Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#rfc 844746B

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1745679679}}

;Part 4 of WP:DISASTER reads

:If there is no accepted name, the name should be formatted as follows: tornado, tornado outbreak, or tornado outbreak sequence, followed by Geographic location (only if necessary: City, State, Country, Continent, or any combination of these), followed by Year (or Month/year, or day/month/year if need be). Example: Tornado outbreak of April 14–16, 2011

Please rank these title options from most to least preferred for a non-year article: {{ordered list |list-style-type=upper-alpha

| Narrow date range

:Tornado outbreak of January 2–3, 1234 when January 2–3 covers ~60% of sources

| Broad date range

:Tornado outbreak of January 1–4, 1234 when January 1–4 covers ~90% of sources

| Part of month

:Tornado outbreak of Early January, 1234, Tornado outbreak of mid-January, 1234, Tornado outbreak of Late January, 1234

:Each part is 10 days, moved forward or back 3 days for flexibility and discretion

| Month

:Tornado outbreak of January 1234 }}

The next preferred option is used to disambiguate two events in the same (part of the) month. Year ranges can be used for December–January events. This RfC does not change the WP:COMMONNAME name/location parts 1–3 of WP:DISASTER. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Option D > C > B > A as nom. Simpler titles avoid the conflicting definitions and endless disagreement about date ranges that are causing title instability. I prefer something that is WP:CONCISE and avoids WP:OVERPRECISION. The 3-day flexibility would continue allowing existing articles like Late-March on March 19 to simply and naturally contrast with a mid-March event 5 days earlier.{{pb}}When questioned, Option A/B supporters repeatedly failed to link the previous discussions they claimed as consensus. The real status quo of both the guideline and WikiProject advice but not articlespace supports my position. For inclusion criteria, I'd say to look at not the title but at whether reliable sources consistently mention the events together. Again, none of the options override WP:COMMONNAME for non-date titles like 1974 Super Outbreak. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:Case-by-case basis - I think the issue here is that we're trying to apply the disagreements on one page to the entire scope, which wouldn't be helpful as some outbreaks do have common names (April 3, 1974, April 27, 2011, etc.) — E_F⁵ 14:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::But in the case where this wouldn't apply, C > B > A > D. I also really hope this can clear up relatively soon in the best interest of the project. I'd hate to have a repeat of last year where new editors enter to project-wide chaos, wouldn't everyone else? I'm also having trouble believing that there has ever been "consensus" on the issue, not a single editor has been able to pull up a discussion link when asked.. — E_F⁵ 14:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|EF5}} What chaos were you referring to? Noah, BSBA^Talk 23:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::This chaos. Coming from a then-new editor, seeing the state of this WikiProject last year was incredibly discouraging. The bickering and constant RfCs were insane; I try to make new editors feel welcome here and fighting, as has recently been done on this issue (good to see we're sorting it out, though), is the exact opposite of welcoming. — E_F⁵ 00:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Option A, oppose everything else. C and D are out of the question as it can create confusion, and OP citing CONCISE and OVERPRECISION cancels out each other, as the date ranges themselves fall under CONCISE. Option C is WP:SYNTH given the fact close events to the outbreak may get lumped in despite not even being part of the same outbreak. Many media sources and NCEI (an official NOAA branch, which holds the most weight over everything else IMO) refer to them by date range as well, and we should follow that instead of being broad and unnecessarily confusing. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:C can be considered if AND ONLY IF there are no other notable outbreaks in the month. Never use D IMO. A > B when those options are open. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

• D > C, no preference for an order of A vs. B because it might just as well be that A is more common in the sources than B. Perhaps nom meant "of tornadoes" instead of "of sources"? Fram (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• :D doesn’t work when you have multiple separate outbreaks during the month. As such you run into problems immediately. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::And A sometimes doesn´t work in reality either, as seen by the multiple discussions we have here. Still, I didn´t feel the need to tell you that yoyr !vote was somehow wrong. Obviously,in those cases where D gives problems, C should be used, duh... Fram (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::WP:DISASTER and this RfC clearly say {{tq|earliest applicable style}} to allow disambiguation.{{pb}}"Of sources" is supposed to capture the general idea in the other RM. I'm not confident about the percentages, by which I meant "simple majority" (51%) by 60% and "overwhelming majority" by 90%. It is related to the idea of "only if most sources mention them together" (Option A) vs "if even a few sources mention them together" (Option B). 216.58.25.209 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• I think common name applies here, so if majority of a sources give a certain date, then that's what we should go with. As for the other tornadoes associated with the same system, they can be mentioned in yearly tornadoes, in the "List of [location] tornadoes" if in the US the "List of tornadoes in the United States (month(s))", whatnot. It would be one thing if it was an outbreak associated with a certain weather event, but those wouldn't have the date range, it would be "List of tornadoes spawned by Y cyclone". Ultimately that means option A. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Option B > A > D > C.

:• A & B seem more consonant with the usual way of citing such events, or events in general, to me; they're specific enough to help anyone looking for something in particular, but broad enough that they'll still pop up for someone who searches for "tornado outbreak January 1234" (& will be informative on a quick glance for anyone who knows the latter information but needs to find the exact date, as sometimes happens to me).

:• I particularly disfavor C, as being clumsy & "worst of both worlds" (we barely gain in specificity—and I feel like no one is going to use "mid-January tornado outbreak" as a search term for either 'Net searching or visual scanning; it's too unlikely to be cited that way in official sources, IME—and we also don't even buy any concision for the sacrifice).

:• B is ranked above A as I think that communicating the broader common date-range might be more informative & helpful in ensuring fewer cases of "mistaken rejection" (y'know, e.g. "oh, I was reading about a tornado on Jan. 2—but Wikipedia says it wasn't part of this outbreak; better keep looking").

:...or so things seem to me, anyway!

:Himaldrmann (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1745776875}}

How should weather disaster articles (such as tornadoes, tropical cyclones, floods, winter storms, ect...) deal with damage estimates for the infobox? (Five-Related Questions; See Background Below) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Article text can easily be written to specify various sources and the various damage estimates from natural disasters. However, the infobox can only contain a single parameter. This single parameter topic has been the subject of numerous discussions, old and recent, all of which have led to confusion and mixed consensuses over the years. Below is a list of those previous discussions so editors can be familiar with them.

• Several on Talk:List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes, Discussions 2009–2022
• August–September 2022 – Discussion on whether NOAA damage estimates vs Aon (company) damage estimates should be used. Discussion voided due to WP:SOCKS. Aon is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=1107737589#RFC_on_Aon,_particularly_in_weather_related_articles consensus-considered] a reliable source.
• RFC March–May 2023 – "Consensus that calculating tornado costliness based off of NOAA, generally due to issues with NOAA itself, does not fall under WP:CALC but more so WP:OR"..."Most editors seem to think that due to data issues with NOAA itself, that calculating ranks of tornado damage within a year without a non-NOAA source would violate WP:OR. Editors should reference a non-NOAA secondary source when claiming a tornado as the Xth-costliest". WP:VNTIA created following this RFC conclusion.
• RSN September–October 2024 – Reliable Source Noticeboard discussion on AccuWeather damage estimates. "Unreliable" thrown around & infobox damage ranges through around amid the discussion. No formal closing/decision.
• January 2025–Present – NOAA vs unofficial damage estimates discussion. Editors requesting larger discussion to solve issue.
• RFC February–March 2025 – Consensus fell to use a damage estimate range for the infobox. Example seen in the infobox of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Rolling_Fork%E2%80%93Silver_City_tornado&oldid=1281846846 this version] of the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado.
• March 2025–Present – Post-Feb-Mar 2025 RFC discussion, which kickstarted this RFC.

This generic question for the discussion is ultimately several smaller questions that need answered in order to create a policy/pattern that can be used across a wide variety of articles, from Stubs to Featured Articles, to tornadoes and hurricanes. Below are the various questions that have been discussed/questioned multiple times on multiple articles:

1. If a countries government (such as NOAA for the United States or CMA for China or ECCC for Canada) provides an "official" damage estimate for a natural disaster, should that damage estimate be used in the infobox, even if other reliable sources may or may not have different damage estimates.
2. Should the infobox contain a damage estimation range, reflected based on the article's text and subsequent sources, regardless of governmental "official" damage estimations?
3. What if the affected countries government has not given a damage estimation? How should that be reflected in the infobox?
4. What if the source is classified on WP:RSP as "no consensus" or "unreliable"?
5. What if new research is conducted, which makes previous sources "outdated", with either overestimations or underestimations?

All five of those questions are the root of this infobox damage dilemma, which has occurred on Wikipedia for years. Below is some additional background/examples for each of those five questions:

1. Example is Hurricane Helene. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a branch of the United States government, [https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/AL092024_Helene.pdf published a 107-page report] on Helene, in which they state "Helene caused an estimated $78.7 billion in damage in the United States". Other sources published a lot of damage estimates, either before or after this report by NOAA, which is why Hurricane Helene#United_States_2 has an opening paragraph explaining the different damage estimates, such as those from Moody's Analytics (half of what NOAA estimated) and AccuWeather (triple what NOAA estimated).
2. Example of the range is seen on the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado. NOAA ("Official") stated the damage was $96,644,200 (fairly specific), while the Mississippi Insurance Department via the news outlet PBS (not their own website/reports) stated "near" $100 million. Two different numbers from two different reliable sources; official vs unofficial.
3. An example of this is the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, where NOAA never released an official damage estimate for the tornado. As of this moment, the infobox has no damage estimate, despite various news outlets publishing town/building-specific damage estimates ([https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/louisville/news/2024/07/05/recovery-downtown-mayfield such as this one] for downtown Mayfield, Kentucky). Should the infobox be blank or contain information released unofficially?
4. Only two weather sources have questionable reliability following discussion at the Reliable Source Noticeboard: AccuWeather (here; no formal RFC, so still classified as being generally reliable...several editors have expressed the opposite of this in various discussions not on RSN) & Tornado Talk (here; RFC classified as "generally unreliable" - see WP:TornadoTalk) As seen in this discussion, how should damage estimates from these sources be handled? Should they be ignored for the infobox?
5. Example is Hurricane Milton. Initial & detailed analysis from Fitch Ratings put damage estimates at $50 billion for the hurricane. A few months later, NOAA published a damage estimate of $34.3 billion. Currently, the infobox in the article only reflects NOAA's estimate, as it was the later-published damage estimate. Both damage estimates are stated & sourced in the article text, but only NOAA, the later-published/"official" one, is used in the infobox. Should the infobox reflect the latest-published damage estimate, even if it is unofficial (picturing a reversal of that, where an organization like Fitch Rating published after NOAA).

In the discussion below, please provide some insight towards these five unique-but-interconnected questions, so Wikipedia can solve this highly-debated and discussed issue. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Let me provide my insights/!VOTE.

::If a respective country's government, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for the United States, releases a damage estimate for a U.S.-based natural disaster, then that damage estimate should be used in the infobox, as it is the official/primary source for information on U.S.-based natural disasters. This damage estimate will most likely be the result of post-disaster analysis (given organizations like NOAA [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/faq.jsp openly state] it takes approximately 75-days for damage estimates to be posted).

::If no government damage is available, then the infobox should either reflect the sole secondary reliable source (RS) or a range of the RS listed in the article's text.

::If the event is recent, specifically before respective government organizations have published detailed post-disaster analysis reports, then the infobx should reflect any RS damage estimates. However, once government estimates are released, then the infobox should be changed accordingly.

::The article's text should reflect only those sources which are considered "generally reliable". As explained above, Tornado Talk, a source cited on various tornado articles, has been formally classified as "generally unreliable", so the infobox nor the article should never reflect any damage estimates by that source. Policy-wise, (excluding a future RSN discussion), there is no way to combat sources, like AccuWeather who are known (through my own knowledge/OR) to overestimate damage estimates. Editors can choose to IAR and ignore anything from AccuWeather, but personally, I would like to see a new RSN discussion on AccuWeather, which would hopefully lead to a "generally unreliable" categorization.

:That is my take on the four questions and how the infobox's damage parameter should be used for weather disaster articles. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Sigh, not sure why we had another RfC on this.

::1. Absolutely not. WP:PRIMARY.

::2. Yes, it's logical and helps readers understand the damage an event May have caused.

::3. I'm confused by the wording of this. Is this not just a rewording of the first question?

::4. Obviously don't use an unreliable source, that's common sense.

::5. Use the number generally accepted by secondary sources.

:This whole RfC was unnecessary in my opinion (all of these questions can be answered by just taking five seconds to actually think about them), but there are my thoughts regardless. E_F⁵ 17:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::For reference, number 3 is related to items like 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, where there is no government damage estimate, but only RS. Or, items like the recent Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025, where finalized damage estimates from the government have not been released yet. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::So... Q1 but if the government wasn't an option. I'd use a secondary RS, aside from the fact that I dislike the whole idea of primary government sources for monetary damage anyways.. — E_F⁵ 17:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{ec}} Also, just a small comment on why this RFC for clarification is needed. If I understand your comments correctly on what you said, Hurricane Helene would have an infobox damage range of about 20–78.8 billion, with RS (Moody's Analytics) being the lower amount and NOAA's report being the upper amount. When a range was implemented previously on the article, it was always reverted within 12-24 hours. What you say is common sense and would take 5 seconds to answer, is actually highly debated questions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, thats exactly what I'm saying. Q4 should always be "use a reliable source", there (should be) no debate on that. I can't name you a single tornado article besides Mayfield that has remotely questionable damage totals, although this RfC applies to all Wx articles. — E_F⁵ 18:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Q1 - if an official government source provides damage totals, it should be the "main" estimate, although other estimates can be provided in a drop-down menu. If multiple affected countries have given different totals, it should be converted to a range with a collapsible list with ALL damage estimates (no "main" estimate) as in the following example (not real data), as shown in the example below. If other unaffected countries provide an estimate different from the affected country, the affected country's estimate should be the "main" estimate (although I'm on the fence about this part).

damages = $96.6–250 million
{{Collapsible list

| title = damage estimates:

|$96,600,000 (2023 USD) NOAA

: Q2: Yes, see first example

: Q3: No "main" damage estimate; list range with collapsible list afterwards, as follows

damages = $96.6–250 million
{{Collapsible list

| title = damage estimates:

|$96,600,000 (2023 USD) Aon

: Q4: Don't use unreliable sources' damage estimates.

: Q5: Same opinion as EF5.

Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 18:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist}}

• While I like the ideas brought from the last RFC, I did not like how it was used for Helene. The other estimates cited were either from Accuweather, an established non-RS, or from recently after Helene. This caused the infobox to have a rediculously large range that was not useful. The example used in WEW's solution was $96-100. That is a nice range that shows that there is disagreement. I could also see some with larger ranges working like $5-10 or $3-18. However, Helene's infobox had $3-225. That is a difference of almost two magnitudes. Part of it would be fixed by removing Accuweather, bringing it down to $3-78.7. However, I still think that is rather large.

:I would implement certain rules to fix some of these issues. Firstly, Accuweather is still banned because even they admit their numbers are extreme compared to other estimates. Secondly, time should be checked. Id est, a report published weeks after an event is trumped by something published months or further out of the event, like the TCR, and should not be in the infobox. If source becomes discredited by an RS, like the initial TCR by an updated TCR, then it should be replaced by the new source. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:A range of estimates (using the dropdown menu) should be used for hurricanes until the respective TCR is published by the NHC/NOAA, as they are an official governmental source, and should take precedence over previous estimates and is months after the storm, as stated above. Tornadoes will be a different story so a range is probably best if one exists. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::I forgot to mention this in mine, but yes, different fields should be counted differently. I have no clue what you tornado folk are doing and, unless it is in response to a clear violation of some standard, rules that tornado folk are following should not affect TC folk. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Like what Mario said, I do believe a infobox dropbox could be used in Hurricanes that have impacted the United States until NOAA releases an official damage estimate through National Centers for Environmental Information or through Tropical Cyclone Reports. And if you still insist on using dropboxes after NOAA releases an official estimate, I would strongly against the usage of Accuweather since they're notorious for overestimating how much damage a tropical cyclone caused. And as for tornadoes, I wouldn't mind usages of dropboxes if there's no official damage estimate from NOAA. For example, in the 2024 Minden–Harlan tornado article, the estimated $112 million in damages came from estimates coming from local government of Minden, Shelby and Pottawattamie county emergency management agencies. Hoguert (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I'd also recommend against using estimates that comes out a week after a hurricane and tornado Hoguert (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

A few points. Yes, we need to defer to official government sources/estimates. We also need to be aware of significant figures. If a government says damage was around $1 billion, and another country estimated $10 million, that does not mean it's $1.01 billion, since the billion is a rough estimate. When you're talking about damage totals in the billions, it's easy to extrapolate and get it really wrong in both directions, such as initial damage totals being way too high (examples include Hurricane Ophelia (2005) or Helene), or ones that were too low and were upped later on. The NCEI updates the damage totals for US hurricanes, but for other areas it's a different story. I had a problem with Hurricane Wilma and Otis in Mexico, and having the right damage in unadjusted dollars. It's sometimes tricky when you're dealing with a few countries, or you're converting it to USD. It seems the point of this RFC is to solidify what we're already doing, including trying to avoid mistakes like we did during Helene in having damage totals that are too high. I think we should go with a range for preliminary estimates, until/unless we have a more official total. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:You pretty much hit the nail on the head as to why this RFC was started. This is one of those RFCs without like “Option 1”, “Option 2”, ect… This is more to just solidify what the community consensus is. Typically, these type of discussions wouldn’t be RFCs, but rather WikiProject (insert topic) discussions. But, damage estimates have been at the forefront of numerous discussions and edit wars for years, so this RFC is more to get as much participation as possible so we can truly see what “format”/process has the consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

To address these points in numbered order:

1. {{tq|If a countr[y's] government (such as NOAA for the United States or CMA for China or ECCC for Canada) provides an "official" damage estimate for a natural disaster, should that damage estimate be used in the infobox, even if other reliable sources may or may not have different damage estimates.}} Yes, but with due weight, which may vary widely by jurisdiction and over time (including with regard to NOAA post-Trump). Various national bodies have a vested interest in lying about these things.
2. {{tq|Should the infobox contain a damage estimation range, reflected based on the article's text and subsequent sources, regardless of governmental "official" damage estimations?}} Yes, this is just how we do things. It is not WP job to pick a side when real-world sources that are ostensibly reliable are in conflict; we spell out what the conflict is.
3. {{tq|What if the affected countries government has not given a damage estimation? How should that be reflected in the infobox?}} It shouldn't be, since there's nothing to reflect. If I do not have a goose, and I put a mirror in front of the space that my non-existent goose might occupy, guess what? No goose will be reflected in that mirror.
4. {{tq|What if the source is classified on WP:RSP as "no consensus" or "unreliable"?}} These are separate questions. If it's a "no consensus" source, then it can possibly be used, with due weight given to better sources, but probably should not be at all if other and better sources are available. If it's "unreliable", then it cannot be used at all, even if no other sources are available. Our job is to provide reliably-sourced information, or to indicate that reliably-source information is not available; it is not to pass on misinformation from unreliable sources. That is emphatically {{em|not}} "better than nothing".
5. {{tq|What if new research is conducted, which makes previous sources "outdated", with either overestimations or underestimations?}} Same as in all such cases in every subject: update our claims and the sources used for them to reflect the current real-world consensus among researchers, or at least reflect the adjusted range if no such real-world consensus has been reached yet, but the newer sourcing is reliable.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:Since you made the original point and you are bringing it up here, can you give more information into Trumpian NOAA's reliability and its current state? ✶Quxyz✶ 03:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::I goofed up the wording really badly looking back on it. You can disregard the previous reply. What is your perspective into the reliability of Trump's NOAA in its current state? Also, since it was discussed later, when would you consider the NOAA to be unreliable? ✶Quxyz✶ 03:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

There may be a cleaner solution:{{Infobox weather event

| image = Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg

| image-upright = .5

| caption = Caption

}}{{Infobox weather event/Tornado

| winds = {{convert|123|mph|km/h|abbr=on}}

| fujita-scale = EF5

}}{{Infobox weather event/Effects

| year = 1234

| deaths = 123

| injuries = 123

| damages = $200Citation for NOAA–300Citation for some insurance reliable source million

}}{{Infobox weather event/Footer}}

• Round to 1 significant figure, maybe 2. The previous RfC had $96.6M NOAA vs $100M MID. Why are we splitting hairs and creating a dropdown? The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose. Are we sure MID didn't itself round? That infobox dispute example and most others become moot after rounding.
• Move to footnote There is no need to clutter the infobox with dropdowns and {{tag|hr|o}}s. Sources like NOAA should already appear in the {{cite xxx}}, over which the user can hover to see. Currencies and years are implied by context, no parenthetical is necessary except maybe {{t|Inflation}}.

{{rlt}}

To answer your questions:

1. Not necessarily (treat it no different from other RS), SMcCandlish doubts Trump's NOAA's reliability. However, discussion belongs at WP:RSN, not here.
2. Yes, a summary is better with a range.
3. Always use RS not just gov
4. Keep GUNREL out of infoboxes. MREL can be used absent other RS, or based on "additional considerations" listed at RSP.
5. Prefer new research over breaking news, but wait for corroboration otherwise. "Forecasts" before the event ends are speculation and not preferred.

216.58.25.209 (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Regarding the NOAA's reliability, right now I would run on the fact that little has changed unless a secondary source starts noting something is off. It's not like the media hasn't been analyzing everything the administration has done and they likely have a better judgement than us. ✶Quxyz✶ 20:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:Given the current state of NOAA and past events, I'm inclined to say the current administration has dampened the reliability of NOAA. — E_F⁵ 20:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Honestly, I would say NOAA’s reliability hasn’t changed at all. NOAA’s accuracy in terms of their daily duties has dropped, but not their reliability as a source. For the most part, besides employees being fired, not that much has happened to NOAA under this current administration. Articles/sections on the meteorological background for weather events will be affected, but not that much else (so far…fingers crossed it stops with what has already been announced). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Once again, I think that a secondary source stating that it is unreliable is a far better and clearer method of proving that it is no longer trustworthy. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::What secondary source did you see that said NOAA is unreliable??? Articles [https://www.newscientist.com/article/2471171-four-ways-cuts-at-noaa-will-make-weather-forecasts-less-reliable/ like this one] discuss how NOAA's weather forecasts will be less reliable, aka less accurate. Not that NOAA itself is unreliable. Could you link what secondary source you are referencing?

:::::Sorry if I caused confusion, I meant that as a general principal. If a source stated that the NOAA was unreliable in its reporting, I would be more inclined to listen to it than your and IP's reasoning as it seems mostly OR or based on feelings about the administration. ✶Quxyz✶ 21:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Ah gotcha! Yeah obviously if sources started saying NOAA was unreliable, then obviously that would play a role in how we would use NOAA-based information going forward. Anyway, my reply still stands, since sources aren't saying NOAA is unreliable, just that their weather forecasts will become less accurate; aka the meteorological synopsis sections in weather articles will get progressively worse/less accurate. Post-disaster analysis though, shouldn't be affected at all, and I cannot find any such sources. So in terms of what you and EF5 said about NOAA's reliability being less than it was, I disagree with that specific part. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:This seems fine to me, and gets around the accessibility issues that pertain to collapse boxes. To the extent there might in some cases be a need for a more explanatory exploration of differing figures, this can be done in a narrative footnote, e.g. with {{tlx|efn}} and {{tlx|notelist}}, or by linking to an article section covering the details.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:I still feel like for TCs once NOAA releases an official report months after the storm that should take precedence over previous estimates, per the previous reasons above. Ranges shouldn’t be a factor here especially once we begin talking about season damage and when RS start mentioning it under NOAA’s numbers instead of a range. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Remember a few weeks ago arguing NOAA would continue to be a reliable source?

https://www.facebook.com/oregonsbayarea/posts/pfbid0359UMBKhUxHECDG4pkRyodFtjsNFVEPdbZiQh84ibGTgKcV3BkS8jJUwDwAWwmbyVl

It's being gutted, hollowed out like an eggshell, exactly as predicted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• I'll wait to see it from an actual reliable source, not just a random blogger on Facebook. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't have access to nor do I want to take what a Facebook post says as truth, especially for as important and impactful a claim as this, but unless the manner of this is NOAA starting to pump out misinformation about climate change or knowingly outputting non-factual information for damage totals the way we use it for now should remain unimpacted. A lack of funding may mean a lack of publication, which isn't good, but doesn't automatically disqualify NOAA as a reliable source. If, however, they start saying that climate change isn't real or has somehow reversed without republication in nearly all other reliable sources, then we can talk about discounting them as a source. Departure– (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

::I have to agree with @Departure– and @WeatherWriter on this. I rarely ever look at social media because there's so much misinformation/disinformation on there. Facebook (per WP:RS) is generally not a reliable source. So I have to say wait until reliable sources start reporting on that. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Greensburg tornado has been nominated as a {{#switch: FAC | FAC = featured article candidate | FLC = featured list candidate | FPC = featured picture candidate }}; the nomination can be found {{#switch: FAC . Since the {{#switch: FAC | FAC = article | FLC = list | FPC = picture }} falls under this WikiProject's scope, I am posting this notice here. It currently needs more comments, so if you've got time, {{#switch: FAC . Thanks in advance!
Note that due to template limitations the nomination page is at /archive2 instead of /archive1 in the nomination. — E_F⁵ 15:51, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Is a page about the technical aspects of a tornado's form etc needed? Right now the articles on Multiple vortex tornado, Waterspout, Landspout, and even Tornado lack a lot of the detail that would be very helpful to know and I don't know whether its best to merge it all into Tornado or merge a few of these into some variant of Tornado structure or Non-supercellular tornadoes or dare I say clean up the absolute mess at Whirlwind. Departure– (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Ted Fajita would be ashamed of us. Really though, I'd support merging them into a "tornado structure"-esque article. — E_F⁵ 15:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:+1 for Tornado structure with sections for the different tornado types. I think we try this before creating a page for non-supercell tornadoes. DJ Cane _(he/him) (Talk) 16:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:@EF5 and @DJ Cane, I've started a draft at Draft:Tornado structure. Now, what we do with this article is up in the air. It does not have to be moved to mainspace if it is redundant, but it could serve as a point of collaboration in which information is aggregated and potentially merged either to the article itself should we choose to move it to mainspace or to other articles should we designate it as redundant. Departure– (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::Departure–, yay. — E_F⁵ 14:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Have any tornadoes been recorded there at all? If so, are they common enough to where any particular Tornadoes of YYYY article needs to be part of the geographical project? Departure– (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Departure–}} Common literature tells us that no tornadoes have ever occurred in Antarctica. Your question does make me wonder how deep we should be going with classifying weather articles, as a part of a geographical wikiproject? For example, should we add the South Pacific tropical cyclone seasons to the French Wikiproject, since France has 3 overseas territories that are impacted by TC's in the SPAC? Jason Rees (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Monday has a day-3 moderate risk over Iowa, reminiscent of the 2008 Parkersburg tornado, and the GFS shows storms over the DMX, LSK, and northern DVN NWS county warning areas. Departure– (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:Would wildfires be a potential non tornadic effect? The system is likely a dry line due to wildfire risk in parts of New Mexico and far western Texas, and the severe weather risk is just east of the fire risk, with the Texas panhandle at risk of the severe weather and far north. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 16:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'll also note for the precedent police: drafts are not checked for notability. I am tired of this WikiProject not moving forward with anything, and I'm going to start doing something about it, whether that be calling out wrongful "precedent" or other. — EF5 ^(questions?) 16:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::What do you mean? Are you going to delete the draft? Or are you fixing a problem? If so, add that as a goal for this WikiProject. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 16:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::StormHunterBryante5467, no. Several times have people said that "drafts aren't notable" in relation to tornado outbreaks, so I'm making it clear that drafts aren't checked for notability. — EF5 ^(questions?) 17:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Per a relatively recent reliable source discussion, TornadoTalk was found to be generally unreliable as a source. However, on some pages such as 1974 Guin tornado, it's still cited as the only source for some claims (in this example a quite hefty claim). I'm going to begin the process of removing content cited to this source and replacing it with actual RS media where possible. Departure– (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:The articles I found from Special:Search using this source were:

:* List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes

:* 2011 Smithville tornado

:* 1974 Guin tornado

:* 1957 Ruskin Heights tornado (fixed by {{noping|Departure–}}, replacements still needed)

:* Greensburg tornado (fixed by {{noping|Departure–}})

:* Casualties of the 2011 Super Outbreak (currently at AFD)

:* 2000 Xenia tornado

:* List of schools struck by tornadoes

:* 2011 Ringgold–Apison tornado (fixed by {{noping|EF5}})

:* 2008 Picher–Neosho tornado

:* October 2013 North American storm complex

:* List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2010–2019)

:* Tornadoes of 1981

:* Tornadoes of 1975

:* List of United States tornadoes from August to October 2013

:If anyone still has access to paywalled content from this source, assistance in finding the sources TornadoTalk gets its data from would be greatly appreciated. Departure– (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::IMO Greensburg doesn't count since it's a single and uncontroversial copy of a study not made by the TT team. Call Ringgold {{fixed}}. At least one article you mentioned (Neosho) only has it in the "further reading" section, where it should be fine. — EF5 ^(questions?) 15:55, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes: There's three sources here, two of which are used to source a 18 July 2004 tornado. One of these is an interview, but I'm going to err on the safe side and remove the entry per the RSN discussion.

::However, the first ref is part of a bundled citation and won't be so easy to get rid of. Departure– (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::2011 Smithville has a good portion of the article directly cited to a paid TornadoTalk article. Departure– (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::1974 Guin had the TornadoTalk ref as a cited source under a Sources subheader instead of using inline citations per-claim. @EF5: please do not do this in the future. I know this was in good faith and before the RSN but it just contributes to unnecessary headaches later down when anyone needs to verify a specific claim. I removed the ref for now and am going to do a source spotcheck later on. Departure– (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Departure–, ? I'm confused. Cited sources go under a "sources" subheader, that's the whole point of the subheader. — EF5 ^(questions?) 16:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Template:More footnotes needed - I suppose it isn't required and I apologize if my comment was received negatively. It isn't a GA or FA so it wasn't required but as stated it'll make cleanup a lot harder per the RSN. Departure– (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Departure–, it has inline citations. These can be found in the "References" section. Maybe you just missed them? — EF5 ^(questions?) 16:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Not doubting that, but what I'm saying is TornadoTalk was the only source under the subheader. See Special:Diff/1287550316. Departure– (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, that's perfectly allowed. I don't see why we're arguing over something already remove, though. — EF5 ^(questions?) 16:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Alright then. I'm going to spotcheck Guin anyway; it's been hit-and-run vandalized by a lot of IPs per my watchlist and a lot of its claims seem undue. Departure– (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::1957 Ruskin Heights is {{done}} - cited only to information about the tornado's parent supercell. Such information may be a nightmare to find elsewhere, but isn't the most important overall. Another tornadotalk ref is found in a comment - not going to touch this one. Departure– (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Greensburg is {{Done}}. Both sources were migrated away from TornadoTalk. Departure– (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Xenia 2000 has the same issue as Guin. A spotcheck is going to be good for improving the article's quality either way, regardless of the reason. Departure– (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Schools article is {{done}} - removed content for now, impacts of the 1991 Andover tornado at Wineteer Elementary School. Departure– (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Picher-Neosho is {{Done}} - it was only a further reading link so I wasn't going to touch it, but the URL was actually to a NWS Wichita page. Departure– (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::October 2013 North American storm complex has a single bundled ref, specifically for a single tornado in Wayne, Nebraska. Departure– (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Tornadoes of 1975 is {{Done}} - source was the only one cited, for both reliability and notability, just removed the entry. Departure– (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:The F4 tornado list is a direct mirror of the above October 2013 Wayne summary. Departure– (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Tornadoes of 1981 for NLM CityHopper Flight 431. I don't read Dutch so I'll take it in good faith that the article itself is a good enough source and the ESWD archive page has the details. Departure– (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

As of 13:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC), there are six articles left with TornadoTalk sources. Departure– (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• 2011 Smithville tornado Departure– (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :This one's likely to cause problems. A majority of the tornado summary is sourced to TornadoTalk or to direct satellite imagery. Departure– (talk) 13:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Tornadoes of 1975 Departure– (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :{{Done}} - thought I did this yesterday. Oh well. Departure– (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• Casualties of the 2011 Super Outbreak Departure– (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :At AFD and likely to close as Delete or Merge, so going to leave this alone. Departure– (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Don’t bother wasting your time to fix it; it’ll be deleted in a day or two anyways. — EF5 ^(questions?) 13:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• 1974 Guin tornado Departure– (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :This one is going to take quite a bit of work to rebuild. I removed all content directly attributed to TornadoTalk and that ended up being nearly half of the article's prose. Departure– (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I redid the Tornado Summary with Storm Data. The aftermath is still empty though. It's a shame these otherwise comprehensive sources are unreliable, I felt awful getting rid of the well-written prose. Departure– (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{Done}} per above. Departure– (talk) 13:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::I personally don’t think the closure of the RSN reflected consensus, but I’m obviously biased. — EF5 ^(questions?) 13:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• 2011 Ringgold–Apison tornado Departure– (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• List of F4 and EF4 tornadoes (2010–2019) Departure– (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{done}} already. — EF5 ^(questions?) 13:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• (Ringgold). There was a reply bug. — EF5 ^(questions?) 13:56, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Ringgold isn't done, there's some sfns to Narramore et Tucker in the prose. Departure– (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Departure–, I don't see any. Could you take a second look? — EF5 ^(questions?) 14:00, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::You just removed the sfns, but left the prose cited to it. There's no way to reliably verify that information so it should be removed or replaced with reliably cited prose where possible. Departure– (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

{{most intense Atlantic hurricanes}}

Should there be a template for mesoscale discussions, watches, and warnings as a sidebar? This would be similar to some of those we already have for hurricanes, but specifically for severe weather events. It'd be a table of variable length displaying the products, when they were issued, etc. It'd definitely be great for tornado articles with long stretches of text-only prose, and the same for outbreaks. Departure– (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC) Departure– (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Yes. I love this idea. Shall I draft one up? — EF5 ^(questions?) 17:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::If you find the time, go ahead! I'm thinking something like 2020 Midwest derecho#Official NWS Storm Prediction Center publications, with watches given probabilities and/or a PDS header, warnings giving statuses for hail, wind, and tornadoes, and mesoscale discussions given that CONCERNING... text. Departure– (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll add that the geographic scope of these, while nice to have, would best not be added to the template, and if it were to be, it should be under a collapsed header. Neither too should the full text of any product show up. Departure– (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Departure–, I'll cook something up in a bit. ;) — EF5 ^(questions?) 18:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Departure–, is User:EF5/Warning temp sort of what you're talking about? — EF5 ^(questions?) 18:42, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Almost. The version I was thinking of drops locations, is strongly color coded, and would have tornado observed / radar indicated / etc when relevant - in this case since it has that the leftmost column should be tornado warning / mesoscale discussion / watch. Departure– (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Departure–, will update shortly. I'll toy around with it more this afternoon. — EF5 ^(questions?) 19:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

{{talkref}}

Squall line has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a discussion ongoing at Talk:1999 Bridge Creek–Moore tornado#"Strongest" and "worldwide" claims of interest to this Wikiproject. This discusses two claims about the Bridge Creek tornado's record-breaking nature. Feel free to participate there. Thank you. Departure– (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

There's a pretty big misconception about F6 tornadoes that states they're simply not a thing, but does this claim have any actual reasoning behind it besides simply no tornado officially being rated as such? Of course there's the Lubbock, Xenia, Birmingham, and Guin edge cases but I see all too often that since Fujita labeled F6 as "inconceivable" it was outright impossible to achieve. Departure– (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:The whole "inconceivable" part was that it caused "inconceivable damage". Both sides are true - no F6 tornadoes exist since no tornadoes are rated as such, but the rating itself did exist. Now that the EF scale exists, that could differ. — ^EF⁵ 14:34, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes. To my knowledge EF6 is physically impossible, but F6 always was and technically still is for any country still using the F scale to rate tornadoes. I'm less sure about the IF scale (I think they'd just lump any "inconceivable" damage into the IF5 category) but my point is that this fact should be elaborated somewhere on one of Wikipedia's pages - Tornado myths, Fujita scale, something like that? Departure– (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll add it to the tornado myths page. — ^EF⁵ 14:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

This mainly pertains to one tornado (see Draft:2020 Jonesboro tornado). In November 2022, Timothy P. Marshall (by all means reliable) stated in a survey that the tornado was "violent" (see page 11 of [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365174723_Damage_survey_of_the_Jonesboro_Arkansas_tornado_March_28_2020 this source]). The tornado received an EF3 rating, however, and the "violent" descriptor is only used for EF4+ tornadoes. So... should it be included? — ^EF⁵ 17:47, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:"Violent" meaning EF4+ is a technical term, but by all means use "Intense" or "Strong" or "Significant". I'd say don't use "violent" in Wikivoice personally, but you can add something that says "X described the tornado as "violent"" in a quote-type style. Departure– (talk) 18:28, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 March 31#Template:Individual tornadoes, I've started this draft. Feel free to add to it. Departure– (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

:This reminds me of the original List of notable tropical cyclones, which for a while was a large catch-all list for a bunch of miscellany. Eventually, certain lists were split off, like records and basin-specific information, so much that now the list is redirected to Outline of tropical cyclones. I feel like the same thing would happen here. There already is Tornado records, and several lists for certain areas, so I’m not sure what a notable tornado list would look like, if it’s not a duplicate for other articles. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

There's an article on this now. Don't call this a formal RM, but I had this at Draft:Tornado outbreak sequence of May 15–16, 2025 - notice the sequence. I did this because most non-Wikipedia places call these sort of day-after-day events as multiple separate outbreaks in the same event - in lieu of a formal RM in changing everything else, I wanted to just experiment on this page with the two-day "Sequence" given it's almost certainly going to end up at a "sequence" title over the coming days and the May 15 event was a separate outbreak from the May 16 one in most respects - same system, different outbreaks. That's just my perspective.

So, should this be at "outbreak" or "outbreak sequence"? Note this is informal and will only change anything once the page is published as an article. It's subject to be overturned with an RFC or RM. Pinging @MarioProtIV and @EF5 as involved. Departure– (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Sequence. WP:CCC, as usual, and WP:COMMONNAME applies. — ^EF⁵ 17:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:Outbreak per previous standards. Per the definition, {{tq| A tornado outbreak sequence, or tornado outbreak day sequence, sometimes referred to as an extended tornado outbreak, is a period of continuous or nearly continuous high tornado activity consisting of a series of tornado outbreaks over multiple days with no or very few days lacking tornado outbreaks}}, which this current system is not. If it’s the same system it’s considered the same outbreak. We don’t dictate what other news stations and sources refer to this as. We should really only be going by the billion-dollar NCEI list (deprecated as of 2025) to determine outbreak sequences as brought up before by Cody IIRC. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::At the same time, we shouldn't discount that experts like Grazulis and even the NWS itself use a much more conservative definition of "outbreak". Also, precedent isn't consensus and, per a relatively recent WPWX RFC, the NCEI BDE list can't be given full sway over price and I don't see why it needs to be for severe weather events either. They're events - {{green|Tornado event of May 15–16, 2025}}? Departure– (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No, “event” would not work and that’s basically a level below outbreaks, IMO. Also Cody’s comment was moreso a suggestion given he wanted to reduce the amount of May sequences we have which are honestly kind of superfluously strung together (such as last year’s May 19–27, where NCEI has it as two separate outbreaks respectively). MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|EF5|MarioProtIV}} In mainspace at Tornado outbreak sequence of May 15–16, 2025. The title dispute can wait until after we stop updating the article every day. Departure– (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion to determine if :File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg meets the non-free content criteria or if it does not. This WikiProject relates to the discussion, which is why I am sending this notification.

You can participate in the discussion here: Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2025 May 21#File:Photograph of the 2025 Somerset–London tornado.jpg. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:12, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Due to frequent sockpuppetry, the intertwining with contemporary American politics, a large amount of uncited edits, and occasional contentious material, I propose that weather- and tropical cyclone-related articles be placed under some form of community sanctions (see WP:GS). I don't know the exact procedure for getting these sanctions implemented, etc, and this thread for now will just act as discussion of whether or not it's needed, but I'll outline a few points.

• As of 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency and the Second Trump Administration more broadly have been targeting NOAA and related groups. This includes the indefinite cessation of the NCEI's "billion-dollar disaster" figures, changing official wording of the Gulf of Mexico broadly to Gulf of America, and politicians and private individuals typically on the right wing spreading conspiracy theories about controlling weather etc.
• On Wikipedia, there are at least 3 major sockpuppeteers targeting weather-related articles over the past few months to my knowledge - Lokicat3345, Andrew5, and Dcasey98. Andrew5 in particular is known to edit primarily from proxies / dynamic IPs.
• Since the 2024 tornado season and until now, articles on contemporary topics including ongoing tornado outbreaks have been subject to the rampant inclusion of uncited changes, especially to tornado ratings. In addition, disruption, often from IP addresses, has occurred regarding the strength of individual tornadoes especially after the Greenfield tornado one year ago.
• On Tornado records specifically, individuals from Reddit were found to have incited off-wiki disruption by attempting to change information to see one tornado "win" over another in terms of wind speeds.
• The EF scale has come under scrutiny lately, especially following the Greenfield tornado, and it's not too uncommon to see people changing EF ratings because "Did you see the damage?". This is especially the case on storms where complete surveys are not available.
• Stealth vandalism on older articles is also a problem. Older articles are often the target of the LTAs I mentioned earlier.
• Tropical cyclones, due to their intensity and news-worthy nature, are frequent targets for vandalism regarding their strength, death tolls, etc.
• In addition, climate change is a contentious topic in of itself, with meteorology being greatly affected by global warming and other effects of climate change.
• Ongoing tornado outbreaks and tropical cyclones, especially those with widespread impact, are often the most subject to disruption. This mostly includes the introduction of uncited or poorly cited material, in addition to synthesis.
• "Now-casting" is a problem on Wikipedia, in which people watching radar, Twitter feeds, or broadcast media, including YouTube live-streams, will add uncited but often factual information regarding tornadoes and severe weather, before reliable sources can be created. This does not apply to direct NWS sources, such as those taken from IEM.

My current proposal on the table is as follows:

• All articles with topics on severe weather, tropical cyclones, summer and winter seasons, and potentially wildfires will be subject to these sanctions.
• Articles should be semi-protected as a precaution against now-casting, sockpuppetry, and off-wiki canvassing, where applicable.
• Edits can still be proposed through edit requests on talk pages.
• Unsourced or poorly-sourced claims, or changes to existing claims, should be reverted on-sight, unless information is adequately sourced and explained in an edit summary. Where claims are doubtful, discuss on the talk page instead of edit-warring. Where sources are available, they must be cited in the article instead of only existing in the edit summary, or else they should also be removed on sight.
• No revert rule will be instituted. The standard 3RR will continue to apply.

This is just a proposal, and is based on my observations that weather and related topics are subject to differing forms of disruption and contain contentious material as much as many other actual contentious topic area. [https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/05/weather/weather-weapons-nws-radar-attack We weren't getting violent in the real world about it until this year, though.] I primarily ask for blanket semi-protection due to the fact that most sockpuppetry, in addition to unsourced and poorly sourced material, comes from IP addresses or new accounts.

Pinging @EF5 and @Wildfireupdateman as those that had previously proposed sanctions. Further discussion about whether or not sanctions are necessary should continue below. Departure– (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Strong support per all of my reasoning previously. Due to the general age range that weather enthusiasts are in (again, this is [https://asteriskmag.com/issues/08/the-depths-of-wikipedians backed up in a reliable source]), this is 100% needed. Just go to a recent tornado outbreak page from post-May 2024 and you'll see at least five reverts in the last 100 edits. It's absurd and needs to stop. — ^EF⁵ 17:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::One thing I do somehat disagree with is the {{tq|Where sources are available, they must be cited in the article instead of only existing in the edit summary, or else they should also be removed on sight}} part, it's not my fault that mobile editing sucks. — ^EF⁵ 17:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This is a problem, as you, in good faith, are adding uncited (as in unverifiable from merely reading the article) information. Either wait for the sources to be made, or cite them yourself (even if it takes a good while), but that's still OR, from my perspective. It falls into the category of now-casting as a whole. It might suck but so does seeing unverifiable and potentially untrue information, where I need to go to the edit history to see the source, which itself could be to the NWS, to Twitter, or to literally anywhere. It's just not a good system, no offense to you, of course. Departure– (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Departure–, my point is that the source is there, another editor just needs to add it. I can assume I'm far from the only person who has to to deal with adding references on mobile, which takes so long that you can get in edit conflicts. — ^EF⁵ 17:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Edit requests exist for this reason. I'm sure in a now-casting situation, or one where later sources can be added, another editor would gladly accept and implement your edit request in a less clunky manner that doesn't get you in OR situations. Departure– (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::And how do you submit an edit request on mobile? Everything on mobile takes ten times longer than on a non-cellular device. ^EF⁵ 17:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'd assume it's just going into the talk page and leaving a neutrally-worded "Hey, so XYZ just happened see [example.com this], I'm on mobile so can someone add this?" sort of deal. Nothing too complicated Departure– (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::If you want a recent example of this, just look at my last 25-or-so edits. It's all reverting rating-related changes. — ^EF⁵ 18:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:Strong Oppose - this proposal is poorly thought out and seems to be overreacting to stuff like the addition of unsourced information on wiki, conversations off wiki, windspeed changes, sockpuppets and the political situation in the United States. Over the years that I have been contributing to the Wiki, we have seen products come and go due to budget constraints, technology/governments changing including in the US. As for the supposedly reliable source about the age of tropical cyclone/weather editors, I would note that its a generic assumption, as no one has asked me how old I am and I doubt they have asked anyone else about their age.Jason Rees (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Could you clarify on the “ seems to be overreacting to stuff” part? This isn’t an overreaction, this is a serious issue that we’ve had to deal with since last year. ^EF⁵ 00:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::To put the whole of the weather project on community sanctions is a massive overreaction, since all Donald Trump and DOGE are doing is making changes to the way the government operates, which any government would do and in the US includes NOAA. The other stuff is just general wiki stuff which has happened for years, does not happen on the majority of articles related to the project and doesn't need much more than a general enforcement of Wiki's rules.Jason Rees (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The point is to curb the consistent and disruptive vandalism of pages. That’s “normal”? It’s very annoying and has to be dealt with daily. It happens on hurricane articles too, no? ^EF⁵ 01:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Unfortunately it is normal that Wikipedia gets vandalized on a daily basis - its the nature of the internet - but there are ways and means to deal with them, that does not involve placing the whole of the project under sanctions, when the majority of articles in the project do not suffer much vandalism. For example, educating people about how to put references in, not launching SPI's into each and every sockpuppet, not making articles about current weather events that are marginally notable etc.Jason Rees (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Let me lay it out this way, Jason Rees. Wikipedia does perhaps "jump the gun" a bit when it comes to these severe weather events, but I'd like to point out that these events, to my knowledge, always end up notable if they end up in mainspace. One way or another they're getting the significant coverage that proves notability. Wikipedia is very unique in this. Most places on the web that catalogue severe weather, minus tropical cyclones, typically do so in one of three ways:

::::::* Social media feeds, in which information from unofficial and unreliable sources can very easily appear as fact

::::::* News site feeds, in which information can come much slower, and stories are hyperfocused on where X news organization can get reporters to

::::::* Databases and story-blogs, such as weather.gov's WFO summaries and the NCDC Events database, in which verified information is put into a relatively specific area of writing, where some information is lost as apparently unnotable etc.

::::::The way Wikipedia handles these ongoing events is that neutrally worded summaries from official or otherwise reputable sources, those with NOAA, are used to clearly define the setup that day and surveys afterwards (preliminary or not, but we should specify). Wikipedia's mode is also as a sort of compilation; much unlike a news article / timeline system, information can be added whenever adequate sourcing exists and topics can be given their due weight according to apparent importance. This system often leads to more comprehensive summaries of these events as they're ongoing, and often contain more information as a sort of very light "synthesis" that Wikipedia itself is built off of, that is, stitching all notable aspects of an event together. This is something that a lot of broadcast media and these blogs miss. The tornado in St. Louis, Missouri, for instance, was, when it was written, given a section in the article with RS-backed prose, and the little section it was given gave out more information than any other sources that had shown up in the hour after the tornado hit. In addition, during the aftermath of an event, the Wikipedia article on it often acts as the best sole guide to finding information that has been reported both before, during, and after severe weather occurred; not just that meteorologists expected there to be severe weather in a place, but also that a tornado warning was issued at XYZ a.m., first responders were there at ZYX a.m., and they're doing X for recovery efforts the next weeks.

::::::The system, the little niche, I outline Wikipedia's ongoing severe weather coverage to fall into, is unique among the web and, in the context of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, can work, and while doing so can easily benefit the encyclopedia as a whole, as even after an event, the amount of love an article got when it was happening often doesn't go to waste (I go into more detail about newer events in the essay WP:NOTTOOSOON).

::::::Articles all over Wikipedia will get vandalized and that's a shame but it's just the nature of the project we work with. However, I did identify that weather, unlike most standard areas of contributions but like other contentious topics, does have a specific type of disruption to the project that I, in my full honest opinion, think that a set of sanctions like the ones I've outlined above will do more good than harm. Having a reliable and accessible source for new and verified information no doubt is going to help knowledge worldwide, and, even if Wikipedia is not a newspaper, once the dust settled, you realize that having articles like this made when they are and constructed how they are (see NOTTOOSOON) ends up helping the construction an encyclopedia.

::::::Brief version: Wikipedia has a unique place on the web in its coverage of these events, and, per WP:NOTTOOSOON, weather articles being made in the way they are reinforce that and also help the encyclopedia down the line. These sanctions ensure that we can maintain this system, not preventing people from editing at all (we have edit requests for that very reason). I myself think they will be to the significant benefit of the project. Departure– (talk) 03:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose – We are {{smallcaps|Wikipedia}}, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. We may have a sockpuppet problem. We may have many editors adding badly cited content. But this is no reason to protect articles out of hand. When we do this, we stop being the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and start being the oligarchical encyclopedia that anyone can edit provided they make an account and wait until the weather event they want to add information on has already dissipated. Edit requests are a thing, sure, but not a very good one. No one wants to go through that endless bureaucracy. WMF studies show (as much as we can trust the WMF) that most readers who wish to make an occasional edit to a protected page are put off by the edit requests and the edit never ends up being made. Protection should be a last resort. I already have on my userpage that blocking is a last resort — anything that infringes on the right to edit should be a last resort. Protecting articles out of hand is the beginning of the end for our tradition of being a free encyclopedia. Don't even get me started on PIA's ECR. Protection is much worse than blocking because while blocking only restricts edits from one account/IP, protection restricts all anons, good or bad. Blocks can be easily appealed, protection cannot. Yes, there are LTAs. But we should try to deny recognition by RBIing. What bigger reward is there to an attention-seeking LTA than to see GSs in their honor? Revert the edit, block the sock. Nock, draw, loose. Simple. We should deny recognition to Trump too. He wants to restrict Wikipedia's coverage of weather to what he wants. There is no better way to play right into his hands than to needlessly restrict weather articles. As far as GSs go, this one is radical, second only to the abhorrent ARBPIA. To preserve us as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we should avoid roping off a large portion of it. We had one arb case. One. The worst offenders are either reformed or tbanned. It had – get this – nothing to do with weather! Why don't we withdraw this half-baked request and get back to improving articles? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :There may have only been one ArbCom case, but several other notable ANI cases affecting the weather WikiProject, including Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive351#User:Jasper Deng’s closing of a discussion, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1119#Canvassing at an AfD are two prime examples. As of now, numerous random weather articles are already under protection such as 2021–22 North American winter, Hurricane Idalia, Hurricane Isaias, Hurricane Felix, and February 2025 North American storm complex. Not to mention, Tornado outbreak sequence of May 15–16, 2025 and Tornado outbreak of May 18–20, 2025. We’ve proposed this in 2023 and above, and with weather being as controversial as it is, it makes sense to at least put sanctions on. Support sanctions and weak oppose the semi protection part of it. Crickster8 (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Sock
• ::The list of semi protected articles is more extensive then I thought. Severe weather sequence of July 13–16, 2024, June 2021 North American storm complex (which had a contested merge), January 13–16, 2024 North American winter storm, February 2024 nor'easter, January 5–6, 2025 United States blizzard, Hurricane Nicole (2022), November 2022 Great Lakes winter storm, Hurricane Dorian, etc. Crickster8 (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Sock
• :::Looks like a huge contentious RM was started for Tri-state tornado of 1925 while a MRV was in progress (a policy violation) and no one can agree on a title for Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 which included topic ban violations. Yikes. Crickster8 (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Sock
• ::::Crickster8, I have to ask how you found out about WPWX. I find it funny that a user with five edits can point to several old ANI discussions. — ^EF⁵ 12:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Chicdat, then how do we deal with consistent vandalism? It isn't going to stop at all unless some form of protection is applied. — ^EF⁵ 12:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I'm not saying end all protection, I'm saying reconsider when to adopt it and when to block. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:42, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::When should it be adopted? Non-stop vandalism isn't curbed by simply not doing anything. — ^EF⁵ 12:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::{{ec}}Blanket protection helps nobody. If there's persistent vandalism or disruptive editing on a high-profile page (e.g. current AHS, current hurricane/tornado outbreak), temporarily (pending changes/semi-)protect until the event is over. If the page is lower-profile, pending changes protection will suffice. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Chicdat, the issue is that it happens everywhere. The same vandal on the May 18-20 article yesterday then went to the March 13-16 article, where protection had to be requested (and was denied, for some reason!) to both. — ^EF⁵ 12:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::That's a case for better and faster protection (e.g. lots of weather admins), not for general sanctions. Everything in the news gets edited a lot, period. Once the tornadoes have died down, there's no need to maintain protection. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::In that case, see articles like 2011 Super Outbreak and 2011 Cullman-Arab tornado. Both are well over ten years old, yet still get year-round vandalism. — ^EF⁵ 13:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::Precisely what pending changes is for (I am a big believer in pending changes). This proposal proposes a protection for all weather articles – even incredibly obscure ones. Does Pre-1600 Atlantic hurricane seasons need indef semi-protection? Does Tornadoes of 1962? That's called overkill. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 13:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::Chicdat, but who would consistently monitor the pending changes? I'm looking for the best possible way to get across this, and pending changes doesn't seem that bad. {{ping|Departure–}} how would you feel about changing "protection" in the proposal to "pending changes"? — ^EF⁵ 13:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Pending changes would be a significant benefit as it would still allow for some changes to be made by non-regulars, which I was entirely dreading making this proposal. I wouldn't have an issue with changing this from semi-protection to some form of pending changes (even if I think pending changes as a system needs some adjustments). Departure– (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Tornadoes of 2025 was previously pending changes protected but then was bumped up to semi. Tornado outbreak of February 5-7, 2020 was also at one point under PC and was upped up to semi. It seems pending changes might not work as intended. Crickster8 (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Crickster8, then we start with post-2010 pending and bump to semi where needed. — ^EF⁵ 14:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Another, more contentious debate is whether IPs should be allowed to edit at all or if it should be banned. The Portugese Wikipedia has already done this. Crickster8 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Feel like it needs to be made clear that the result of discussion here will not be binding even if it passes - the procedure for establishing general sanctions is to pass it through WP:VPR, as per WP:GS#Community sanctions, and I suggest getting much more solid evidence of disruption (e.g. linking to SPIs, page protection logs, past dispute resolution attempts, etc.). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• :vpr is semi protected, otherwise I would. Crickster8 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Sock
• Comment Here's the issues:

:* SPIs: Andrew5, LokiCat3345

:* Past ANI/ARB discssions involving Wx: 1, 2, WPTROP ARB case

:* Protected pages: Literally go to any post-2023 tornado outbreak page and it's almost 100% been protected at some point in its life.

There's a lot more, but I don't feel inclined to bring together a list when the issue is right in front of our faces. ^EF⁵ 12:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Well we literally have to, or it won’t be binding. It was set up wrong yet again. Crickster8 (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Sock

:Let me state now that I don't think the ANI thread is too relevant to the matter at hand. A cursory look shows that it was about off-wiki canvassing and poor handling of discussions, and those don't appear to be the issues at hand here. The issues I see are persistent synthesis, unsourced content changes, and seemingly daily sockpuppetry. Now, per @Chicdat's notes, I would not be too opposed to having such sanctions only cover post-2007 or post-2010 weather (of those leaning on 2010 being the cutoff point) as while not as frequent as a small subset of articles a lot still do get vandalized or targeted by sockpuppets.

:As for the specific scale of disruption, I've made a page where I can view the recent changes of any article, and I've specifically narrowed it down to tornadoes and tornado outbreak articles from 2000 to 2025. The following recent changes may be affected by these sanctions:

:* Special:Diff/1291567000 at Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025

:* Special:Diff/1291600938 at 2008 Poland tornado outbreak

:* Special:Diff/1291546205 at Tornado outbreak of May 7–10, 2016

:* Special:Diff/1291515811 at Tornadoes of 2004

:* Special:Diff/1291504972 at Greensburg tornado

:* Special:Diff/1291504415 at 2020 Easter tornado outbreak

:That's within just the past few days. See also Special:AbuseFilter/1324 which was made specifically for this (but never actually implemented). The manner in which vandalism most often occurs within weather pages is very unlike that seen across much of the rest of Wikipedia. These changes can be very hard to notice unless you're specifically looking out for them. As for simply reverting or leaving pages unprotected, the 3RR still applies in the reversion of vandalism (to my knowledge) and I don't want to have any long-time editors receive any form of sanctions for keeping unsourced material out of these articles. Per EF5, most recent weather articles have received some form of protection at some point, which goes to show (in my opinion) that these sanctions wouldn't be necessarily impossible to implement on the grounds of being unnecessary. Departure– (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::Can someone bring this to VPR in all seriousness? It’s semi protected indefinitely, and it’s the only valid way to bring it over. Seems like my comment was ignored. Crickster8 (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Sock

:::Bringing this to VPR is premature. More local discussion should happen first. Departure– (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Look at that, there was literally socking in this discussion. If that isn't proof, I don't know what it. ^EF⁵ 15:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Don’t worry, Chicdat is a known coward. They were blocked for edit warring on Names of European cities in different languages (U–Z), see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#DSMN-IHSAGT. They were also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1055271010#Chicdat_and_disruptive_editing_at_WP:RfP topic banned] for 3 years with it only being [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1263425346 recently] overturned. 68.216.63.46 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Striking Andrew5 sock. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:59, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Departure–}} Lol, that happened. ^EF⁵ 15:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::You can’t strike a sock before it’s confirmed, did you not hear of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, {{u|MarioProtIV}}. Sounds like someone needs to take AP Gov. 68.216.63.46 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Striking sock. WP:DFT. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 16:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ec}}Glad to know I'm a known coward. Thanks, Andrew5, for a quick trip down memory lane. BTW, they forgot to mention I was blocked for edit warring with a known LTA. Maybe there's some special LTA Discord chat where Andrew5 and the BKFIP reminisce about their interactions with me – who woulda thunk? 🐔 Chicdat  _{Chicken Jockey!} 18:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - The type of disruption that is encountered on WPW is something that I wouldn't call deserving of general sanctions. Wikipedia has always been a place where recent or current events are a subject of rapid editing. The problem of socking is only the most problematic with Andrew5, as Lokicat seems to have slowed down in terms of socking. I don't see these issues presented as only applying to WPW, therefore, I don't see the need for sanctions. Cutlass^Ciera 17:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, there should be more targeted protections in the more active articles with a lot of disruption. I don't think there needs to be a blanket protection, which would stop most anon users from editing, just because of a few trolls. Any instances of the now-casting, or vandalism, should be removed right away. I think a solution for some of the predictions making it into the article is taking more time to create articles for individual outbreaks. Don't publish them until it is well-sourced and the scope is evident. I understand that some outbreaks can be anticipated in advance, just like some hurricane articles are created when a storm is just an invest. But a lot of the problem is the "FIRST" mentality of wanting to get the information on there, even if it's not the most accurate information (which can sometimes take some time to figure out). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I have nominated Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

For all weather editors, a large list of reliable and unreliable sources if being created. Several discussions for a lot of different sources (including ones like The Weather Channel, AccuWeather, and Ryan Hall, Y'all, are already being discussed on the talk page. Please assist if you have any thoughts to give on the various sources and their reliability. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is $3338 going into it, with $500 the top prize. There is $500 of prizes going into improving Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, Medicine and Business-related articles and we hope to see a lot of science-related articles destubbed and older stale articles improved in particular. If you are interested in winning some vouchers to help you buy books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for weather-related topics, sign up if interested.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Rain has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how to make this not seem like obvious cruft, but this right here is, in my opinion, a very important list that should be made, and honestly isn't as crufty as a lot of the other tornado-related and etc lists in general this project has. I've started it with four entries. Departure– (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

:Good start, but perhaps this should be called List of the deadliest tornadoes? I’m not sure the significance of the single location casualty count, is that a well known metric in tornadoes? Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::Surprisingly, yes. ^EF⁵ 13:20, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

::We could have another "list of deadliest tornadoes" or expand List of deadliest tornadoes in the Americas to worldwide. But, this article, in my opinion, highlights advancement in tornado warning and safety procedures, so we don't have 16 people with no information dying in a single Chicago intersection every few years. Departure– (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2025 (UTC)