (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The survey

It looks like it was indeed one tornado, and it was upgraded to at least EF4. Is there any news sites for the area to start a separate section for it? CrazyC83 (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KARK, KATV and KTHV up in Little Rock may have more details about the event.--JForget 23:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here's a newspaper out of pine bluff, decent article about power outages. edit: One more, this one from KY3 out of Missouri. jlf (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current event

Is it safe to remove the "current event" tag? The outbreak is over now. Trvsdrlng (talk) 07:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once it leaves the main page. Reports are still coming in. CrazyC83 (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado list

I split off the tornado list to a separate subarticle, as the page was approaching 60KB. CrazyC83 (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subarticle has dissipeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.48.126 (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change tense of words

This all is prety much in the past. Can we change the tense of the verbs to reflect that now.170.141.109.39 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with references

Some of you will notice that I tried to put the reflist into a 2 column format but failed because the references were too long. I really wasn't paying attention but I went back and looked at all the inline footnotes I found they are mostly just cut and pasted URLs put between bracketed ref /ref. This causes display problems which a person wouldn't notice when they preview their edit. I'll try to come back later and help but anyone who is interested might want to look at WP:CIT to see how such references need to be for better readability. Thanks.Trilobitealive (talk) 22:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's reference # 16 is basically what they should look like. Here is a copy of the reference which should be visible on the talk page: <ref name=CAslice>{{cite news | last = Callahan | first = Jody | title = Storms slice through Mid-South | work = Commercial Appeal | publisher = Commercial Appeal | date = 2008-02-05 | url = http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/feb/05/roof-blows-across-paul-barret-injures-three-motori/ | accessdate = 2008-02-06 }}</ref>

Thanks againTrilobitealive (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

planning on going back to correctly format sources once the flood of information slows a bit, probably tomorrow. thanks jlf (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a pretty hot topic. I wonder why they classified it as 'low importance'? How do you bump up the priority to medium or high? It is pretty important to people who live in the heartland. Trilobitealive (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is High-importance in Severe weather project (as it is becoming one of the project's core articles - and easily the most publicised ever - although nothing like the Top-importance Super Outbreak), Mid-importance in the hardest hit states in which this article is (more than) justified for and low-importance in the others since they had far less impact and this wouldn't have an article based on impacts in those states alone. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on the format of the references, however I had to remove or replace some of the dead links of the Tennessean. Probably you will need new references about the number of power outages (unless find someone find one source for statewide) as well as the school closures and the possibility that a lightning strike caused that gas explosion.--JForget 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the Macon Co. and Trousdale Co. power outage links, school closures and the missing persons link, can't find anything to confirm that a lighning strike was responsible for the plant explosion. The Memphis power outages are still up-to-date. As for damage estimates, one source lists overall damage in Tennessee at $100 million, which is conservative. jlf (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is extremely conservative, considering the damage at Union University alone is estimated at about $45 million. It will be months before a reliable figure is available, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it easily be around $1.5 billion from tornadoes, perhaps near $2 billion once other thunderstorm impacts (i.e. straight-line winds, hail) are included. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Info Statements

I noticed that PNS's are used as references throughout the article. However, within a few weeks, these will go out of NWS archives. Hopefully the WFO outbreak summary pages will have this info. If they do not, it would be best to remove the material as this article has the potential to be an FA and any unreferenced material would hurt its chances. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why I was thinking we should use something like [3] like is used on this page. ---CWY2190^T^C 15:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is rather useful. When the PNS's go out of archives we should look there. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowstorm

Hi. There was a big snowstorm that hit southern Ontario shortly after the outbreak. Is there an article on this? I think this storm produced the most snow in my area so far this year. Snow towered a foot high, some snowdrifts 2 ft high, most snowbanks 3 ft high, the one on my front lawn 5 ft high (too bad I don't have my camera right now), the snowbanks at some public school areas tower 8 ft high, and when the time is right I might be able to build a snowman 11 ft high. Where's the article? Or should it be mentioned in thiis one? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in this article, right here. There is also another article that deals specifically with winter storms, and that is here: Winter storms of 2007-08#February 5-6 Gopher backer (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please upload an image of the tornadoes and thunderstorms or the snow. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]