Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1745820256}}

{{requested move/dated|Tornado outbreak of March 13–17, 2025|protected=Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025}}

:Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 → {{no redirect|Tornado outbreak of March 13–17, 2025}} – The storm extended into March 17, with a tornado in North Carolina. 8.44.200.47 (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not for anything, but maybe editors would want to consider a title that does not include a date range that might daily become obsolete??? Maybe something like Tornado outbreak of mid-March, 2025? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 12:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::I already tried, and well... yeah. There's been more unrelated tornadoes over Illinois, so that would create confusion. E_F⁵ 13:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, I saw that closed as not moved. Unfortunately, editors thought that title was too narrow, not broad enough. But then so are date-range titles that must be changed daily. A broader title is badly needed here. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::WP:SYNTH. The Illinois tornadoes are completely unrelated and a different system. We always have date ranges for tornado outbreaks. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Not always. — E_F⁵ 14:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{to|MarioProtIV}} your SYNTH point is taken; however, who is "we" and, as editor EF5 points out, there are several other so-called SYNTH titles. To get that out of the way, the main thrust here is to build consensus for a {{big|stable}} title. Are you on board or not? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::The issue MarioProtIV is bringing up is there is over a decade of precedence for naming these pages in this manner as was established by the wikiproject editors of that era. If I am being honest, if this were to change, it should be the entire set and not just a single page simply for consistency. Noah, BSBA^Talk 12:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The issue I'm trying to get across is that this supposed "consensus" was over ten years ago and was never challenged or clarified because nobody tried. WP:CCC has a reason; a wider project discussion would probably be beneficial. E_F⁵ 13:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose per Paine Ellsworth. It's not that I don't dislike the title, it's that it just creates too many issues with the tornadoes near Illinois and overall I oppose having numbers in the title (not including pi, haha.) — E_F⁵ 13:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, a belatedly happy Pi Day to you, editor {{u|EF5|E_F⁵}}! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::The Illinois tornadoes are completely unrelated and linking them is WP:SYNTH. Cody in an above discussion made it pretty clear we need to stop grouping these activities as we need to have a stricter definition on what constitutes a tornado outbreak. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Sure, us weather nerds know they're different, but does the general reader? — E_F⁵ 14:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes. We’ve done it in the past for 20 years, and it’s not changing. WP:DEADHORSE essentially. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:30, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Here we go with unwritten "precedent" again. — E_F⁵ 14:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::It's also good to note that the RM/TR won't go through, since there's formal opposition. — E_F⁵ 14:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Reminder that the unwritten precedent isn't law. I'm getting the slightest hint of OWN here from MarioProtIV, not that the contributions aren't helpful, which they most certainly are and are very much appreciated, but this and the preliminary image are being asserted a little too insistently, in the sense they're banking on the opinion that the positions taken have unanimous but silent consensus, in my opinion. Departure– (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::It is literally WP:COMMONNAME to associate with date ranges. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Lol, what?? Tell me why 2011 Super Outbreak exists, then. — E_F⁵ 14:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't think arguing this helps with the RM. Nobody's arguing this is a super outbreak and this shouldn't be derailed further. Departure– (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Sure, but I linked the Super Outbreak because it clearly proves the COMMONNAME argument false. — E_F⁵ 14:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Speedy support and there’s already a technical request filed so it won’t take long. NC tornado was part of same system. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply|MarioProtIV}} I closed the RM/TR request as contested as this move is no longer uncontroversial due to the oppose comments above. cyberdog958^Talk 14:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Oppose, per COMMONNAME - [https://weather.com/storms/tornado/news/2025-03-18-south-tornado-outbreak-recap-arkansas-missouri-mississippi-alabama see The Weather Channel, denoting the outbreak as March 14 through 16]. By that metric, the article should be moved to 14-16, and while I agree that the California and North Carolina articles should stay in the article's tables and perhaps body prose, the clear focus, both in terms of actual damage and RS reporting, is on the 14th through 16th. Departure– (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with this-the main event occured the 14th to 16th. Tornado Tracker2 (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Tornado Tracker2So we would just leave the Cali EF0 out of it? Jamiecr1 (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Well that was the only tornado of March 13th, just like there was just one on the 17th, and that's the same point for including March 17th with the outbreak. However, since they are technically part of the same storm system, maybe we should have March 13th-17th Tornado Outbreak. Also did you see what I put about the OIS? Tornado Tracker2 (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, and it falls into the historic category so this outbreak is a historic outbreak. It is the highest in record for March though, and it was the thirt day two issued high risk ever. The last time that happend was in 2012. But I did see it and it makes sense to call it historic. Jamiecr1 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree with naming this "historical". Also if you want to watch someone on YouTube who monitored this outbreak in two separate Livestreams for the main two days (March 14th and March 15th) watch Ryan Hall Y'all. Some other great channels: High Risk Chris, Celton Henderson, June First, Weatherbox. Tornado Tracker2 (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Since historic break goes from 120 to 249, this outbreak of 138 fits right in to it. So I'd agree it should be called "historical" Jamiecr1 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The outbreak has a score of 158 now??? Tornado Tracker2 (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It is still 138, plus historical goes from 120 to 249, not 128 to 249. Tornado Tracker2 (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Sorry for mis-reading it. Ill try not do to it again. And thanks for giving the real info. Much appreciated. Jamiecr1 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::By Departure’s logic, unless we remove both the California and North Carolina tornadoes, the title is actually misleading with the contents of the article. Unfortunately this is a case where most RS won’t include it in comparison with the bigger tornadoes that occurred. Also, we have had articles that weren’t set by specific date ranges. Tornado outbreak sequence of May 2019. 216.103.15.39 (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Comment: There is now a broader discussion encompassing both this and other similarly affected tornado outbreak articles on the WikiProject talk page. As such, I highly advise most discussion be redirected there to avoid discussion being spread out, and this RM be closed to direct discussion there instead. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:Support with a change – I support having the date range as March 14-17, as the NC tornado on the 17th was in the same area as some other storms and tornadoes The weather nerd of hurricanes and tornadoes (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Strike from sockpuppet of banned user. --Yamla (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{cot|WP:NOTAFORUM. Departure– (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)}}

:::::::I wonder if June first would see how much force it would take to rip out that steel pole from out of the ground. Jamiecr1 (talk) 17:05, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Maybe, since he does great tornado damage assessment videos. The latest one was of the Triangle State Tornado of 1925. Tornado Tracker2 (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Triangle state tornado? Never heard of that xD Jamiecr1 (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::WP:NOTAFORUM. This is a requested move, not a chatroom. Departure– (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Oh. Sorry. Jamiecr1 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Ok, Jamiecr1 you can go to my talk page on my profile since we can't talk here. Tornado Tracker2 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I meant Tri State Tornado but I have autocorrect... Tornado Tracker2 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

{{cob}}

Oppose both the current name and the suggested name. Propose instead :Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 → {{no redirect|Mid-March 2025 tornado outbreak}} – The daterange has already been changed twice, and a third request is underway, with disputes about whether the added date actually belongs to the same outbreak or not. Meanwhile, the page starts at the 13th but has no information about the 13th (apart from snowfall on the 12th and 13th), probably because the only confirmed tornado on the 13th was a minor tornado in California, on the other side of the Rockies to all other tornadoes in this outbreak. So we can continue bickering about which dates should be included or not, based on, well, not much apparently, or we can go for a more generic name which sidesteps all these issues. If (big if) this outbreak gets a real common name in reliable sources later on (not next week or month, but over the years), then a move to that name may be considered: for now, no such name exists and we should stick with something which isn't dependent on a fluctuation consensus about whether event X or Y is or isn't part of this outbreak. Fram (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:I do not agree because this diverges from an agreement that was reached well before a majority of people engaging in this debate were even involved in Wikipedia. Back in the early 2010s, we used a “no date range” format for outbreaks. The problem was that if two separate outbreaks occurred during the same part of the month, we ran into problems. As a result, a discussion was started, and the agreement was to include a specific date range rather than a vague time of month, and this has been the formatting standard for more than a decade. A proposal to do away with an agreed upon formatting standard in use for more than a decade, just because there’s disagreement about the start and end of the outbreak, is not a reasonable solution. All we have to do is pick between the 13th to 17th, or 14th to 17th. The North Carolina tornado on the 17th was in the warm sector and spawned by the same continuous convective complex. The Cali tornado was geographically and convectively separate, and outside of the warm sector. It was spawned by the same weather system though. Meteorologically speaking, those are the two date ranges we can pick from. Which one seems better?

:TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

::{{to|TornadoInformation12}} actually such a date range is acceptable after an outbreak has ended. The problem with the agreement you describe but don't actually cite (a link to such a discussion would be helpful) is that editors like to create an article like this just after an outbreak begins and while the outbreak is still ongoing. So the result is that an article like this undergoes a page move and even a formal move request each day until the outbreak has ended. That is unacceptable, so the agreement you describle should be further discussed (as editors are doing here). You can still disagree, of course, but surely you see the drawbacks? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 05:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::I cannot recall the specific year this decision on title formatting was made, and digging up the discussion that led to it would not be easy for me, but I do know that it happened. I definitely recall us editors having to get used to going from “no date range” to “specific date range” in the titles. This was back in the early 2010s, and the formatting change was sweeping and affected every outbreak article we worked on from that point forward, in addition to old ones. In fact, we had to go back and add date ranges to many, many old articles to bring them into compliance with this rule. It was a bit of a pain and took some getting used to, which is why I remember it so distinctly. Regardless, it was a decision made for a valid reason, and the standard it established is self-evident if you look back through all the yearly outbreak articles. If you look, you will see that including a date range is the obvious standard, with a few exceptions related to outbreaks on holidays (2020 Easter tornado outbreak) or small outbreaks mostly limited to a single state (2023 Tennessee tornado outbreak). So given that this recent March outbreak meets neither of those two exceptions to the rule, I have to ask, what is so different about this specific outbreak that would necessitate a sudden deviation from a long-established standard? The only difference I see is more disagreement than usual about what dates we should call the beginning/end of the outbreak. As far as I see it, that is the only thing that has led to this discussion occurring, rather than there being anything unique about this outbreak that would require a change in well-established title formatting. Therefore, since the only thing in question is the beginning/end dates of the event, doing away with the date range altogether would be a huge overreach for what is honestly a simple fix: finding a date range that makes sense.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 10:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

:::Sorry you could not cite such an important discussion that has pivotal effects on the present day's talks. Some editors will take for granted that such a discussion took place. I for one cannot. Again, sorry. I see more problems with a date range than I see without such a range. It is as I said unacceptable that an editor can create an article that can undergo page moves on a daily basis. I wish I had a better solution than I previously suggested, but I do think that anything is better than a date range that causes a page title to change daily until an outbreak has ended. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Outbreak article titles have always been fluid in nature during and following the event. Your viewpoint makes multiple page moves sound like a major problem, when they’re really not and far from “unacceptable”. What IS a problem is when two outbreaks happen during the same part of the month, without a way to differentiate them in the title. So, what is your solution to that scenario? That is mainly why this standard was established a long time ago, and as a long-time editor, it’s frustrating to see newer users who weren’t even involved or able to recall the issues caused by the old “no date range” format just brushing off these long-established guidelines. It’s trying to fix something that isn’t broken.

::::TornadoInformation12 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

:::::Just saying something doesn't make it so. If your longevity teaches you anything it must be that verifiability is important on WP. I'd look for a confirming discussion myself, but I'm not convinced I wouldn't be wasting my time. I think we're done here; thank you very much for your time. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 13:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Nobody opposed adding date ranges on a case-by-case whenever {{tq|two outbreaks happen during the same part of the month}}. This isn't one. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 13:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

All right let’s get things back on track here considering this situation has spiraled more then I think any of us would’ve liked it to. Seeing how this section here is the discussion for the RM to different date ranges for this specific outbreak, this should continue here and only here and not new sections. A further discussion is on WT:WEATHER but is not including this outbreak (to not have two open RMs and result in a PC) given the fact it just happened and NCEI will not have information on it for a while (or probably until the monthly summary next month I guess?), and will need to see what RS refer to it as.

To reiterate, we have these options currently being discussed:

• A: Tornado outbreak of March 14–16, 2025 – many official media outlets have referred to it as this days range, also the days with the most significant tornado activity.
• B: Tornado outbreak of March 13–17, 2025 – RM filed as this, but has issues regarding one tornado in Cali on the 13th that some (me included) feel shouldn't be in the outbreak given its location, meteorological association time difference compared to the rest.
• C: Tornado outbreak of March 14–17, 2025 – includes the NC tornado which meteorologically was generated by the same system (though I think some sources refer this tornado as part of the 16th, probably because of NWS’s 12z-12z definition).
• D: Tornado outbreak of mid-March 2025 – a vague title brought up by some that I feel is too broad, and as previously pointed out goes against a consensus established in the early 2010s. Additionally, this one also has an issue since it may get lumped with the March 19th Illinois outbreak which was unrelated (and has an article there anyway).
• E: Mid-March 2025 North American storm complex – Brouggt up by some but opposed by some as well because even though it tries to associate the dust storm and fires and blizzard with it, I feel that gives them WP:UNDUE weight given how much more deadly and destructive the tornado outbreak was as well as that being WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

So as before, I’ve said I’ll support option A as those are the days with the most activities and most commonly known as, but I wouldn’t be opposed to option B as to include the NC tornado. Opposing the rest for reasons stated above previously. Now let’s hopefully make some real progress on this and keep everything nice and neat! :) --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 05:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Thank you! What we needed was a clean breakdown of our options and the rationale behind each one. My vote is for Option C since the tornado on the 17th was spawned from the same complex of severe storms that produced the tornadoes on the 16th. The only thing separating it is that it happened after midnight. My runner-up pick is Option B because it would still include the tornado on the 17th. While the same large-scale weather system did spawn the California tornado on the 13th, it is a stretch to include it due to a significant geographic, convective, and timing gap. It also occurred well outside of the main warm sector. I strongly oppose doing away with a date range in the title altogether, as there is nothing unique about this outbreak that necessitates going against the well-established standard of including date ranges in outbreak article titles. That standard exists for a reason, because when we didn’t include date ranges back in the early 2010s, it caused problems and we made a necessary change. So, all we need to do is come to an agreement on a date range.

:TornadoInformation12 (talk) 10:47, 22 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

:D or E per my reasoning above, no preference on which. Date range is causing issue after issue after issue after issue, and the "consensus" (I haven't seen a link yet, so who knows if the discussion actually happened) was over a decade ago. — E_F⁵ 11:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::I'd also like to note that this seems like a WP:SUPERVOTE of sorts; {{tq|I feel that gives them WP:UNDUE weight}}, {{tq|a vague title brought up by some that I feel is too broad}}, could we keep this neutral? I swear I'm not mad at life all the time, but I don't feel like we should be explaining reasons not to vote for a specific option this way. — E_F⁵ 11:42, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Just because I’m the only person who has been active here long enough to be aware of this formatting standard and its origins doesn’t nullify its existence. It doesn’t have an expiration date, and link or not, the existence of this standard is clearly demonstrated by the fact that no articles exist on Wikipedia currently have the Option D format. Why? Because they used to, but it caused problems when two or more outbreaks happened during the same part of the month. As a result, we had to add date ranges to pretty much every title, and it was something I participated in. That’s a huge piece of context you all are missing. Technically speaking, since that rule is still in effect, Options D shouldn’t even be on the table until we hold a larger scale discussion that would propose allowing use of the old “no date range” format in certain cases.

:::TornadoInformation12 (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

::::No, I'm just having trouble believing it since you keep exclaiming about the details but can't link it. What makes a decade-old rule fresh and new? Nothing. I don't care how long you've been active or how much of this issue you are pushing on "new editors" but clearly there's a consensus disconnect here. As linked numerous times, WP:CCC. E_F⁵ 13:13, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Should've put "rule" in quotes. E_F⁵ 13:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::You’re right. I can’t prove it without digging it up, which would take an incredibly long time. It’s buried somewhere but I don’t even specifically know where do look. Regardless, if I’m in the minority here, it doesn’t matter anyway because I have to respect majority opinion even if I don’t agree with it. At the end of the day, what matters most is that the outbreaks and tornadoes are documented. Here are my remaining concerns/thoughts though:

::::::1.) I’m not sure how removing a date range in the title establishes what tornadoes we include or exclude from the outbreak. That is the “meat” of the issue, and changing the title only addresses the surface of it. For example, we can call it the “Mid-March 2025 tornado outbreak”, but that doesn’t help us decide whether to include the 13th or not. It doesn’t fix the core problem, which is deciding what constitutes the beginning/end of the outbreak.

::::::2.) What happens if we have an outbreak in from April 2-3, 2025 then another from April 5-6, 2025? Those are two “Early-April 2025 tornado outbreaks”. This is precisely why the date range format was established in the early 2010s, whether you believe me or not. We are still going to have to use date ranges when such a scenario happens.

::::::3.) What about outbreaks that last just a day or two? There’s no reason not to list a date when it’s that clear-cut. The more vague, old format would only really apply for the more ambiguous multi-day outbreaks.

::::::4.) Can we have the old “no date range format” as an option rather than a standard? I think a case by case approach is a good compromise, rather than an inflexible rule, for reasons listed in points 2 and 3. In addition, the last thing I want to do is go back and retroactively change all the outbreak article titles from previous years. They’re not broken as is, and don’t need to be fixed. Also converting them all back to the old global “by month only” format, and changing all European tornadoes to the IF scale, are two huge pain in the neck long term projects I have to deal with already, and the last thing I need is a third long-term project on top of those two. We can use the old “no date range” format when appropriate, but applying it retroactively would be unnecessary and a big headache.

::::::TornadoInformation12 (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

:::::::The "mid-March" would've prevented every date-related RM from being needed here; it's the exact opposite of a headache. E_F⁵ 14:06, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::This also shouldn't be opposed on the basis of having to be applied to other pages, this is only for this page seeing as a wider discussion hasn't taken place yet. E_F⁵ 14:08, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I sent these questions/points to your talk page so we can hash this out in more detail without cluttering this discussion. Let’s talk about it there if that’s ok?

:::::::::TornadoInformation12 (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

::::::::::I also agree with the IP below, we have a crap ton of weather essays and few policies. E_F⁵ 22:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I agree with keeping the date range format, as everyone needs to know the specific dates of the outbreak instead of a vague time like mid March. Also, I see your point with the example of two out reals in April, and it's possible we have something like that this month (March), because there looks like something will happen March 30th. It is too early to tell, but the current Day 6 and 7 Outlook has huge areas under 15% risk of severe weather. For this article though, my vote is March 14th-March 17th tornado outbreak, OR March 14-March 16 tornado outbreak. Tornado Tracker2 (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Outbreaks* not outreals. Tornado Tracker2 (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:D and E are better and more stable titles than A thru C in my opinion for reasons stated above. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Support Option D or E. Nom cited Late-March 2025 North American storm complex but precisely per WP:CONSISTENT it's titled late-March not {{tq|March 19th}}, and "mid-" vs "late-" will prevent it from being {{tq|lumped}} together. If choosing E, please keep in mind the distinction between {{sl|intitle:"tornado outbreak"}} and {{sl|intitle:"storm complex"}}.{{pb}}Oppose A–C. We are tired. This talk page has had enough of the circular debates about which date to use in the ranges. {{tq|NWS’s 12z-12z definition}} means alternative, conflicting definitions exist. All {{tq|media outlets}} also report the dates that fire or transportation disasters occur, but most Wikipedia titles only use the year. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. They handle their dates the way they do accordingly to their project guidelines, we follow ours. D and E just create more problems and NWS and NOAA/NCEI refer to them as date ranges themselves, which should hold the largest weight over everything else. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::As for the {{tq|project guidelines, we follow ours}}, where are they? Ignoring the fact they are just essays for now.{{pb}}The only guideline I see is WP:DISASTER: {{tq|followed by Year (or Month/year, or day/month/year if need be)}}. Key words "if need be". This shows a clear preference for concision over detail. For the "mid-" part, that's loosely "Month/year", just like how it says dmy but we loosely use mdy.{{pb}}Found your project guidelines! They are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado, and the say the exact same thing: {{tq|Year (or Month/year, or day/month/year if need be)}}, which supports my position. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:A or B. Anything else is going to run into real problems down the road, as stated above. Departure– (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:A - per 12z-12z definition, tor on early morning of 17th counts as one on the 16th. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::Also,

::TWC (https://weather.com/storms/tornado/news/2025-03-18-south-tornado-outbreak-recap-arkansas-missouri-mississippi-alabama)

::AccuWeather (https://www.accuweather.com/en/severe-weather/residents-face-aftermath-of-violent-tornado-outbreak-in-central-and-southern-us/1756430)

::and, although not an RS, one of the most famous Wx Youtubers (Max Velocity, https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=627598113469931&id=100086592437432&_rdr)

::all describe it as 14-16th. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Option E is most appealing to me because the same system generated a tornado and a whole lot of snow in California, then became a dry line (which is dry air behind and humid air in front of the front (the boundary line)) and produced massive wildfires, a lot of smoke and a dust storm in Texas and Oklahoma, then became a deadly tornado outbreak in the Midwest, Gulf Coast and the East Coast. StormHunterBryante5467 02:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::To be fair though, the tornado outbreak has far more lasting coverage in the media right now, which is why I feel that E would create more problems them solve. I would look at 2011 Super Outbreak#Non-tornadic effects, Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021#Non-tornadic effects or Tornado outbreak of March 31 – April 1, 2023#Non-tornadic effects for events such as flooding or snowfall caused by the same weather system that caused major tornado outbreaks, but the non-tornadic effects were not as significant. An exception would be April 2018 North American storm complex where the resultant system spawned both a major tornado outbreak and a Cat 4 RSI blizzard, both which has the biggest impacts. 3/31/2023 and 12/10-11/2021 had blizzards but they weren’t too notable when compared with lasting coverage of the tornado outbreak. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I am not saying your idea is terrible, however, there is too much stress on the dates chosen. First, the title started at March 14, then start March 13, then start March 14, and then back to March 13. It is just all too confusing, in my opinion, a storm complex is better, though your idea isn't too terrible. And now we have a debate on whether to end it March 16 or March 17. StormHunterBryante5467 03:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::The date changing at the beginning was partially a result of this article being prematurely made because of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL (something we really need to take into account when drafting future outbreaks - we really should just wait until the event subsides BEFORE publishing to avoid this issue). Normally this hasn’t occurred in the past with outbreaks, as they’re usually kept in draftspace until the outbreak is finished and then we publish, from my past experience. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 04:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I can name at least one time that a similar issue has happened with TOOSOON and naming issues (guilty as charged!); somehow it avoided turning into this mess. But to stay on topic, the move to March 13 happened once people realized the Cali tornado was part of the same system, and then everything became contested from there. — E_F⁵ 04:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Reminder: Even if we decide on Option D, we still need to establish the date range of the outbreak even if it isn’t the title. Option D only changes the label and not the contents, so to speak. That is, unless the implication of Option D is to include the 13th to the 17th.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

:Option A or Option C - The CA tornado should not be considered part of the outbreak based on academic definitions of a tornado outbreak. The only question is whether the date range should be March 14-16 or March 14-17, which I don't have a strong preference toward. SPC lists 12z-12z days, which would encompass it under March 16. However, NCEI splits by midnight CDT, which would encompass it under March 17 once it's finalized. It may be best to defer to the common name in that case, which would be March 14-16. We can't handwave the outbreak into a vague "mid-March" to avoid having a discussion on establishing a project-wide definition of a tornado outbreak and specific dates (which is long overdue). wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 20:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Option A – {{tq|official media outlets have referred to it as this days range}}. I think that succinctly supports this choice. We defer to the descriptor that sees common or recognizable usage. I don't see an issue with mentioning the tornadoes that happened before and after those dates in the article, provided of course that we have reliable sources that connect them to the primary event. We should not be independently applying criteria to make a judgement as to what "counts" as part of the tornado outbreak, even if it would be technically correct. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 21:44, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Ok, so Option A (14th to 16th) currently has the most support, albeit by just one vote. We can wait a little longer to see if more users vote, but if not, that will have to be this outbreak’s title and date range. I think we’re all ready to put this issue to bed.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

:Option A Option C – These were the days where the main tornado activity took place while the system was primarily a tornado outbreak. Before this point, the system had not transitioned into a tornado outbreak setup while in California, and was leaving North America by the 17th. This option also gives a date range, allowing readers to know exactly which outbreak that the article is talking about, rather than using "Mid-March", which could lead to it being confused with the small outbreak a couple days later. I also oppose the "storm complex" name for the same reason, with it having the potential to be confused with the latter outbreak and media coverage focusing on tornadoes. Chris ☁️^{(talk - contribs)} 17:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Changing my vote to Option C, because the tornado on the 17th was part of the same storm system as the other tornadoes in the outbreak and was a more substantial (high-end EF1) tornado, after the storm had shifted into an outbreak mode. Chris ☁️^{(talk - contribs)} 18:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose this refresh, which tries to again sidestep the ongoing RfC by starting again with a non-neutral opening statement (presenting 5 options, but dismissing most of them in that statement immediately). This is not the way to have such a discussion. Love it that you then support A or B when B is simply wrong. Also love it that some people don't want things like D or E because "too vague" (of the much worse "we never did it like this, so we can't start doing it now"), but can't agree whether it should be A or C anyway. If there is this much trouble to define the outbreak accurately and to everyone's liking, then perhaps a just slightly more generic name is the best option? Fram (talk) 08:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• :This refresh was done to restart conversation which was just going nowhere and we can’t have two arms open at once here. Additionally, generic title will not work when you have multiple RS referring to it by date range. This discussion started in the first place because people are unsure if the California tornado should be excluded because of its different meteorological associations. It’s that simple really. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::Option A is still the front runner, after giving multiple days for more votes. I personally am in support of that option as well, because the media and meteorologists have used the 14-16 date range in reference to the event several times now. That makes things pretty clear so I will likely move the page later tonight. I wish we could make everyone happy, but this is the closest thing to a consensus and reasonable solution we can get, and we have to respect majority opinion whether we personally agree or not.
• ::TornadoInformation12 (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)TornadoInformation12
• :::I would urge you not to move the page during an open move request, and where you are one of the more active participants. Such actions should be done by uninvolved people, not by you or me. Fram (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::That still doesn’t address the completely non-neutral nature of the “refresh”, though. Although now it’s too late to do anything about it. E_F⁵ 11:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Option E is my choice on the basis it would give due weight to the dust storm and wildfire outbreak. The tornado outbreak received the most national coverage, but other phenomena (fires, dust-caused crashes, and wind-felled trees) [https://apnews.com/article/us-storm-weather-tornadoes-wildfires-deaths-a27189635739593fff2debae941befcd killed at least 17 people]. — Penitentes (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:Option E: Of the names I think it is descriptive enough for a reader trying to find out about this batch of tornados and the name differentiates enough from other similar articles. I prefer E just a bit more than D overall, but am not opposed to D. If we have to use dates, then I am opposed to Option A and support Option B the most based on the prior discussions above. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::Is there a reason there is a holdup on the closure? It’s been a full lunar cycle, and there is no closure in what should’ve been a routine discussion. We can’t even clean up the mess until closure happens. 99.196.128.39 (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:NORUSH. I put in a closure request some time ago but it takes quite a while to get a response, especially from a non-involved admin (two have commented inputs which makes them involved and thus unable to close). MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Split Tornado outbreak of March 13-16, 2025 into Tornado outbreak of March 13-16, 2025 and 2025 Tylertown EF4 Tornado. The tornado, (Tylertown) has alot of sources and notability. I think it would need a page, due to the fact that this is an absolute HISTORIC tornado outbreak, and atleast 1 tornado on this page needs a page, and I think that tornado is the long tracked EF4 tornado. If agreed, I will do the split., Shaneapickle (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NTORNADO, specifically the {{tq|and that coverage of the tornado is lasting}} part. General community consensus over the past year is that tornadoes need to demonstrate lasting coverage, which this hasn't. — E_F⁵ 14:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :"A lot of sources and notability"? If you could directly link us some recent coverage in reliable-source media, a "split" could be considered. It's standard practice on these outbreak articles to keep a blurb of information on the article itself when a new article is made. A quick analysis of search results on my end show only two stories, i.e. it's too early to consider making an article for this in my eyes. This isn't a Greenfield DOW moment like last year. Departure– (talk) 14:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I have three separate drafts for Diaz, Tylertown and Fifty-Six, but I am not sure if we should do anything just yet. The size of the page is currently ~90k, and if we're gonna trim some I'd say Fifty-Six and Tylertown deserve the split due to taking up much of the section text - both because they were long-tracked (Fifty-Six being over 100 mi), and Tylertown caused 5 deaths in addition to that statistic. Not so sold on Diaz split though given it wasn't long-lived (meaning less text) and didn't kill anyone (though injured 5). MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)