Talk:Tornadoes of 2015

Article will likely be needed soon

Multiple reports of violent wedge tornadoes and homes wiped clean from their foundations in Northern Illinois this evening (4/9/2015). Town of Fairdale, IL has apparently been devastated along with surrounding rural areas. Tornadoes also reported in Texas, Ohio, and Iowa. Will likely need an article by tomorrow. Keep in mind that yesterday's tornadoes in Oklahoma and Kansas were part of the same weather system, and should be included if an article is made. Thanks

Sharkguy05 (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05

I forget, is it EF4 that automatically qualifies for an outbreak article, or EF5? rdfox 76 (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Neither. One EF4 does not constitute the need for an outbreak article. At this time, with 9 confirmed tornadoes at this time and somewhere between 10-20 tornadoes likely to be confirmed once all is said and done, I do not think one is needed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, while this has been the most notable outbreak so far this year, it was neither large nor particularly deadly. So I think it falls a little short of the notability for an article. It would probably suffice to expand this outbreak's section. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Fairdale tornado

I said above that I did not think an article would be needed for the April 9th outbreak, and I stand by that. However, what do you guys think of an article for the Rochelle-Fairdale tornado? It was not as impactful as Tuscaloosa, Greensburg, Hackleburg, or other tornadoes we've given articles to, but it was significant nonetheless. According to NWS Chicago, it was the first violent tornado in their WFO in 25 years and the strongest tornado on record for both Ogle and DeKalb counties. There should be a sufficient amount of damage points to give a detailed meteorological history of the tornado. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am somewhat against it, but not completely. My main issue is that a violent tornado hitting a community, from a nationwide perspective, is not all than uncommon. Among such events, this one doesn't seem to stand out. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@TropicalAnalystwx13: I did give one to the Hattiesburg, Mississippi tornado from 2013, because I felt that there was substantial information that warranted an article. I feel the same here; while an article isn't necessary, it was a deadly high-end EF4 that occurred on a minimal outbreak day (the same situation as the day the Hattiesburg EF4 hit) that did not warrant an outbreak article. It received plenty of news coverage, so finding information wouldn't be a problem, but I will leave that to your discretion. United States Man (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The only reason I have not created an article yet is because all the damage points have not been entered in the DAT--none of the EF4 damage points anyways. I tried emailing them to ask if there was an available .kmz file, but I haven't got a response. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I still don't think this tornado is notable enough for its own article.TornadoLGS (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible article needed for early May outbreak

Significant, widespread tornado outbreak currently ongoing across Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska. Bridge Creek, Oklahoma was heavily impacted by a large tornado, with multiple reports of large tornadoes further north across Kansas and Nebraska. This event is expected to continue for the next several days as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolltide 130 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

It would probably be better to work within this article and if a section gets to large, then it can be split off into an article. Dustin (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that there were several dozen tornadoes, including a few significant ones, in addition to the historic flooding event across Oklahoma, an article is definitely going to be needed. I'll start a draft later today. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@TropicalAnalystwx13: While I still think that it might be better to add a nice section/summary first, I've decided that it can't hurt to start a draft (and it looks like more severe weather is possible on Saturday). I've started a shell draft at Draft:May 2015 tornado outbreak. I was planning to add more, but I am limited on time at the moment. I'll see what I can do within the next few hours though (I didn't have time for research at the moment, so for now, it's just a mostly empty infobox). Dustin (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah last night's event alone warrants an article, and this isn't even close to over, as additional significant tornadoes are expected to occur Friday and Saturday, with possibly even more on Sunday and Monday (though this is less certain). Just keep in mind that you should include any tornadoes that occurred on Tuesday (May 5th) as well, as they were part of the same system that produced the Wednesday outbreak. My only question is if we should split this into multiple outbreak articles, or leave it as one big outbreak sequence, as any tornadoes that occur today, Friday, Saturday, and beyond will be from a separate system, not the one that produced the Tuesday-Wednesday (May 5th-6th) outbreak. Today's setup is pretty marginal, so if no tornadoes occur today, then I'd say split it into a second outbreak article. If we do get tornadoes today, then consider an outbreak sequence instead. Sharkguy05 (talk) 17:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05

Separate systems, mean separate outbreaks, so if Friday and Saturday are significant, it would be a separate article. I think we could keep them separate even if we have a few isolated tornadoes today, as we did for February and March outbreaks back in 2012. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: Even if they are technically separate outbreaks, couldn't we just change the "tornado outbreak" in the article's title to "tornado outbreak sequence"? Dustin (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I suppose we could, but I would be against it unless we saw substantial activity today. This issue came up a while ago, and one of the proposals was that the outbreak articles should remain separate if we go more than a day in between without significant activity. I think I can get behind that. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Reports are coming in of a large wedge tornado on the ground in Texas this evening. Was not expecting this. No damage reports yet, but we may need to really consider the outbreak sequence article idea if this ends up being a significant event tonight (EF2+). Sharkguy05 (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05

What was originally looking like what would potentially be the most significant severe day is now looking like it has busted to a significant degree. Dustin (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't totally bust. Somehow it still was able to pull off a pretty significant event at the last minute. Large wedge tornado has caused one fatality (media reported and confirmed by local officials) and what appears to be EF4-ish damage near the town of Cisco, Texas. Several large wedge and multiple-vortex tornadoes being reported in Kansas as well. 46 tornado reports overall. Gonna extend the article as a result.

Sharkguy05 (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05

Bützow

The article makes it seem like the one fatality was in Bützow, a very small city on Mecklenburg-Vorpommern hit by a tornado. But the cited article clearly says that the fatality was in Hamburg, a big city in Germany. That section needs to be reworded to reflect that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.158.30.131 (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Severe Weather: May 16

It looks like there may be some severe weather today in much of Oklahoma and Kansas. Take a look at the Storm Prediction Center's May 16, 2015 2000 UTC Day 1 Convective Outlook.

See these two links: Goodland, KS Graphical Nowcast (Permalink), Norman, OK Graphicast (Permalink). There is information here as well: SPC Severe Weather Products Valid on: Saturday May 16, 2015

I just thought I'd notify page watchers here. Dustin (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

At the current time, it appears that there are seven Tornado Watches in the United States active simultaneously. Stay aware! Dustin (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that anyone who bothers to put this page on their Watchlist would already be aware of the conditions. 8P United States Man (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

"Tornadoes of 2015", and not "Tornadoes of 2015 in the USA"

NO, I don't want to ruin the Page! [1]

For suggestions I am - as a weather fan - very grateful! (Please excuse my perhaps not so good english skills, because it is not my native Language - my Time in the School is long ago...)

The name of this Article is "Tornadoes of 2015", and not "Tornadoes of 2015 in the USA". Accordingly, I had edited the Article.

Today I have to attempt again, because the Structure of the Article is only US-based/US-focused, although the text should list any severe Tornadoes global wide. Hope, you do not think, that the USA is the Center of our World/Earth? The previous Version is against NPOV.

Therefore, the Re-structuring of the Article; to correspond to his Name; so that the Events of the Tornadoes are viewed from a global Point of view - not only from a US Point of View.

Thanks that you did not not modify my Version of the Section "See also".

Greetings from Munich, Bavaria, Germany

-- 88.217.22.78 (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The page is maintained in the US-centric fashion as the vast majority of tornadoes (off-hand I believe it's about 80% of all events) touch down in the US. Notable global events are regularly added with the country/region specified to differentiate them. The US-centric format also helps avoid excessive redundancies of restating that events are in the US. It just saves us time/space to do it this way. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

So please rename the Artikel into: "Tornadoes of 2015 in the USA"

-- 88.217.22.78 (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

As I said, events outside the US are included regularly so changing it to only the US would inherently remove content. Forcing a global perspective on an event that happens mostly in one country is a bit silly as it puts unnecessary weight on lesser events. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not understand:

Possibility 1.: Rename the Artikel into: "Tornadoes of 2015 in the USA" - and you have right.

Possibility 2.: You have right now, but then please add "Mexico" for the Tornadoes of May 23-25 - so as it is done with other Countries.

Greetings, -- 88.217.22.78 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Mexico tornado should be added (and someone will most likely get to that soon), but there are notable events that happen outside the United States each year, so renaming the page is not an option. Notable events will most likely be added in due time. United States Man (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I thank you both for your Answers. I believe, that we understand and we have a conclusion and a result of this Diskussion:

The Artikleformat should be as it is now.

I will add Informations from outside the USA in the future, if it contributes the Atikle in Format as it is.

I Hope I will find the time at the comming Weekend to work at the German Version.

Honestly said, the German Version looks akuell like after a F5 Destruction...

Greetings, -- 88.217.28.69 (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Originally, I think there was a separate section for the Mexico tornado, but somebody merged it into the May 23–25 section. Dustin (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have right, I have searched for it, please see: [2]

But I believe it is right to merge both Sections, because "the Weather is not interested in political Boundaries/Borders"

-- 88.217.28.69 (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Veneto tornado: F4 or EF4?

Edits seem to be going back and forth between calling the Veneto tornado an F4 and an EF4, with the infobox and the section on the tornado differing on this matter. The cited sources seem to be saying EF4, but I was under the impression that only the United States and Canada currently use the Enhanced Fujita scale. It would be good to settle this. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Other countries are slowly adopting the EF scale. I know that France has been using it for several years already, and based on the report from Italy it appears that they have adopted it as well. Pretty straightforward in my opinion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I see good sense in what Cyclonebiskit is saying, but I believe that we need more than one source of information to confirm this. While visiting stormtrack.org the other day, I noticed a video with the title rating the tornado an F4, not an EF4. I do not believe that Italy has adopted the EF scale as Cyclonebiskit speculates, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. I'll do what I can to look into this so as to help settle the dispute. I suggest others do the same. [[67.44.161.220 (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)]] 03:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not just the number of sources that matters but what the sources are. The page stating the tornado to have been an EF4 appears to be an official site, possibly analogous to that of the National Weather Service. Could somebody confirm this? As to "seeing a video somewhere" you would have to verify that the video itself comes from a reliable source. I have known news media, primarily in the US, to confuse the two scales. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I heartily agree with you on this matter, the media isn't always reliable. The link used for EF4 rating may not be entirely reliable due to the possibility that many of us can not read Italian. This may lead to the belief of it being an official page. Not that it isn't an official page (as it certainly looks like it), but we need someone who understands Italian to confirm this. There was a link with the video that I tried to access, but my computer would not allow me to. The same is the case with the report of this tornado being rated EF4, I am unable to access the file. However, that is not the subject. This tornado very well could have been an EF4, but, as I previously stated, I will research this matter to find as reliable an answer as possible. [[67.44.161.220 (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)]] 14:23, 13 July, 2015 (UTC)

My computer has allowed me to access the file used for EF4 rating. I was in the process of translating it when the website I was using to translate banned me for unknown reasons. If another could continue the translation of the text as I was unable to do, I have no doubt it will be well appreciated. [[67.44.161.220 (talk) 15:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)]] 14:55, 13 July, 2015 (UTC)

October Section (At The Least) Needs Updating

The article is at least outdated with respect to the October section. Tornadoes were occuring at least in Iowa on the same day Hurricane Patricia was hitting Mexico. Tornadoes were possibly also occurring in Texas on 31 October. If October is outdated, it is possible other sections may not be up to date as well.

@Biturica Thank you, but there are almost no sources citing them being confirmed. 162.225.218.37 (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

the October one is out of date. https://nwschat.weather.gov/p.php?pid=201511010147-KHGX-NOUS44-PNSHGX these 6 tornadoes are not on the October one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasboykc09 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Late October tornado outbreak needs article?

Does the late October Texas outbreak need an article? HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

From the NOAA storm reports page, it looked like a few tornadoes occurred farther east on November 1st and 2nd, and 5 tornadoes have been comfirmed from those days. Was that related? 24.177.193.71 (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, the tornadoes on November 1-2 were not really related to the outbreak at all, but there were like 60-70 tornadoes. Still, not all are added. HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Nov 16-17 ongoing outbreak.

There is an unusual and major nocturnal tornado outbreak ongoing in Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas right now. Multiple tornado emergencies and wedge tornadoes have occurred. Reports of major destruction are starting to filter in from the Pampa, TX area. More tornadoes are expected in Louisiana and Mississippi tomorrow. We may need an article soon. Sharkguy05 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05 Tornado in Pampa has been rated EF3 1 hr. ago. 162.225.218.37 (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Does the October 29-31 event really need its own article?

I mean we had nothing above EF2 strength, no fatalities, and not a huge number of tornadoes. Plus, I think it is summarized well enough in the section that already exists. In my opinion, it falls just short of article worthy. Not to mention, the article itself is not currently up to par by any stretch. Sharkguy05 (talk) 05:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05

It doesn't meet the deletion criteria so no. HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 17:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying what I think here, but saying it doesn't meet the deletion criteria doesn't mean it deserves and/or needs an article. Dustin (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hate to bring this up again, but

The October 29-31 article NEEDS to go. It is an embarrassment to the standard of quality we strive for when constructing tornado outbreak articles. HurricaneGonzalo is clearly one of our more inexperienced contributors, and to be direct, simply is not at the point where he should be putting together articles. Not trying to be mean, but that article is in such bad shape, and the event is so un-noteworthy that I don't even want to bother fixing it at this point. Can we PLEASE reach an agreement here so I don't have to see it anymore when I visit the Tornadoes of 2015 page? I feel like we are starting to slide back to our pre-2013 days in terms of article quality. Let's not allow that to happen by being more pro-active with this page. That goes for ALL of us, not just me, Cyclonebiskit, and TropicalAnalystwx13, who seem to be the only three making major contributions to this subject as of late. Sharkguy05 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05

@Sharkguy05: Try to keep in mind the relative experience of editors before making remarks like "embarrassing" ;) I used to make some pretty poor edits myself and made quite a few articles I'm not proud of in my early days. Anyways, it's a guidance issue that happens with all new editors. It's up to the more experienced ones to help guide them on how to properly construct encyclopedic content. Since it's most often learned over the course of a few years, so it can be rather exhaustive to "train" (so to speak) a new editor. If HurricaneGonzalo would like, I can try to guide them on how to construct certain articles if they put forth specific questions (though we only have a handful of articles that are high quality examples). The October 29–31 outbreak could serve as a very useful teaching tool, now that I think about it. It's a relatively minor event (smaller scale is great for learning) but has just enough activity that giving it an article is okay.

As for the overall quality of the articles, the Meteorology projects as a whole have lost most of their older editors, and thus their quality...WP:WPTC seems to be the only exception and the only consistently active project within the meteo scope, but I digress. For me, personally, tornado outbreak articles take way more effort than they're worth to write. Maybe I'm just being too much of a perfectionist, but the last time I tried to get one to GA-status (May 18–21, 2013 tornado outbreak), I burnt myself out. There's just so much meteorological information to work with at the synoptic, meso, micro, and storm scales that you essentially have to leave out viable information to make an article palatable. In all honesty, that's why I tend to just stick with the tornado tables or just clean up work... it's too taxing for me. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. If there is no way we are deleting that article, then we at least need to get it in acceptable shape. I can work on it some tomorrow, but I'm gonna need some serious help. There are large sections of it that need to be almost completely re-written. I can get the tables caught up for sure though. Anyone else around to help out? Also on an unrelated note, I should add that there might be another major outbreak on Wednesday so we need to be prepared for that too. Sharkguy05 (talk) 03:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05

@Sharkguy05 You've gone too far on talking about me. I am very sensitive in a way and you have hurt my feelings really bad by calling my edits "embarrassment". That's just too much for me to take.HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Alright alright chill I know I shouldn't have said that, but let this be a learning experience. Let's slow down, and not jump the gun when it comes to articles from this point onward ok? You also are going to have to work on the content of your edits being more encyclopedic in tone and content, as well as not relying on SPC reports page to fill out the tornado tables. My own additions were pretty embarrassing a few years back I should add, but I slowly figured out how to do it right. Unfortunately, we likely have a deadly outbreak about to unfold tomorrow, so I can't help you with the article for now, but pay attention as there will likely be a new one in the works for tomorrows event. Take note of everything you see!

Sharkguy05 (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)Sharkguy05

I am in the highest risk tomorrow anyway, so I will definitely make this upcoming (maybe) article will work out well for me.HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

December 23 Outbreak Article?

A very deadly outbreak has occurred, with over a dozen tornadoes. Some say the 150 mile-long tornado is EF3 or EF4, but according to SPC (Storm Prediction Center), it was rated EF3.HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

We'll wait and see on the article; if damage from SW Middle TN (McNairy, Wayne, Lawrence, and Perry Counties) is as bad as it sounds, we could end up with at least four EF3+ tornadoes. United States Man (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd say we're good for an article. At least 6 tornadic deaths along with multiple probable EF3s and at least one likely EF4. Many other weaker tornadoes too. This was a significant event. Also United States Man, I'd love to see you help out with this soon-to-be article. Sharkguy05 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8010:E1A0:2D1D:3B9D:181:F066 (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Went ahead and started one; it can always be redirected later if it doesn't turn out to be as significant, but I have a feeling some of these tornadoes will need lengthy sections. United States Man (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Move December 23-24 article?

Just wondering if we should move it again, since Birmingham, AL has apparently been hit by a fairly significant tornado tonight with severe damage to residential areas of the city and multiple injuries. Thoughts? Sharkguy05

I guess it depends on whether it was produced by the same system. While the damage looks pretty bad in places (probably EF2 to EF3) I don't believe it was spawned by the same system that caused Wednesday's outbreak (though I could be wrong) --Anonymous Macaw (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

12/26-28 Article may be needed

Just had a large tornado occur on the NE sides of the Dallas metro with heavy, significant damage. Might need an article on this. With that said, are we going to do this as a continuation of the 12/23-25 article or start a new article due to the fact that this is a different storm system? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rolltide 130 (talk • contribs)

General rule of thumb for creating an article is if there's loss of life, there's potential. Non-fatal (hopefully) events can be held off until we have a better picture. There's not even a section for this on the main Tornadoes of 2015 page; that should be established first before an article. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, not nearly enough information to decide yet, and I think we've been too quick to create articles for a few events. It does appear to be a separate system from the one that produced the December 23-25 tornadoes so I wouldn't roll them together unless it qualifies as an outbreak sequence, which I don't think it does. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Reports of entire neighborhoods destroyed in the eastern suburbs of Dallas with at least four deaths, body count expected to rise. Additional structures reportedly leveled in the Ovilla, Copeville, and Nevada, TX areas from likely separate tornadoes as well. This was a significant event tonight, and more tornadoes could occur tomorrow. This is starting to seem like an outbreak sequence to me. Just my thoughts. Sharkguy05

Clearly my comments became outdated very quickly The events are geographically and meteorologically separate enough to warrant different articles. A technical "tornado outbreak" (6+ tornadoes within several hours) did not take place on December 24–25 so there's nothing really supporting an outbreak sequence either. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok I'll see what tomorrow brings before I pull the trigger on a new article. Sounds really, really bad from what I'm hearing over the scanner though unfortunately.Sharkguy05

Damage pics are coming in this morning. The Dallas tornado looks like it was EF3+, and sadly it seems that there are at least 5 fatalities. --Anonymous Macaw (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

December 26, 2015 tornado outbreak

Support split - The December 26, 2015 tornado outbreak was significant, and should be split to a new article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:00, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I think everyone supports having an article, but it has always been our policy to wait until we have sufficient information to start an article. We don't just create stubs and leave them. United States Man (talk) 17:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this because of the decent chance of this getting upgraded to EF5, and this would be the first F5/EF5 in December since 1957, and there have been deaths in the double digits. Jdcomix (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

New article or either in a tornado outbreak sequence article. (one prime example been in early-January 2008) 173.177.230.240 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

One of our other editors seems not to support an "outbreak sequence," so I guess we should stick with a new article. United States Man (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts. We should create an article for this outbreak, but not until the surveys start coming in. I think there is also a sufficient break in activity to count this as a separate outbreak. When we do start it we should probably extend it through at least December 27 as more tornadoes are anticipated. Warnings have already started. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, we should wait, But an EF4 is significant. And I think we should have an article for both this tornado outbreak and the apparent ongoing tornado outbreak sequence. As I stated on another talk page: "We have a Preliminary Rating of "at least high-end EF3 intensity" for one tornado on December 23, and one with an intensity of a least EF4 on December 26." And as these are still Preliminary Ratings, it appears there is still a slight to good chance that either one or both might be upgraded to "EF5" intensity, the first F5 or EF5 in December in decades. At minimum, the EF4 in Texas on December 26 is the first one of F4 or EF4 intensity this late in a year in at least 15 years.--Halls4521 (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is saying that we shouldn't have an article for this. I don't think we should have an outbreak sequence article as there does appear to be enough of a break to call these two separate outbreaks. If we do go with an outbreak sequence, there should just be a single article, as it would be redundant to have one for both the sequence and each of the two outbreaks. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Highly unlikely there was an EF5; we will end up with two articles: Dec. 23–25, and Dec. 26–27/28. No outbreak sequences. United States Man (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Understood. And it appears we may have the necessary info and significance for the article very soon; especially since the death count is now in the double digits.--Halls4521 (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

We're ready for an article now. Nine tornadoes confirmed, and there are likely some more to be confirmed from today's event including a very large wedge near Hampton, AR and another that caused considerable damage in Bearden, AR.Sharkguy05

Nobody's stopping you; just make sure it isn't a stub. United States Man (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Update -Article really needs expanding (and its reference need rearranging and editing). Also due to "Winter Storm Goliath" (winter storm/ice storm/blizzard) and flooding, we may need to change the title to "December 26–28, 2015 North American storm complex" (see article's talk page). Thank you.--Halls4521 (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thnaks Cyclonebiskit.--Halls4521 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

NWS Twitter page photos?

I want to make a detailed point-by-point summary of the Ovilla/Glenn Heights and Garland/Rowlett tornado paths with accompanying photos. Just wondering if taken by damage surveyors and posted to a NWS Twitter account are ok to use? No photos from the event have been posted to the actual event page made by NWS Dallas/Fort Worth. Sharkguy05

If you are getting text from the pictures, then I have always been of the opinion that we aren't able to do that. But, if you are just using the pictures as extra "enhancement," I don't see why you couldn't as the all NWS pictures are in the public domain. @Cyclonebiskit: Do you have anything to add? United States Man (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

As long as you can confirm it's definitely from a surveyor and not a sent in photo, I don't see any issues. Falls under public domain as it's part of their official duty (PD-USGov-NOAA) to photograph the evidence. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Make a page for the June 22-23 event?

Should a page be made for the June 22-23 tornado outbreak? It was a tornado outbreak of strong tornadoes like the August 24, 2016 event. Tornadoguy428 (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

45 pakistan deaths

2015 Pakistan cyclone says nothing about it being a tornado, nor does the news. This unsourced addition should be removed, reducing worldwide deaths to 64. 70.23.39.2 (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)