Jump to content

Talk:Tornadoes of 2013

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

Media exaggeration

[edit]

I've noticed that it is not uncommon that after a tornado has been rated, the news media will report the highest winds of that category, and so, in effect, tend to exaggerate the intensity of tornadoes, Should we then, not include these high-end estimates unless they are backed up by the actual survey information? This is partly in regard to the tornado in Australia on March 21 which has the cited source placing winds at the F2/F3 line but then later says the tornadoes were F1 to F2 intensity. While it would fall under WP:OR, I think it's worth mentioning that the damage in the photos presented does not look near F3. TornadoLGS (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a problem. If the winds were that high, then they were that high. That would put it right at a very high-end F2. The F1 part probably came from some weaker areas along the path. United States Man (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean to say is that these media sources tend to report the upper winds of a tornado's category even if it isn't necessarily high-end. Such was the case with the St. Louis tornado in 2011. TornadoLGS (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 10-11 event article?

[edit]

I am on the fence about starting an article for this event. It wasn't particularly deadly, but the AL/MS long track EF3 was very impressive, and the St. Louis area and Arkansas tornadoes were pretty damaging. Then again, as a whole it only produced 19 tornadoes. Opinions? Sharkguy05 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

Go for it, but don't forget April 7-9; they were part of the outbreak as well. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is necessary. As Sharkguy05 said, it only produced 19 tornadoes. Most of them were weak and the damage description on the EF3 was not too long. Anything about recovery can be added into the section on the main page. United States Man (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with USM. I'd say it falls a bit short of what would qualify for an article. I'd refer to the general guidelines here. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary/Final count at beginning

[edit]

I think people should add info about preliminary and final confirmations to the very beginning of the article where in the info box it tells you how many tornadoes there have been that year. (ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

New Oklahoma tornado

[edit]

Tornado warning issued for parts of central Oklahoma

Should get a mentionRocketLauncher2 (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a tornado touches down, it will be included in the outbreak article as well as the monthly list. If it is only a warning then it will not be included. United States Man (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it touched down. Guess I'll add it in. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Andrea Article?

[edit]

Should we make an article on Tropical Storm Andrea's mini-tornado outbreak? I expect some interesting confirmations will come in from SPC and weather.com has issued a TOR:CON of 6 and their TOR:CONs are usually right. (ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Highly doubt it. All the tornadoes thus far appear to have been weak (EF0) and I don't think more than that is expected. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, there is still WP:Crystal. I agree with Cyclonebiskit, though, the activity may be listed in the storm's main article, but tornadoes from tropical cyclones are generally weaker than those from other systems. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You never know. Tropical Storm Debby and Hurricane Isaac's outbreaks got articles and they each had at least one EF2. Tropical Storm Debby's outbreak had an EF0 that killed one person. (ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 21:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
As it stands now, there's no need. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's right now, but more is expected for the rest of the afternoon and evening, moving slightly farther north tonight, and then more expected in the Carolinas tomorrow. Also, there's a tornado warning in effect right now that has been in effect for more than an hour now. (ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
We'll revisit this later when more reports are in. But as of now, no tornadoes have been officially confirmed and damage is very minor. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Severe weather supposed to continue into today. Tornado watch posted until 100 PM EDT in Eastern North Carolina and a couple tornado warnings have been posted, starting around 4 AM EDT. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind WP:CRYSTAL. I still don't see an article coming in the future.United States Man (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think it should just have a section in the Tornadoes of 2013 article, unless more confirmation files come in. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can stick with a section. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need now. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New outbreak section later?

[edit]

Should we make a section for todays mini-outbreak in Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and Kentucky? There are already a couple reports of tornadoes and several more are expected later. I think we should make a section if at least ten more reports/confirmations come in. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. You don't have to bring it up here every time tornadoes touch down. If needed, a section will be added in time. If it doesn't receive national attention, it will usually be a couple of days. United States Man (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section on it. Take it away if necessary. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It probably will stay up as at least one tornado appears to have been significant. News footage shows what looks like EF2 or EF3 damage. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think we should make an article if enough confirmations come in? ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are way way way way way off there. Not even close to an article and barely enough for a section. United States Man (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree there. I was asking. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think this outbreak is starting to head its way to an article. I would depend it on what they rate the Howard County tornado as, and how many other confirmations come in. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

← It's a relatively small event with not much damage. A section in the main page is enough for this. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 12-13 ahead of time section

[edit]

Were you supposed to make the June 12-13 section so early? There haven't been any reports yet, and it's not June 13th yet. Remember WP:CRYSTAL. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting since there is a high-risk out by the SPC as well as a PDS Tornado Watch/Severe Thunderstorm Watch. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of this outbreak, I think it is so far at least 50% of the way to an article. At least three tornadoes have been significant so far. Opinions? ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very few tornadoes. If this were to get an article, it should be focused primarily on the derecho. United States Man (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I half-agree there, but I would definitely depend some about the article on the significance of the tornadoes. If we (project Severe Weather) made an article, I would probably call it "June 12-13, 2013 tornado outbreak and derecho". That is the main part I would agree with. Last, I would also depend an article on the amount of deaths. So far there have been no tornadic deaths, so to have an article there would have to be more tornadoes and a teeny bit more significance. Opinions, mainly USM and Cyclonebiskit? ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Montgomery-Prince Georges County tornado in Maryland sounds like it lasted about half an hour. Sounds like how long an EF2 would last. Plus, seventeen tornadoes have been confirmed and rated now, and at least three, still have been significant. I will create an article if we reach twenty tornadoes with the addition of just a teeny bit more significance, as I said earlier. And I will, of course, highly include the derecho. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Other events" too U.S. centric?

[edit]

I've notice that we've put several events in the monthly sections into an "other events" section rather than giving them their own sections. All of these events, including one with a significant death toll, occurred outside of the United States. At the same time, much less significant events in the U.S. particularly February 18 and June 6-7, get their own sections. I think we need to reconsider what goes into the "other events" section and what gets its own section. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added those sections in order to reduce the massive amount of white space created by notable, but poorly covered events outside the United States. The vast majority of these "notable events" are only one to two sentences and end up cluttering the article with unnecessary sub-headers and white space. If there is sufficient information available on an event (roughly a paragraph worth) it warrants its own section. However, since this is a sinkdrain article (encompasses a massive topic) there has to be a limit on material and sections added. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cyclonebiskit. I didn't understand it at first, but now I think it is a good idea and makes the page look a little better. United States Man (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel, Maryland tornado June 13

[edit]

Does anybody know any information about that Laurel, Maryland tornado? It was confirmed in the warning, but I don't know exactly when, where, and how much damage it did. Thanks for anyone who helps give info. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If this does not have anything to do with this article (and I don't think it does) then please do not discuss it here (WP:FORUM). United States Man (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It happened recently. Information takes time to get out. NWS will likely survey the area tomorrow. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I know is that it happened around 2006 UTC and started near Olney, Maryland in Montgomery County and continued into the Laurel area. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cyclonebiskit about it likely being surveyed tomorrow. National Weather Service surveyors say they cannot survey the area until the rest of the severe weather ends and it is safe, due to hail reports up to 2 inches. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at a website that said the tornado warning was for Montgomery, Howard, Prince Georges, Anne Arundel, and Baltimore Counties. Warning was in affect for about 30 minutes. Confirmed in the warning at 4:06 PM. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tornado started in Montgomery County near Olney and Colesville and headed into the Laurel area. Montgomery County was under five tornado warnings altogether today. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but this rambling is pointless. Just wait for the NWS survey (which may or may not be forthcoming). United States Man (talk) 02:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finally a storm report of a tornado crossing Georgia avenue and Norbeck road around 2006 UTC near Olney. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 83 possible deletion

[edit]

I tried out reference 83, and it took me to the June THIRTEENTH's 1630 D1 outlook, not the twelfth's. We should delete that due to that it does not go to what it is supposed to be. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and do it yourself. Do not delete it, but just fix the url. United States Man (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the url to the url of the archive instead of the overall 1630 outlook. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section Charts

[edit]

Have you ever considered the idea of adding a tornado chart of an event to a section and putting on hide mode? Please reply with your opinions. ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article would become impossible to manage if the tables are included within it. It struggles with being too big normally, but that would push it over the edge. Additionally, collapsing the tables goes against WP:MOS since it hides information that should be readily available to readers. The way we have the articles set up now is the best we can do. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's talking about the tables. I think he means these
Confirmed tornadoes by Enhanced Fujita rating
EFU EF0 EF1 EF2 EF3 EF4 EF5 Total
0 12 7 0 0 0 0 19
I'm talking about the tables ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about it a bit myself, though I can see how it might not work so well for months with very little activity. I also think it would make the articles more U.S. centric, which I think we should avoid within reason. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...well, we have the small charts to cover that...not sure what the difference would be aside from having too much space taken up by them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August section??????????????????????

[edit]

Why has nobody added an August section by now? There's already been an EF2 confirmed in Jacksonville, Florida (Yes, there's an NWS survey). I don't know if I should add August to June and July or create a new article? ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Everything seems to be in place. United States Man (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 3

[edit]

In your opinion, does the August 3 event deserve a section? ManhattanSandyFurystorm (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, and please stop starting these silly discussions. United States Man (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General Cleanup

[edit]

The 2013 page really needs some work. There are multiple incomplete articles, and a general lack of sourcing. I'm going to fix what I can for now. Just thought i'd make others aware of the issues.

The following sections need some serious help.

April 17-19 (Update: just fixed)

May 26-31 (update:fixed)

June 12-13(update:fixed)

July (all)

August (all)

Sharkguy05 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

I knew that I was getting behind, but I have been too busy. Thank you for doing this. United States Man (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US March tornadoes

[edit]

There were 18 tornadoes reported in the U.S. in March; however, 19 were confirmed.

... 18 reported, 19 confirmed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.202.11.119 (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't mean much, honestly. It just means the weather service confirmed more tornadoes happened than were reported via Local Storm Reports. Thank you for mentioning it though. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

[edit]

First of all, being on a Sunday I am able to monitor at least today (normally really busy due to college - working on becoming a pro met). But it is clear this will likely warrant an article. Name will be November 17, 2013 tornado outbreak correct? CrazyC83 (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be so sure about an article. Wait to see how many are confirmed. A section on this page could hold everything (I kind of doubt it but let's still wait awhile). United States Man (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that. It will definitely need an article now. It has affected at least three large cities and produced no telling how many tornadoes. United States Man (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moore death toll: 23 or 24?

[edit]

I noticed that all references on this website list the death toll of the 2013 Moore tornado as being 23 +2 indirect. With that said, NCDC lists a death toll of 24. I'm thinking of changing it to 24, but I want to discuss it first. Thoughts? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=451572 Sharkguy05 (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

As far as I'm aware, it's always been two dozen direct deaths. With the NCDC confirming that, go ahead and change it. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tornadoes of 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Death Counts

[edit]

The summary paragraph and the info box both list 120 as the worldwide total, with the summary paragraph listing 55 from the US, 36 from Bangladesh, 24 from China, 3 from Turkey, and 2 from Brazil as confirmed. However, in the article, there is an additional Chinese tornado with 3 additional deaths from 3/20, and an additional 12 deaths from a tornado in the Philippines. If those are unconfirmed, recommend an additional 15 unconfirmed deaths were also reported. If confirmed recommend adding to overall totals 199.209.147.178 (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornadoes_of_2013&oldid=1210184000"