Jump to content

Talk:2020 Nashville tornado outbreak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussion on merge

[edit]

Comment/Opinion - I would say there should be an article over Nashville and the outbreak. The deaths are in Nashville, however, the storm produces numbers of tornadoes around the area. The articles should be closely related, but still different. The outbreak article should have a section with the Nashville tornado, but a link to the main article over Nashville.

  • Keep Tornado outbreak articles frequently start out as stubs. Information right now is very preliminary as surveys are still underway. This article will be expanded once NWS offices release more detailed storm survey results. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know how there are sections where there is info of something in an article, like in Hanau shootings or 9/11?

[edit]

Is someone able to make something like that for this article? I don’t know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rslashthinkong (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (vandalism) --96.44.211.21 (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed death toll

[edit]

We know that reports yesterday said 25 people died in the tornadoes on March 2&3 but it now seems that the death toll is only 24. I had changed all of the death tolls from 25 to 24 and people keep changing them back. Unless I'm missing something, the actual death toll is 24 with the other death probably being unrelated to the tornadoes. Can someone help me with this? Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. Putnam County confirmed 18 deaths with another not directly caused by the tornado. United States Man (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putnam county

[edit]

Idk about most of you guys but I havent seen even seen a preliminary tornado rating for the tornado that struck cookeville TN, and yet people keep listing it as a preliminary EF3. I've been watching the nws in nashville all afternoon and there's nothing new since 13 hours ago. Stop changing the rating, there's no rating yet! Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that people changing it aren't doing it for vandalism. Common in natural disaster events, there's confusing and conflicting stories such as this: [1]. I haven't seen anything official, even an official tweet, from NWS on a prelim rating. --Bhockey10 (talk) 23:36, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All news agencies in Nashville have reported the tornado being rated "at least EF3." Those are trustworthy organizations. United States Man (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah well we all know what it was rather now. But it's weird that I never saw a preliminary rating actually come out from the nws on any social media platform. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw from the weather channel that there were 3 people still missing so you cannot say that that is incorrect. They were talking about it all morning on the weather channel that they were still looking for 3 people. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putnam County EMA has confirmed and relayed to Nashville news that the missing person count is ZERO. So, yes, that is incorrect. United States Man (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listen here bud, I updated it this morning when I heard on the weather channel they were still looking for 3 people. Dont think u can come in here and just own the place because you've been around for a while. I edited it by the info I had earlier on in the day, so yes it probably went down to 0 after looking for those THREE people that were still missing. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't own the place. But neither do you. The weather channel is not an official government source. Putnam County EMA was reporting the list was at zero before you added the part about 3 missing. Don't get mad at me for ensuring accurate information. I think you had better check your sources and pay better attention. That is my last comment on the matter. Thank you. United States Man (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw from several source last night saying 3 missing and when I woke up again this morning it was still 3 missing and that they were going to do more searching through noon today. So I thought I'd add the info that 3 were still missing. This is such a dumb thing to argue about. All i was doing was adding what I saw, there's no need to be a jerk about it. Sorry for being rude but was just throwing back what I was getting. You should apologize too, it's what good people do. Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am sorry, even if you dont reply, I know you'll see this. I think u should say it too. We can reset and put it behind us. Can we as Wiki editors? Kade Ydstie45 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remains of a 4 yr old found

[edit]

This looks like it might end up being something big if anything comes out of it. It's currently being investigated. https://twitter.com/WinnieWrightTV/status/1235348100258172928?s=09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVeryWiseWolfy (talk • contribs) 01:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. That doesn't seem like it was due to the tornado. United States Man (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The death doesn't appear to be related to the tornado, but finding the body and opening the investigation might be worth mentioning alongside the casualties. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Title

[edit]

Which policy says that the title shouldn't indicate where in the world it happened & to include the unnecessary word outbreak, which makes it sound like an infectious disease rather than a natural disaster? Jim Michael (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see all other tornado outbreak pages. They are named the same way... United States Man (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some are, some aren't. The fact that some of them don't include the country/state in their titles doesn't mean it's our policy, guideline or usual practice to do so. Jim Michael (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is our usual practice, but please continue... United States Man (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Tornado outbreak" is pretty standard terminology. Including the name of the country, in this case, is unnecessary since the vast majority of tornado outbreak articles are about U.S. outbreaks. It was decided a few years ago that this would be the standard naming protocol for tornado outbreak articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where was it decided that it would be standard to not include the location in the title? Jim Michael (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current title format for tornado outbreak articles was decided upon at Talk:Tornado outbreak of April 6–8, 2006#Requested move 19 February 2017, but the decision to go with a date-only format was decided at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Severe weather/Archive 3#Naming conventions. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

[edit]

Is there some reason to go against MOS in this section? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malerooster Can you specify why linking to the 2008 Super Tuesday outbreak goes against MOS? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TornadoLGS, its only a general rule, per WP:SEEALSO, but links in the article should not be repeated in this section. They should be worked into the article if possible. --Malerooster (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It currently is not linked in the text. It was earlier, but I removed the sentence because of its awkwardness. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, if it can be added to the body of the article and removed from the see also section that is preferred but not a big deal. --Malerooster (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine to me. United States Man (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricane Noah (talk · contribs) 19:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. NoahTalk 19:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

will check over the tornado sections and the rest tomorrow. Hopefully the storm events database is back up by then. NoahTalk 01:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Storm events finally came back online yesterday for me so I was checking things out there. NoahTalk 12:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That should be it. NoahTalk 12:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

[edit]

I propose that the section about the 2020 Nashville tornado be split into a separate page called 2020 Nashville tornado (see Draft:2020 Nashville tornado). Per WP:UNDUE, the section desperately needs to be split. The article is 61,000 bytes in total, and the tornado's section alone is 12,600 bytes. That is equal to over 20% of the entire article. For the split, I proposed the trimmed section at User:WeatherWriter/2020 Nashville section, which is 7,700 bytes, while the full tornado summary is moved to 2020 Nashville tornado (draft state at Draft:2020 Nashville tornado), which is currently over 13,000 bytes and can easily be improved. The only other tornado with a summary is the Cookeville tornado, which has a section size of 5,800 bytes. The split will bring the section size down and appease WP:UNDUE, while the Nashville tornado would receive a full article. Split proposal is being conducted, rather than a WP:BOLD split, due to the article currently being GA status from a review in January 2022. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Readable prose size is only 26 kB, so a split is not justified per WP:SIZERULE. And given how the Nashville tornado was the 6th costliest tornado in American history, it is reasonable that it takes up so much information.108.58.51.130 (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it is reasonable to take up so much space, but should that single tornado be over twice as large as every other tornado in the 15-tornado outbreak? The proposal isn’t to straight up remove it from the list, but rather 1) give it it’s own article (6th costliest tornado in US history and all) and 2) strike the section size so it isn’t over twice the size as every other tornado (including a tornado stronger than it) during the tornado outbreak. Same way the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado has an article, but also a section in the much larger Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023. I still think WP:UNDUE policy trumps the WP:SIZERULE policy in this circumstance, given the 2020 Nashville tornado’s section is actually larger than the 13 other tornadoes (excluding the EF4 with a section) combined. The article vastly puts so much emphasis on that one tornado, to where the rest of the tornado outbreak (multiple tornadoes, not one) is so small. A good example is an EF2 killer tornado during the outbreak, which has exactly 5, short sentences and doesn’t even mention the death that occurred. Why should so much of the tornado outbreak’s page be dedicated to a single tornado. With that much information, it can survive as a stand-alone article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My split reasoning is a violation of WP:UNDUE (see split reasoning). That said, in terms of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the 2020 Nashville tornado summary is exactly 18 words shorter than the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado damage summary, which was split for WP:UNDUE as well as SIZERULE reasonings. Just wanted to point that out; a tornado notable of a stand-alone article has a summary only 18 words longer than this tornado, which is continuing to get mentioned by news outlets, which clearly pass WP:NEXIST (News article about the tornado over 2 years after it.) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So just clarifying, you are opposed to giving the tornado a stand-alone article, with a 7,000+ byte section still remaining in this article, all because it is "the centerpiece of the outbreak"? The viewpoint of it being the centerpiece of the outbreak actually implies the title might be UNDUE weighted then. If it truly is the centerpiece of the outbreak and truly warrants a section as large has 80% of the rest of the tornadoes, the title should be changed to 2020 Nashville tornado outbreak, similar to the 1953 Waco tornado outbreak. Would you be opposed to that? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to changing the name, but there are several article title "czars" around here... United States Man (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let this split proposal run its course of 7 days, as I was recently told by an admin to not make any judgments about consensus (even when I want to withdraw something). Depending on the outcome then, if the split is opposed to, I'll start a renaming discussion. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think all these articles titled Tornado outbreak of [date] are doing the readers a slight disservice. Way too generic and people don't remember dates. United States Man (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 October 2023

[edit]
MOVED
The resulting RM had no additional comments besides proposer, however, a significant contributor to the article, who was also the GA nominator for the article supported the new name move as mentioned by proposer. Closing as WP:SILENCE. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020 → 2020 Nashville tornado outbreak – It is typical and common that if one tornado is famous from a specific tornado outbreak, but not solid enough to split into a stand-alone article, the tornado outbreak article is renamed to be associated with that famous tornado. Examples of this are the 1953 Waco tornado outbreak,1936 Tupelo–Gainesville tornado outbreak, Flint–Worcester tornado outbreak sequence, and Tri-State tornado outbreak.

In the discussion above this (Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020#Splitting proposal), it was proposed to split the 2020 Nashville tornado section into a stand-alone article. After 11 days, the discussion gathered two editors (besides proposer), who both opposed the split. User:108.58.51.130 stated in their oppose !vote, “And given how the Nashville tornado was the 6th costliest tornado in American history, it is reasonable that it takes up so much information” and User:United States Man stated in their oppose comments, “…one would argue that this tornado is the centerpiece of the outbreak” as well as “I'm not opposed to changing the name”.

The split proposal seems to be clear this outbreak is defined by a single tornado (2020 Nashville tornado), which has a section size over 20% in byte size (and a size equal to 80% of the other tornadoes) of the entire article. Given the split proposal as well, there is at least one additional confirmed support !vote for this rename (besides myself as the proposer) and the comment from 108.58.51.130 seems to be clear enough that the tornado defines the outbreak. A rename should occur. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 20:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Nashville_tornado_outbreak&oldid=1244257230"