Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Tornadoes of YYYY criteria

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

Request for Comment - Criteria for Tornadoes of XXXX articles

[edit]
OPTION 1
Out of the five editors who participated, four (including RFC opener) choose Option 1. One editor choose neither option 1 or 2. The last comment in the RFC was 15 March 2024, two days after opening. Per WP:CONSENSUS, not all editors have to agree for a consensus, but for this RFC, it seems there is a clear consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:58, 13 April 2024 (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.

Should the set of criteria (four points) + the rare oddities exception, become the criteria for all Tornadoes of XXXX (ex. Tornadoes of 2023 & Tornadoes of 2024) articles?

  • Option 1 – Yes
  • Option 2 – No

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]

Copy and pasted from WP:TornadoCriteria

For inclusion, the tornado or tornado outbreak must pass one of the following critiera:

  1. The individual tornado or a tornado during a tornado outbreak caused at least one injury or one death.
  2. The individual tornado or a tornado during a tornado outbreak was rated EF3, EF4, or EF5, and it occurred inside the United States.
  3. The individual tornado or a tornado during a tornado outbreak was rated F2, F3, F4, or F5 or IF2, IF2.5, IF3, IF4, or IF5 or EF2, EF3, EF4, or EF5, and it occurred in a country outside of the United States.
  4. A tornado outbreak which occurred outside the United States.

Rare oddities

  • Rare oddities: Tornadoes not meeting the above criteria may still meet Wikipedia expectations for significant coverage, warranting a stand-alone article or inclusion in Tornadoes of XXXX. Significant coverage involves references addressing the topic in detail beyond, but not excluding, general news coverage during and shortly after the event. The threshold for significant coverage is lower for inclusion in Tornadoes of XXXX pages than for stand-alone articles. Addition of event is assumed to be suitable under silent consensus until questioned. Once questioned, a case-by-case discussion can occur to discuss if the tornado(es) should be included or excluded. (ex: fire tornadoes).

Survey

[edit]
  • Option 1 – As RfC opener as well as proposer for these criteria, I support these becoming the criteria. Discussions to get the criteria seemed solid for a consensus as well with several editors supporting the proposed criteria (with some minor changes which occurred for this set of criteria) with no apparent opposition. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – The eight other editors who participated in the previous discussion which help lead to these proposed criteria were individually notified. The WikiProject Weather was also notified via a talk page message. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 – I support this proposal and appreciate the inclusion of my tweak. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 21:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 - Agreed but disagree with limiting tornadoes to tornado prone areas- strong tornadoes do and have happened elsewhere than traditional tornado/dixie alley. MidnightStudios16 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagreed with that as well since it would become too confusing to try to say what states to include vs exclude. So, I left it out of the proposal. Honestly, any strong tornadoes outside of traditional tornado prone states probably would fall under the rare-oddities case anyhow, so trying to split it up state by state is not worth it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This proposal doesn't limit tornadoes to tornado prone areas. It just seeks to provide a standard instead of the current method which generated numerous, sometimes heated, discussions about individual tornadoes that were typically pretty similar. Any tornado generating significant coverage can be included. Tornadoes outside of tornado-prone regions are generally more likely to meet that standard because of their rarity. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 22:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reread it, so you're saying rate them like international tornadoes, but now I'm having trouble distinguishing between how international tornadoes are grouped. Plus they use IF scale so it sounds like a losing battle. I can see how relatively unimportant storms might become too numerous if we decide that "geographically rare" tornadoes are worth listing.
    Is that what you mean by "individual tornadoes that were typically pretty similar"?
    Also, @DJ Cane, you think I could get your opinion on that Broome EF1 dilemma? I've posted about it in the page that we were pinged here. MidnightStudios16 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Geographically rare tornadoes are, well, rare. Europe has hundreds of tornadoes a year, Asia has roughly a hundred a year, South America gets them and so does South Africa and Oceania. A true geographically rare tornado is like Alaska, Iceland, Panama, ect. Basically, places not highlighted on this map from NOAA. You can see the article on tornado climatology for more info about that. So the issue of "geographically rare" tornadoes being an issue for international tornadoes is not actually an issue. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem with using this map for the conundrum we have here is that most of us would agree, NY Winter tornadoes are significantly rarer than this map tries to communicate. It seems like you are making a case for the opposite though, which I guess if you throw every other region in there NY might seem like tornado alley. Something doesn't feel quite honest about that conclusion though- probably because "rarity" is a harder thing to nail down when you get into it. MidnightStudios16 (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This sentence specifically is the issue we're trying to avoid: I can see how relatively unimportant storms might become too numerous if we decide that "geographically rare" tornadoes are worth listing. What I mean by discussions about individual tornadoes that were typically pretty similar is that those discussions would end up being pretty similar, which is to say someone would oppose inclusion due to lack of impact or coverage, the editor who added it would try to "stand up" for that event's inclusion, but often it would be determined that coverage in an appropriate list (like List of United States tornadoes from January to March 2024) was sufficent. By having a set guideline built by community consensus, we can simplify and shorten these discussions by comparing the event in question to the guidelines rather than seeking a novel community consensus for each event that is challenged.
    I will provide opinion related to the Broome event back in the page where that discussion is occurring. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 23:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean, essentially what I had guessed before; the rarity of an event may be noted, but it's rarity will not make the event; avoiding a barrage of unimportant storms that happen to have a rare anomaly. MidnightStudios16 (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 – The criteria seem well-thought-out and reasonable. I could see the low bar of inclusion for injuries (≥1) becoming an issue but we can see how it works out in practice first. Penitentes (talk) 13:13, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither - It's not clear to me which criteria are being discussed, there appear to be two at Criteria_for_inclusion_on_Tornadoes_of_XXXX_articles, although they are not a lot different. Having spent a few minutes reading thru the material it seems to me that further limiting the events might be a good idea. Why not limit inclusion to only those events causing death? Likewise why are "tornado outbreaks" outside the USA included if one's inside the USA are not unless they meet one of the other criteria? Tom94022 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom94022: that discussion you linked was the beginning/figuring out what to put for the criteria, which is this page. There isn't two sets, just this one. Also, let me comment about International VS US. The US has 10x the amount of tornadoes than any other country. The US, in fact, has more tornadoes than the rest of the world combined. So a tornado outbreak, which requires 6+ tornadoes from the same storm system outside the US is on the uncommon side. Take Tornadoes of 2023 for instance, the U.S. has 1,350 tornadoes, which is several hundred more than Europe + China combined. The US had several tornado outbreaks, compared to the rest of the world, which had one. Basically, tornadoes outside the US are rarely in an outbreak form (more like solo mode or a small tornado family of 2-4), while in the US, outbreaks happen all the time. It is more based on regions and their respective intensities. An (E)F2 tornado in the US is common, with 129 happening just in 2023, while an F2 outside the US is rare, with only 20 tornadoes occurring at that intensity or higher in the rest of the world during 2023. That is why limiting what is included for the US is needed. Also, since there is list-based articles to document ones not included on this global-scale article, it works out. Hopefully that explains it.
Here is an article from CNN which explains it and says, "The US averages over 1,150 tornadoes every year. That’s more than any other country. In fact, it’s more than Canada, Australia and all European countries combined." Every point mentioned in the previous part is also easy to find through RS sources. Limiting to deaths would not work either, since not many tornadoes ever cause a death. Tornadoes of 2022, for instance, has 32 deaths worldwide. Limiting to just deaths would exclude even stand-alone notable tornado outbreak articles outside the US (October 2022 European tornado outbreak being an example). The current criteria is what was typically and almost always used for the lists anyway. WikiProject Weather has had several debates in the past, so this is just spelling out the criteria in plain words vs presumed through debates over the years. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am a dummy but I don't find any criteria on this page and it took me a while to find the ones I linked - so why doesn't someone post the criteria, link it or somehow make it visible to dummies like me. FWIW I understand the 10x situation, but I don't think that justifies the distinction. And I still suggest limiting inclusion to ones that cause death might help shorten the articles. Tom94022 (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom94022:  Done! Just above the Survey section is now a section where the criteria was copy/pasted. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:31, 15 March 2024 (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.

Proposed Addition For U.S. Inclusion Criteria: Multiple or damaging EF2 tornadoes (cont.)

[edit]

This is a continuation of the discussion regarding the proposed addition of two kinds of EF2 tornado events that deserve inclusion, even if they cause no injuries:

1.) Significant damage from an EF2 tornado in a populated town, suburb, or city, but no injuries as a result. 2.) Multiple EF2 tornadoes in a rural area that cause major damage to farms, outbuildings, machinery, vehicles, livestock, forests, and electrical infrastructure, but no injuries.

I strongly feel that if we do not add this criteria, we are going to let significant events slip through the cracks, like April 10. I put that one back because the Slidell EF2 caused some injuries, but if that wasn't the case, that event still absolutely deserves inclusion for the Port Arthur and Lake Charles EF2s, and proves my point quite well. My issue is that I feel the occurrence of injuries is being weighed a little too heavily in terms of significance, and I feel that monetary damage and intensity of structural damage is being under-weighed, if that's a real term lol. After all EF2 tornadoes are by definition "significant".

Also, just think about this: if we put SO much weight on injuries, a falling tree branch knocked down by an EF0 landing on a person could warrant inclusion, while an high-end EF2 could destroy 15 warehouses in a deserted industrial park at 3:00 a.m. in some city, and not make inclusion just because nobody was hurt. It's a thought exercise and hypothetical scenario, but clearly shows how this is a flaw. The EF2 in the industrial park would definitely be the more significant of those two tornadoes, and a scenario like this WILL happen at some point. Now I'm not saying every EF2 that snaps a few telephone poles and trees deserves inclusion, but the Lake Charles and Port Arthur tornadoes most certainly do. Feel free to discuss. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

A few comments: I do support the idea of adding some additional U.S. inclusion criteria, but to not end up back like we were pre-criteria, we need actual minimum-style criteria. So, here is my comments/issues for the two proposed things: (1) what is considered a "populated" town, suburb, or city? 50,000? 100,000? ect... (2) How many for "multiple"? If multiple means 2 or more, then that puts us back to square one with U.S. inclusion.
The first point is a simple thing to set, with borderline populations able to be discussed for inclusion (i.e. if criteria was set to 100k pop and a 99k pop town was hit, a simple discussion could occur to see if it should be included or not).
However, actually that 2nd point was more or less (to a degree) disputed by others. In the first draft of proposal criteria (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Proposal - Criteria for inclusion on Tornadoes of XXXX articles), the criteria use to be EF2+ for U.S. inclusion, but after multiple editors challenged it, it was removed from the 2nd draft and U.S. inclusion was set to EF3+. Hurricanehink had a good point about that: "North America had 129 EF2's in 2023 and 123 in 2022. Seeing as the US has their own monthly lists, I would prefer that the main yearly tornado articles make it as global as possible, therefore restricting only the most significant US tornadoes to the main list. I get why EF2 would be in the proposal, seeing as they're considered significant, but there's too many for my liking for a global yearly list. Imagine if every Category 2 hurricane would have to be listed on a global tropical cyclone list." So honestly, for both proposed points, some level of a "minimum" number (population for #1 and number of EF2s for #2) need to be set, with notes always that discussion can include items not meeting the set criteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can get into more detail later, but population is actually not a relevant criteria for notability when it comes to a significant hit on a community. A high-end EF2 tornado that damages or destroys every building in a town where there are only 60 or so structures, is arguably MORE significant than an EF2 tornado that damages or destroys 60 buildings in a populated metro area. Again, I am not suggesting we include every EF2 tornado, but we should absolutely include any EF2 that causes extensive structural damage, and is impactful to a community, be it a big city or small town. A high-end EF2 hitting ANY populated area is a big deal. Again, this has more to do with the severity of which a community is impacted, rather than the population of that said community. In terms of number of EF2s in rural areas, I'll say 3+ is a good starting point.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

For the 2nd proposed criteria, I would personally support 5+, since that would make the outbreak a minimum of a “significant outbreak” on the outbreak intensity score. For the first proposed criteria, I am going to hold off on supporting or opposing until a couple of others chime in. But, honestly, that still doesn’t set any “hard” criteria. Based on what you described, I would say that if we introduce that criteria, we add a note that initial inclusion is accepted until challenged (Silent) and then a discussion would occur. The reason for my reasoning on that is it not being true “hard” criteria, but rather a subjective criteria. Should they be included? Yes. But the subjectiveness would be hard. A tornado that destroyed 60% of a town in rural Kansas would be as notable as a tornado that destroyed 1% of NYC, level of subjectiveness. So I like the idea, but again, I want others to chime in about if some level of criteria would be set for the population/large city stuff or if it should be “soft” and subjective criteria, before I formally support or oppose it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 18:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I think these are all good ideas. I especially support the use of the outbreak intensity score as a criterion for inclusion on the main tornado page. HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could meet in the middle and call it 4+ rural EF2s? If not, I can live with 5+ though, so no biggie. Now my bigger concern is the issue of EF2 tornadoes directly impacting communities, but causing no injuries. In my opinion, the most important factor is how severely a community is impacted, rather than how large that said community is. Since we already have such rigid guidelines for what is already ratified, I think taking a "softer" criteria approach to this issue allows us to be flexible and make the best calls in varying scenarios. I'd say our only "hard" criteria for no-injury EF2s should be multiple incidences of EF2-rated structural damage within said community. Obviously, we can't include an EF2 that unroofs one single house in a town, and causes only minor damage elsewhere. But, lets say that same town is hit by an EF2 that severely damages or destroys a handful of homes and businesses, tosses cars around, snaps countless trees and power poles, and leaves big a mess that will take time for that said town recover from. That would be a significant, impactful event. In a nutshell, my vote is to allow inclusion of damaging no-injury EF2s that hit towns and cities, but only do so on a case-by-case basis given support from a majority of editors here. Yes, we would have discuss and reach consensus each time, but having EF2 tornadoes hit towns/cities and cause zero injuries will not be a very common occurrence. I imagine we'd have to only do it a few times each year, if that. Thoughts?
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]
I absolutely support that soft criteria idea. Inclusion is always allowed until challenged under WP:SILENT, and then once challenged a discussion takes place on a case-by-case basis, so I fully support that idea. I will let others chime in about 4+ or 5+. I lean more on 5+, given HamiltonthesixXmusic mentioned liking the idea of 5+, but not a hard lean. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to agree on all those points. But also; even if the EF2 tornadoes don’t do severe damage. If there is multiple (at least 5 or so) tornadoes that reach EF2 levels, it should meet criteria.
But I think we should also expand that scope to also include situations where even if there are no EF2 tornadoes (or fewer than five); if there’s say 50 (or insert whatever other really large number you want) EF0 and/or EF1 tornadoes on a single day; then it should also meet tornadoes of XXXX criteria regardless of whether there were any stronger tornadoes.
And I think we should also expand the scope even further on the damage part to include (high end) EF1 tornadoes that cause a lot of damage in major cities under certain circumstances (like one that tracks for 5 or 6 miles through or very near a downtown area for example). 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:437:C6AE:F163:B235 (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I think that unusual events that are below the criteria should also be included (eg. A tornado touching down in Alaska or the Pacific Northwest) and/or tornado events that break a record in some way (like the most prolific tornado outbreak in West Virginia from April 2nd as a prominent example). 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:8D33:6C67:6107:2135 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me! Cheers.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

That's just it. The overall tornado page is supposed to be a worldwide summary, so even the F2's that destroy a few buildings, but don't kill anyone, I'm not sure that's worth having in the main tornado page of the year. I'd personally restrict it to deadly and F5 tornadoes in the US. There are already monthly pages for US tornadoes, and I think it would be useful to have more state lists, like List of New York tornadoes, when there is a rare tornado for a particular region. But I don't think those rare tornadoes in the US should get a mention in the overall article for tornadoes in a given year, it heavily biases toward the US IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the basis that this is far too restrictive. The steps being taken to improve global coverage on these pages are working well. Removing a U.S. bias involves less heavily relying on U.S. only data in the lede, infobox, etc. The simple fact is that there are more notable tornadoes in the U.S. than anywhere else. Covering these appropriately is not unnecessary U.S. bias. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 22:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard oppose absolutely positively against that. If we restrict to only F/EF5’s we would only have yearly tornado articles once every five (or more) years or so. You might as well call it “EF5 tornadoes that happened in the tenties” rather than “tornadoes of 2024” 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:437:C6AE:F163:B235 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I would support individual state based lists. Provided that they substitute the other lists rather than replace them. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:437:C6AE:F163:B235 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Meant to say supplement rather than substitute) 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:2868:6157:97AA:EFA3 (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hard Oppose EF5s and deadly tornadoes only? Absolutely not. Besides, we've already established and ratified a general notability criteria, and according to those rules, an EF3 alone meets inclusion criteria, and we are not going back on that. What you are describing is an ABSURDLY high and unrealistic standard for inclusion, and there's no way anyone here is going to support the idea of restricting it to EF5 and deadly tornadoes only. Do you realize we haven't even had a confirmed EF5 since 2013? It's been over a decade. Not only that, do you realize we frequently go through whole months with zero tornado fatalities in the US? Sometimes ENTIRE OUTBREAKS of strong tornadoes produce zero fatalities. I mean honestly, what you are describing would leave us with a mostly blank page with just a handful of events listed. So yeah, that's not gonna happen. Plus, like I said, we've already ratified guidelines and are past all that by now. The topic at hand now is EF2 event inclusion criteria; nothing more, so lets stay on topic.

TornadoInformation12 (talk)TornadoInformation12

Formal proposal

[edit]
OPTION 1
Out of the eight editors who participated, seven (including RFC opener) choose Option 1. One editor choose neither option 1, 2, 3, or 4. The last comment in the RFC was 29 April 2024, six days after opening. Per WP:CONSENSUS, not all editors have to agree for a consensus, but for this RFC, it seems there is a clear consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:35, 4 June 2024 (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.

Should the following criteria be added as additional criteria in WP:TornadoCriteria?

  1. (As a new point 5 in the criteria) Tornado outbreaks inside the United States with five or more tornadoes rated EF2
  2. (As a new criteria section similar to “Rare oddities”):
Section title: High impact tornadoes
Text: Any tornado not meeting the above criteria may still qualify for inclusion as a “high impact” event. A hypothetical example of this criteria is an EF2 which does not kill or injure anyone, however, it damaged or destroyed 90% of a town of 2,000 people. Inclusion of these tornadoes is subjective. Any editor is allowed and should add such tornadoes to Tornadoes of XXXX articles, as inclusion of such events are considered to have presumed consensus. However, once a “high impact” tornado’s inclusion is challenged, a talk page discussion should occur to determine if the specific tornado qualifies as a “high impact” tornado and if it should be included or excluded in the article.
  • Option 1 — Support addition of both proposed criteria points
  • Option 2 — Support addition of proposed criteria #1, but oppose addition of proposed criteria #2
  • Option 3 — Support addition of proposed criteria #2, but oppose addition of proposed criteria #1
  • Option 4 — Oppose addition of both proposed criteria points

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say instead of 90%, I think 70% or 75% may suffice. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:8D33:6C67:6107:2135 (talk) 19:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal survey

[edit]
  • Option 1 — I do support the addition of both points. The discussion before this gave a good hint at what a possible consensus looks like for a support of both points. This was also brought up over at the Tornadoes of 2024 talk page, which also gave further examples and reasoning for why both criteria points should be added as formal inclusion criteria on WP:TornadoCriteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 — In response to RFC, not sure I am replying in the right place. Feel free to move this if desired. I see no point in compromising. Include both items. The information can be of interest or value to many readers and not easy to find elsewhere, except possibly to specialists. Put it in. It will not spoil the article nor bankrupt WP. JonRichfield (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy pings for registered users in the pre-RFC discussion above prior to formal RFC start: @TornadoInformation12:, HamiltonthesixXmusic, Hurricanehink, DJ Cane. Further note: a notification will be going out about this to the WikiProject Weather talk page as well as the talk page of Tornadoes of 2024, the ongoing season of articles affected by WP:TornadoCriteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this criteria makes sense, and does a good job not automatically putting in too many events, while allowing the flexibility for the occasional rare event. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Option 1 Follow up to above comment. I support both options. But I think the threshold on criteria #2 needs to be modified a bit. Instead of damaging or destroying 90% of the town. I think it should be lowered a dab to 75%. I also think that if the tornado *significantly* damages a very important building (like the courthouse or a fire/police department building or especially a hospital; I think it should be included even if less than 75% of the town was damaged. I also think that if the EF2 tornado strikes a large city of at least 50,000 people (and not just glances the edge but actually does significant damage to a large number of buildings) then it should be included even if only a small *percentage* overall was damaged. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:8D33:6C67:6107:2135 (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That 90% was a hypothetical example as even stated in the criteria, solely because it is subjective. 1% of NYC destroyed by a tornado would easily quality while 50% of a 50k population town would also be notable. Subjective means no true criteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In short, this is a specifically spelled-out example of a “Rare oddity”, as it was requested and discussed by several editors. In reality, one could just picture it falling under the “rare oddity” clause already, but this specifically spells out that “high impact tornadoes” are also “rare oddities”, per se. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still support the idea. But as I also said in another section of this discussion. I think if it produces an extremely large number of tornadoes, even if all or most of them are weak; it should also be included. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:8D33:6C67:6107:2135 (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Like for example; if a storm system produces 40 tornadoes, but 39 of them are either EF0 or EF1; and the one lonesome EF2 tornado stays in a rural area; or the storm produces 40 tornadoes and they’re all EF0’s and EF1’s, the sheer number of tornadoes (should) qualify for inclusion. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:8D33:6C67:6107:2135 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(My proposed criteria addition is also subjective by the way) 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:437:C6AE:F163:B235 (talk) 03:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think there should (if there isn’t already) be some kind of provision in the criteria that specifically states that no one should add any (United States) tornadoes that haven’t already been surveyed by the weather service. Otherwise, people will try to abuse the criteria to “jump the gun” like that one person did before the April 2nd outbreak. Maybe there already is such a policy, I’m not a “Wikipedia lawyer” per se, I am NO expert on the policies; but there has got to be some kind of thing to prevent someone from including tornadoes just based on news reports from the day of. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:437:C6AE:F163:B235 (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think these can be discussed further for future additions/amendments. I like the thinking though! HamiltonthesixXmusic (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you described/mentioned is more of the “Rare oddities” clause. If a tornado was notable enough for a true stand-alone article and it somehow doesn’t pass one of the four (soon to be five) hard criteria, then that would be a very rare event and rare oddity. The first part of the “rare oddity” clause actually states, Tornadoes not meeting the above criteria may still meet Wikipedia expectations for significant coverage, warranting a stand-alone article or inclusion in Tornadoes of XXXX. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (summoned by feedback request service). This is not an area I've edited in before so I might be missing something, but this appears to me to be WP:LISTCRITERIA. Can we express these inclusion criteria in a way that makes them suitable to put in the article itself, so that the reader is clear on why items are (or aren't) included? Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2024 (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.

Requested move 25 April 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 13:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Tornadoes of XXXX criteria → Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Tornadoes of YYYY criteria – As this is referring to years, the conventional abbrevation for that is YYYY, and that will be much clearer than XXXX (which also looks a lot like "XXX", and I don't want someone noticing over my shoulder what I'm reading/editing to think I'm looking at some kind of internet porn site).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about straight up a move to Wikipedia:TornadoCriteria, since this is, in a way, similar to Wikipedia:Notability (films) or WP:NEVENT (a mix of “essay” and actual “policy” since it is community-decided / voted criteria? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a small technical P.S., any move should not occur until after the RFC above concludes as to not have mess-ups with talk page notifications or actual RFC template errors. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. There is no hurry, and this is kind of a minor thing, really.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with SMcCandlish’s rationale here. I wouldn’t want someone thinking that this was a pornographic article or something because XXX usually implies porn. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:3C6E:B155:D63A:8E84 (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shortening the name somewhat by removing "of XXXX/YYYY" might make sense, if either a) the scope of this expands to include tornado list articles that don't have years in their names, or b) all such articles have years in their names and the "of XXXX/YYYY" part of this page title is simply redundant. However, no WP:PROJPAGE essay of this sort should be moved out from under its wikiproject, in a manner implying it is (or labeled as) a guideline without a WP:PROPOSAL at WP:VPPOL concluding in a consensus to elevate it to a guideline.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: — Wait, so an RFC consensus doesn’t actually make it a guideline and it has to go through WP:Proposal? R.I.P. to the previous discussions and RFCs then, because this ain’t a guideline, despite clear consensus for it to be the set criteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no. Guidelines should be a not-too-huge closed set, applicable across WP, while WikiProject list criteria and such are more numerous, open-ended, and local to WikiProjects (or to articles, even). Dicklyon (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Guidelines are things that a large number of editors need to be aware of, with a broad scope of applicability, and extensive consensus-building behind them as best practices. A "clear consensus for [something] to be the set [list inclusion] criterion" really is often set on a per-article basis, and is often both rather arbitrary and something that needs to be adjusted later. This is covered at WP:LISTCRITERIA, and it does not suggest that list-inclusion criteria are or should be elevated to guidelines. It's sensible that the wikiproject has organized this rather WP:LOCALCONSENSUS concern enough to be consistent across a set of very similar and closely related articles, but it's not establishing any kind of principle that applies site-wide to a huge swath of articles, in the many thousands, crossing multiple categories like history and biography and etc. (e.g. "all articles about China" or "all articles about association football"). So the community would not likely entertain putting a guideline tag and guideline category and guideline page name on something this micro-topical. Doing so could inspire 1000+ other attempts to establish thinly attended wikiproject discussions with extremely narrow scopes as "guidelines". ANYWAY, the point of this RM was simply that "XXXX" is confusing and unhelpful; nothing further.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:01, 12 May 2024 (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.
  • @Rotideypoc41352: — No harm really done, but just a head’s up, this should not have been moved until the RFC above concluded, as there is now multiple double-links on talk pages. I just wanted to let you know about it for future reference, since moves (even uncontroversial ones) can create double-links for RFC notifications when one is ongoing. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Events with large numbers of weak tornadoes

[edit]

I'm wondering if there should be a criterion for inclusion of an event that produces a large number of weak tornadoes and few or no EF2 tornadoes. I'm talking something like 10 weak tornadoes in a day or 20 for a multi-day outbreak. Examples include May 18-21, 2010, or June 23-24, 2010. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on where the tornadoes are. But that’s a good starting point. There are certain areas though (like say the Northeast or anywhere west of the Rockies) where fewer tornadoes would suffice. However, in certain places like Mississippi or areas right in the middle of Tornado Alley, you might need a slightly higher threshold such as 15 tornadoes. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on the proposal, honestly leaning slightly opposed to it. Looking at the May 18–21, 2010 example listed by TornadoLGS, my thought would be proving notability. Like why is it notable. I would personally be included to say oppose to the idea of a specific criteria point and let the "rare oddities" or "high-impact" clauses take care of those type of events. For instance, if the event or even a tornado is notable, then there would be evidence, which would easily be seen in a specific discussion for that event/tornado. Right now, that Mat 18-21 section is actually only sourced by SPC references, so on a visual look, it doesn't look super "notable" for the yearly global list. Like I said, each of those events would probably be looked at on a case-by-case basis. If consensus was to form for a proposed criteria, I would say a minimum of 40 tornadoes (since we are talking a lot of weak/non-notable individual tornadoes) for an event or day. May 18-21 would meet that number while June 23–24 would not. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter, you make a good point. I’d say if there’s at least 30 weak twisters, it should be in the tornadoes of YYYY article. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm stuck on other figurings. For instance if we would take a different approach to an event with, about 20 tornadoes, all weak, vs something with 20 weak tornadoes and 2 or 3 EF2 tornadoes. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s really something that should be handled on a case by case basis. Like for example, 10 tornadoes in one day in West Virginia would easily qualify for inclusion (since that would tie the now current statewide record as of April 2), but in say Oklahoma, you might 20 or 30 twisters. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential rewrite needed

[edit]

Since many of the "notability factors" presented here have been disproven in recent months, particularly:

  • The individual tornado or a tornado during a tornado outbreak was rated at least EF3, and it occurred inside the United States. (Strength ≠ Notability, set forth with the Hurricane Milton outbreak draft)
  • The individual tornado or a tornado during a tornado outbreak was rated at least F2, or IF2, or EF2 and it occurred in a country outside of the United States. (Per above)
  • A tornado outbreak which occurred outside the United States. (?)
  • Tornado outbreaks inside the United States with five or more tornadoes rated EF2 (Per above)

I believe a rewrite may be needed, as clearly these don't warrant notability outside of WPW, and these have potentially misled editors who have since come into conflicts with the general community. I know ths is probably a bad time as WPW recently "fell apart", but this is what happens when you file several RfCs within a month-or-two of each other. Tornadoes are highly complicated in terms of notability, and I get that, but these criteria just wouldn't hold up as none address source-based notability. While I know these are for "Tornadoes of YYYY" articles, I have seen this used in actual discussions on individual outbreaks/tornadoes, so that's why I'm bringing this up. EF5 23:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Highly disagree with a rewrite being needed. When this criteria, which is specifically just for Tornadoes of YYYY articles and is entirely separate from individual article notability standards, there was a clear community consensus for it. One thing to remember, Tornadoes of YYYY articles are global article, and these criterias were specifically created to make the articles more globally acceptable. Likewise, the things you say were "disproven" were not, disproven at all, but proven to be supported under these criteria points.
  1. You mentioned EF3+ tornadoes in the US. Hurricane Milton's outbreak passed Criteria 1, 2, and 5, and easily arguably, the "rare oddity" criteria point. I don't know why you mentioned Hurricane Milton disproving that, since it passed the criteria easily, and therefore, is clearly notable.
  2. Please name a notable tornado outside of the US that was not rated F2+/IF2+/EF2+ that does not pass any of the criteria points. I have yet to hear of one.
  3. This was specifically asked for by the community and voted on by the community. This point was not in the original criteria creations, but was amended in by a 2nd RFC. Some explanation for why this was "disproven" would be nice.
There is a reason there is a "Rare Oddities & High impact clause to the criteria. If for some reason. an EF1 tornado did not injury or kill anyone but leveled half a town or was like a highly research one, it would be arguably (key word) notable for the global tornado's list. I think a little more explanation on why points were "disproven" or why they need a complete rework would be a little easier. Give some examples as well to help show as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.
Support, given that this entire page could be merged or even just redirected (with the exception of maybe one or two sentences not mentioned in the 2024 season section per WP:NOPAGE. The only coverage of Kristy is routine and therefore doesn't establish notability for this storm at all. Noting that every Category 5 hurricane doesn't have an article despite its strength (Hurricane Patsy (1959) is one – which kind of relates to Kristy here with no land interaction even though it reached Category 5 status), from @Tails Wx:.
Category 5 in and of itself does not confer notability, and the storm's coverage in sources hasn't been anything except routine., from @Hurricane Noah: (pinging people I quote because I don't want to accidentally twist their words)
And to note, while this is for a hurricane, this first discussion shows clear consensus that notability and strength do not go hand-in-hand.

Tell me if you need more, I'd be glad to supply. My worry is that these criteria can literally be overriden by any other policy due to their non source-based nature, making them unnecessary or a rewrite should be done to base them on sourcing. If they are just for year-based articles, then why are they used in individual tornado AfDs, or say things like The individual tornado or a tornado during a tornado outbreak was rated at least EF3, and it occurred inside the United States. These would easily fall apart when put to a sourcing test. :) EF5 16:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking, "what links here" finds only one TorCrit mention. EF5 16:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather/Tornadoes_of_YYYY_criteria&oldid=1263177763"