Talk:Tornado outbreak of June 16–18, 2014

Article

That tornado occurred earlier today with only one death confirmed. At least as of yet, can you really say that it warrants an article? Dustin (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this tornado alone warrants an article, but the outbreak might, especially if activity continues tomorrow and Wednesday. I suggest moving this to June 16, 2014 tornado Outbreak. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

As of current, I do not believe there is enough information for an outbreak either; I would suggest this be moved to a unique section of Tornadoes of 2014 until any change has been determined to have occurred. Dustin (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I would support that at least until the extent of the outbreak is known. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes; at the moment, this single tornado does not appear to have incredible significance, and at least for the time being, I would suggest that the tornadoes from this event be included only at List of United States tornadoes in June 2014, and the other details, as I said before, be included at Tornadoes of 2014. Dustin (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

A mention in Tornadoes of 2014 should be sufficient. Although it is unique to have an incident involving two (or three) simultaneous tornadoes, the area impacted was sparsely populated. (//Signed// Code36 16:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC))

I disagree with the points above. It'll take a while to understand the full scope of this tornado, but as of present it's been rated a violent (EF4) tornado and reports are that it has damaged 50-75% of the town of Pilger, Nebraska. One idea I might propose is changing the article to encompass the other tornadoes from the tornado family (the Stanton tornado, the other two tornadoes that occurred simultaneously with the Pilger tornadoes, and numerous other tornadoes spawned farther northeast). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I am split on this decision. At this time, there is not enough information to make it in to its own article. However, due to the size (EF4), the fact that there are now two reported as deceased, the unusual formation (two tornadoes less than a mile apart) and the amount of damage, I would say that this individual event does need to be in its own article. If it does not need to be titled the 2014 Pilger Tornado, then renaming it to something similar to June 16 Tornado Outbreak in Nebraska would be sufficient. Keep in mind that it has been reported that there may have been four tornadoes generated from the same storm that hit Pilger and there were also tornadoes in other parts of the state. swinquest (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Two fatalities and an EF4 rating do not lend any particular notability to this tornado. As such, I don't think it was notable enough for a single tornado article. However, given the occurrence of large twin tornadoes and at least two other significant tornadoes in Wisconsin, I could favor an article for the outbreak. In most cases when a tornado such as this occurs the article is written for the outbreak rather than the individual tornado. Given this, I will reiterate my original suggestion that, if this is not merged to Tornadoes of 2014, then it should be moved to June 16, 2014 tornado outbreak. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I also would support this being moved to a standard outbreak article and having a well-written section on it there. United States Man (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears that we are moving to some sort of agreement, but I too would support a standard outbreak article with a section on the Pilger tornado (and perhaps its associated tornado family, similar to the 'tornado family' section on May 2007 tornado outbreak, though that was a larger outbreak). Just the Pilger tornado itself would probably not sustain too much of an article alone. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 00:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Large wedge and twin tornadoes being reported near Coleridge, NE and Laurel,NE currently (again). That combined with the Wisconsin/Nebraska tornadoes yesterday and Ontario/Nebraska tornadoes today have pushed it over the article-worthy threshold. Made an outbreak article.

Sharkguy05 (talk) 02:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05

June 18

I think we should be prepared to change the name of this article once again. The Storm Prediction Center is predicting that more supercell Thunderstorms will be possible in the same areas in Nebraska (as of 7:54 CT this morning). swinquest (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd wait until reports start coming in per WP:Crystal. Is this from the same system through? If this does play out not we might want to start calling it a tornado outbreak sequence. TornadoLGS (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thus the reason why I stated should be prepared. Just giving a heads up as rural areas of Nebraska (especially NEastern) has been getting really beat up. swinquest (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: I think it is a stalled frontal boundary with several systems riding along it. Do with that what you think is best. United States Man (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE - (strictly informational ONLY) There is a Tornado Watch for South Dakota and Northeast Nebraska, which does NOT include Pilger (watch stops at the Stanton County line) http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/watch/ww0327.html swinquest (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

None of the parameters are at high, so I suppose that's good for them. Also, if you ever decide to use that as a source, use this link instead: http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/watch/2014/ww0327.html Dustin (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A large tornado was reported in South Dakota. I am thinking of moving this to June 16–18, 2014 tornado outbreak sequence. Thoughts on the title before moving? TornadoLGS (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

We can hold it at just "outbreak" for now. A couple more days and it is a "sequence". United States Man (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I was considering calling it an outbreak sequence as the tornadoes on June 18 appear to be associated with a different low-pressure center from those on June 16. I don't think it's so much a matter of duration as whether or not it is a single storm system. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you can go ahead then. I've never been too knowledgeable on the "outbreak" vs. "sequence" thing anyway. United States Man (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No survey conducted for Lane/Alpena, SD tornado

We have a rather unusual predicament on our hands. NWS in Sioux Falls did not survey the Lane/Alpena tornado (the white multiple-vortex tornado on the 18th that they keep playing videos of on TV), and the damage has already been cleaned up. I have heard from a NWS Sioux Falls employee that a rating will not be assigned. This tornado apparently wiped a house clean off of its foundation, but it looks like it will not be acknowledged in official databases. I've never heard of anything like this happening until now. Any idea how we will handle this? Sharkguy05 (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05

I'd suggest citing a good news source and leave it as an EF? Quite strange for a tornado that was likely at least an EF4. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

NWS Sioux Falls will be conducting a damage survey either Monday or Tuesday. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That's something at least. Not a complete disappointment. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the NWS Damage Assessment Toolkit, NWS Sioux Falls has rated the Alpena tornado as an EF4 tornado. Gravel was scoured off a road, trees were debarked, and a house (aforementioned) was swept clean off its foundation. The full information from NWS Sioux Falls and NWS Omaha will be released tomorrow. The latter has stated that the Pilger tornado will remain an upper-end EF4. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This was a four day event

Looking at the SPC storm reports page, this trough continued to produce tornadoes on the 19th. They weren't as damaging but there were several. Should we go ahead and move the page? Sharkguy05 (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05

It is a good idea, but unless some surveys have come in, you may have to wait for NCDC. United States Man (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:April 6–8, 2006 tornado outbreak which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Speed Record

Should we add that the Pilger tornado that veered off and dissipated second was recently found to have broken a tornado land speed record by Hank Schyma, Skip Talbot, and Dr. Anton Seimon reviewing footage and making calculations based on that footage? Dr. Seimon determined through land scars that this particular Pilger tornado had remained on the ground enough to be caught in the Wakefield tornado's rear flank downdraft, which caused it to speed up to ~94.6 mph (152 km/hr) for a brief period of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evievocu (talk • contribs) 20:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Evievocu: Not as it currently is. Right now we only have that information from a YouTube video, which generally isn't considered a reliable source. See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#YouTube. I would keep an eye out for other sources confirming this record. I could see a journal article coming from this. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Coleridge tornado rating/survey error?

On DAT for the Coleridge EF3, there is a damage point rated EF3/200. Should the article use the rating given by the NWS or the rating determined by the windspeed the NWS gave it? I feel like there should at least be a note about it. Theforge129 (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

DAT is not technically an official source for surveys/reports, so anything there that appears to be in error probably is an error. United States Man (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)