Talk:Tornado outbreak of May 15–16, 2025

: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.

----

Procedural close per WP:BMB - RM was opened by a site-banned editor. From here, any editor with an interest in moving this page may either (A) BOLDly move it per WP:BRD, or (B) open another requested move. (non-admin closure) Departure– (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

----

:Tornado outbreak sequence of May 15–16, 2025 → {{no redirect|Tornado outbreak of May 15–16, 2025}} – First of all, we’re trying to get rid of the term outbreak sequence (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Requested move 20 March 2025.) Second of all, doesn’t an outbreak sequence have to be 3 days? 155.190.18.5 (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC) Sock.

:Oppose per my reasoning above. The WT:WEATHER discussion is moot since consensus wasn't formed on it. — ^EF⁵ 15:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Most sources aren’t referring to this as a sequence. Per previous standards, the appliance of sequence is OR unless this goes on for several days. Additionally since it’s the same system it is usually referred to as just one outbreak. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:04, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You know damn well I don't give less of a crap about precedent. ^EF⁵ 16:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Linking the systems and implying they're the same outbreak is also OR. It's kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation, but per my outline above, I'm definitely on the side of calling them separate outbreaks. Departure– (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Procedural point: that discussion still has yet to be closed, and involved parties can’t analyze consensus, anyway. 2600:387:15:5116:0:0:0:A (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC) Sock.

:::2600:387:15:5116:0:0:0:A, yes, it has {{tq|still has yet to be closed}}. That's exactly my point. — ^EF⁵ 16:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::So consensus might have been formed, we just don’t know yet. (Although it’s unacceptable that none of these discussions were closed - does Wikipedia move with any emphasis?) 2600:387:15:5116:0:0:0:A (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC) Sock.

:Oppose per above reasoning. Departure– (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support. Today doesn't look too impressive, and tomorrow looks to start a new event. CrazyC83 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support alternative – Tornado outbreak of May 15–17, 2025 as the outbreak did span past midnight. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::There were tornado warnings on the London cell until 1:00am on May 17 FYI. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Support Alternative per nom. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 14:57, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Support Alternative for reason above as well as the fact that this was one storm system, and not a number of storm systems, like the Tornado outbreak sequence of April 20–27, 2007. GDJackAttack1 (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support per previous reasonings and change to 15-17th given warnings continued into this morning. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 19:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also going to state that I weakly support the alternative (still oppose dropping "sequence"), but ask that we make sure we don't go overboard on making this an extended sequence as we did last year. Nine days is too long of a range when there are at least three distinct outbreaks each notable in their own right within. Two is more than enough for this article. Strong oppose any move beyond the 17th. Today's event (tornado-driven moderate risk has been issued) is best separated from this article, and I'm going to be working on a separate draft for it. Departure– (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Also note that I still strongly oppose removing "sequence" from the title for now. Departure– (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::[https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/kentucky-missouri-tornado-outbreak-disaster-death-toll-recovery This source directly refers it to a tornado outbreak] as does [https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/deadly-tornado-outbreak-ohio-valley-kentucky-missouri-indiana this source]. I don’t even think “tornado outbreak sequence” is a real term, thus strikes as WP:OR. 2600:387:15:5116:0:0:0:A (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC) strike sock -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Do those stitch together May 15 and 16? If we want to use that logic, the 15th and 16th parts of this article need to be split. Departure– (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I completely agree with @Departure– that the article should not be expanded past the morning of May 17. The outbreak that began later in the afternoon was almost certainly connected to a different storm system from my understanding. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::As for the moderate risk that Departure noted, there probably needs to be a separate article AFTER the outbreak is over.

::::(I say after because there has been A LOT of gun jumping lately, and I agree with a lot of the more experienced folks that it's problematic. I was the IP editor who condemned the practice last year FYI). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::But in any case, this definitely ain't a sequence. And I do have to somewhat agree with the others that using the term "sequence" borders on OR territory there. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support alternative as per reasons above Nicky571 (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support alternative Removing sequence improves precision and readability. May 15-17 is accurate, since tornadoes on May 15 were caused by the same upper trough as the 16-17 event, and tornado warnings and severe wind damage continued into the early morning of May 17. Pilerk (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support. Let's get rid of "sequence" in any case. If RS prove that these events constituted multiple outbreaks, I'd be fine moving the page to "Tornado outbreaks of May 15–16, 2025" (or "...May 15-17, 2025"). PRRfan (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support alternative. I support May 15-17 rename Lnc2005 (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Potential alternative - split?

:Would it be in the best interest of this project to split this into articles on May 15, and another on May 16-17 overnight? It appears consensus is building against having "sequence" but I get the sense a lot of that is because coverage is focused on the 16th which itself certainly was an outbreak. The 15th was independently notable and caused by the same system but in my view both connecting both of these as a sequence AND having them called the same outbreak are both SYNTH. What's everyone's thought on a potential split for this? The prose is there for the 15th and a split seems overall plausible and potentially the best option moving forward in my view, barring consensus. Departure– (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Oppose as being too complex and against the interests of the reader, who would have to view one sequence over two pages. — ^EF⁵ 18:24, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The thing is that there isn't consensus that it is one sequence / outbreak. I see overall that coverage on this event focuses on the 16th almost exclusively, and yes, there is significant coverage on the 15th still but they could be split. They were two separate events and the average reader could easily navigate to the next day's tornado outbreak from a split. Departure– (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Departure–, @EF5. Heres an alternative. Let's split on May 17. The outbreak that occurred between May 15 and the morning of May 17 in this article; and everything from the afternoon of May 17 onward in one or more new articles. With a see also mention or a link somewhere in all pertinent articles. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That's not an alternative, that's the status quo and what's currently on the table. The only difference between that and your previous alternative is the literal name of the article. This split proposal concerns the scope of the article. Departure– (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Departure–, I know. I was referring to that as an "alternative" to your proposal. As for the split itself. I am opposed to splitting this article. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If multiple RS say these were separate outbreaks, id split it on the 15th, an article for the 15th and an article for the 16-17th. But I am conditionally opposed to said split unless multiple RS confirms it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hurricane Clyde, see Draft:Tornado outbreak of May 18, 2025 since HRRR runs have been so volatile. — ^EF⁵ 18:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@EF5, keep it in draftspace. As noted above (talking to anyone reading this, not just EF5), DONT publish until the outbreak is over! If anyone publishes it before the outbreak happens, please send it to AfD. Thank you. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Hurricane Clyde, yup, I made WP:NOTALLHIGH a while ago for that reason. — ^EF⁵ 18:50, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::And also, this ain't even a high risk. It's a moderate (4/5) risk today, and enhanced (3/5) tomorrow. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Hurricane Clyde, I know, see the last part of the essay. Maybe I need a "NOTALLRISK" redirect. — ^EF⁵ 18:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support Alternative. The outbreak( sequence)’s significant effects did go past midnight, so the title should be set to “Tornado outbreak( sequence) of May 15-17, 2025” as per WP:NCWWW. (With or Without sequence in it)

:Additionally, this should be kept as one article until today’s moderate risk is over. Reason being if we separate the article into 15 and 16-17 now, and the 18th has a significant outbreak (which it might not, ex. 04-28-25), we would have 3 articles of tornado outbreaks which are all consecutive or overlap, which would cause unnecessary confusion for readers trying to find the tornado outbreak from mid-May 2025, which would be at least 3* different pages.

: *of note is that there are multiple examples of 2 consecutive tornado outbreaks in separate pages Lavabite (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Support Alternative. at this point, after what just happened in Greensburg KS and the surrounding vicinity, it's fair to keep this as a sequence but include up to at least the 18th, possibly tomorrow and Tuesday as well if those days produce anything notable. AutisticLoser (talk) 03:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::There's a draft on the 18th. Is there a reason that shouldn't be its own article, given the two-day separation? Departure– (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::mainly for simplicity sake for potential readers; yes there weren't many tors in texas yesterday (only 1 report as of now), there was still severe weather overall, especially with regards to hail. Could go 50/50 but I lean towards one big article for simplicity sake. AutisticLoser (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::also, for the record, this wouldn't be the first time something like this has been done for simplicity sake, the outbreak sequence from last May (19th-27th) comes to mind, there were a few days in that stretch with little tornado activity, especially the 20th and 22nd. AutisticLoser (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I also strongly oppose merging into one big article. My optimal outcome would be the 15-17 as an outbreak sequence, then the 18-19+ outbreak as one article, and if this stretch of tornado outbreaks turns becomes extreme/notable/long enough (past 5 days have had 3 moderate, 2 enhanced risks so far), MAYBE merge the articles (In the future, after thorough discussion and after the end of the outbreaks). I believe this formatting would keep simplicity but also not create issues about relatedness and length. Lavabite (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Departure–, Article has been made. I strongly oppose a big article "for simplicity's sake", the events were different trough, systems and happened nowhere alike. — ^EF⁵ 12:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Comment Per @EF5; the article cannot include the tornadoes on May 18-19, as a new article has been created on them (Tornado outbreak of May 18–19, 2025). Anything extending the range that far would require a merge, and I am going to object to any BOLD merge that occurs without discussion. Reaffirming that I'm in favor of including the 17th in this article per my previous !vote. Departure– (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also opposed to any merge of the two articles per above. Though I strongly support including the morning of May 17 in this article, since the tornadoes did continue past midnight. But NOT the afternoon (the afternoon outbreak seemed connected to the May 18-19 outbreak). Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's looking like there were less than 5 tornadoes in the afternoon. I'm neutral either way to including them as, while they weren't from the same system, it'd help to have them included there instead of at the monthly list article. Departure– (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support Alternative One system effecting 2-3 days of severe weather and tornadoes is generally understood as an outbreak. For example, the 2011 Super Outbreak is referred to by the NWS and the academic community as the "April 25-28 Tornado Outbreak," not the "April 25-28 Total Outbreak Sequence." 7Rizzen7 (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Procedual objection and speedy close – IP that opened this RM was blocked an Andrew5 sock, thus rendering this RM tainted. This also became a WP:SNOW case IMO, so a WP:BOLD move should be done after. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:25, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::I support a close, let's not entertain a sock any longer. Anyone else can go through BRD like this discussion never happened. Departure– (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Support, I don't see why 'sequence' should be necessary here. –Tobias (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2025 (UTC)