Jump to content

Talk:Tornado outbreak of May 18–21, 2013

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

Meteorological Synopsis

[edit]

Does anybody have a draft of an expanded MS section that discusses the synoptic and mesoscale features of the system? If not, I'll try to work on adding that in later this week once the system has moved through. Inks.LWC (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fastest Winds

[edit]

This article says that the fastest winds were in the Rozel tornado, but I have heard from multiple sources of information on the May 20, Moore tornado of 200mph+ windspeeds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.89.119 (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is very likely that is true, but I have not seen a confirmed, official estimate of the Moore tornado's winds. We can wait a bit until we have more solid information. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #19

[edit]

Can anyone verify I did it right? RocketLauncher2 (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Condensed format of article

[edit]

I've combined the Meteorological synopsis and confirmed tornadoes section to provide a more condensed version of the article. It keeps the day-by-day information together and details about tornadoes on a specific day with the conditions that allowed for them to form. I'd like to get other people's thoughts on this format and if they think this should be kept, improved upon, or disregarded. Thanks! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that I don't like about it is that it would be harder to add in ratings for the tornadoes and then convert them to the monthly tornado page. I like this idea after the surveys have all been finalized, but not right now. United States Man (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed anything about the tables other than they're pre-collapsed for ease of viewing. Information shouldn't be any harder to add/move than before and if it is, it would only be a few extra seconds of scrolling. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was my problem. I usually do it all in one sweep. The formatting is good though. United States Man (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like it! When condensed, it makes it look much nicer. However, the problem is that such is difficult to update "on the fly". It should be used when the outbreak is over, but not while actually happening. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to put it back in the usual way. This can be readded once surveys are complete. United States Man (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sounds reasonable. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing tornado table format

[edit]

As per request of United States Man, I'm starting up a discussion on slightly changing the way tornado tables are handled. Earlier today, I gave it a test run: May 18, 19 and 21st have been edited to portray the style. In the proposed version, only a few things are different. CDT is used over UTC for consistency sake as local time is used as a medium within the meteorological synopsis. If UTC is used, it creates a slight disjunct on time and can confuse readers accustom to reading the CDT time. In order to keep with WP:TIMEZONE, (UTC−05:00) was added to the table header. The second change is the addition of dissipation times when available. Rather than just stating when a tornado formed, it (as you would guess) allows the reader to know when a particular tornado dissipated as well. For some tornadoes, this information is not readily available until the release of the National Climatic Data Center's Storm Data publication, which is released for each month three to four months after the fact. The final change is the usage of in-line citations over the lump sourcing at the bottom of tables. Currently, information on the individual tornadoes can not be easily verified as there are no sources directly attached to them. Often times, this allows for false information and original research to become rampant. By adding in-line citations, all the information will be easily accessible for both verification and general sourcing. By extension, this would mean the removal of the lump sourcing at the bottom of the tables.

Only two points against this have been brought to my attention thus far:

  1. - It breaks consistency with all other tornado articles
  2. - It does not follow the guidelines set by WP:SEVERE

In regards to the former, there is one other article that uses a nearly identical format: 2011 New England tornado outbreak. Local time and in-line citations are used within the table and no issues ever arose from that. Furthermore, with this being the first push to actually change the format of the tables, there clearly would be some lack of consistency at first. As for the second point, again, this is a change from the old. In my opinion, it's an improvement from that format (which has not been changed in over four years).

Overall, the changes are actually very minor, mainly stylistic in nature to provide less disjuncts. Thoughts on this are greatly appreciated. Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether you switch to local time or not, the format of the current UTC times do not satisfy Wikipedia-wide style guidelines, in particular WP:MOSTIME. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR could apply to WP:MOSTIME, because if tornadoes occur in different time zones, it could be confusing (I know that's not the case here, but still). United States Man (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me how adding a colon to a time "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not adding a colon. From what I can tell, it also applies to using 12-hour or 24-hour time (which is slightly different than UTC time). IAR would apply to that because of time zones. United States Man (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The differences between UTC and 24-hour time are irrelevant, as this article (and all other tornado outbreak articles) are using 24-hour time with a UTC time zone, and the format used does not satisfy what is prescribed in the Manual of Style. You can claim that they are different things, but for MOS purposes they are not.
Additionally, I see you posted in Cyclonebiskit's page that the impetus for your reversions are the desire to enforce WikiProject guidelines, yet you claim IAR as soon as Wikipedia-wide guidelines (which always override WikiProject style guides) are presented as reasons why the current format is not desirable. You can't have it both ways. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, here's an example of the original research issue. Due to the lack of in-line citations, I was unable to easily verify whether or not the tornado near Ramona, Kansas was actually confirmed. After searching through Public Information Statements and local NWS offices, I found no source backing up it being confirmed. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you changes and explained why in the edit summary. United States Man (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Double-checked. Wasn't showing up for me before for some reason I guess. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I like the changes, and I think they would be worth implementing on a wide scale from now forward, with any articles written before this grandfathered in unless someone changes them of their own accord. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • First off, I'll state my possible biases up front. I've been a meteorologist in the USA for over 20 years now, with most of that time being spent working for the NWS. I do not currently work for the NWS though (I work in the private sector), and I do not claim to speak for the NWS here. I personally don't have strong feelings over the use of Local (Standard or Daylight) Time vs. UTC. From just perusing a few of the above mentioned articles, some of the sources use UTC and some use Local Time. One of the reasons that UTC is the International standard for weather information is that UTC isn't effected by Daylight Savings Time issues. As long as the tables in question clearly state for the reader what time zone is being used for the data provided, you're really not going to get any flak from me. I would like to say though that I strongly support the use of in-line citations over the lump sourcing at the bottom of the tables. It's important that Wikipedia articles be well-sourced, and if using in-line citations requires a change to WikiProject Severe Weather guidelines, then so be it. Guy1890 (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this: If the Severe Weather guidelines are being used as an excuse to break content policies such as WP:V and WP:NOR, then the project needs to adjust its suggestions. Of particular relevance is the following passage from Wikipedia:Text-source integrity:
  • The current practice causes far too many problems: how the hell are you supposed to know which table rows have sources to support them and which ones don't, if none of them have citations? The excuse that the prose contains the prose does not hold water, as tables are often used independently of prose, and are vulnerable to getting split off from the article and sent to their own sub-articles.
    To wrap it up, I support the requirement of citing table cells. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support as well. In-text citations especially should have been discussed long ago (maybe I should've done that :P). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: the time issue, UTC is always used in the tables, but there is inconsistency in the text. I prefer local time (UTC) in text formats to ensure both clarity for the average viewer and meeting the scientific consistency as well. In the tables, UTC is preferred for convenient sorting and to ensure they are captured in chronological order - which especially impacts states (or regions) with multiple time zones. As for overall format changes, if this is changed, then every article - and there are hundreds - need to be changed as well. The references for the tables are always the SPC reports list and NWS offices (at the bottom) plus any other references in the comments section that are used in-line. For in-line citations of the links at bottom of tables, maybe just write in text then the inline citation? CrazyC83 (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was my main concern for not wanting this changed. I am not a big fan of inconsistency and I was afraid that all articles wouldn't get changed. I sure wasn't going to do it all myself. United States Man (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – While I prefer making the article entirely in UTC, since that is the worldwide meteorological time, I like the changes proposed in the table. I never liked the lumping of references at the end of the table, because it makes it unclear what sources what. Besides, they aren't even full inline citations anyway, just external single bracket links. Furthermore, I like the idea of adding the dissipation time as well — it's useful information that can usually be found in conjunction with the other data listed in the table. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 22:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support overall - I support this overall, but I think some things need changes. All time should stay at UTC (no local time) and (as mentioned below) path width should be included. United States Man (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Path width

[edit]

In addition to the proposed changes by Cyclonebiskit, I propose we add a path width column to all of the tornado tables. It'd be useful for the readers and the NWS provides it for every tornado anyways. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much issue with adding it since it's just another small column of data. Only concern would really be how useful is it? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it as just as useful as path length. So it should be included since there is room in the table. United States Man (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Templatizing

[edit]

While we are on the topic of overhauling the tornado tables anyways, we might as well templatize them. I created a series of templates ({{Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology/Tornado Header}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology/Tornado Row}}, {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Meteorology/Tornado Footer}}) to duplicate the table for May 21 below:

List of reported tornadoes - Tuesday, May 21, 2013
EF#
Location
County / Parish
Coord.
Time (UTC)
Path length
Comments/Damage
Indiana
EF0 E of Roachdale Putnam 39°51′N 86°44′W / 39.85°N 86.74°W / 39.85; -86.74 (Roachdale (May 21, EF0)) 0630 0.25 miles (400 m) Brief tornado damaged a barn and downed several trees.
EF0 North Salem area Hendricks 39°52′N 86°38′W / 39.86°N 86.64°W / 39.86; -86.64 (North Salem (May 21, EF0)) 0640 unknown Brief tornado damaged a home and a barn. Several trees were downed as well.
Ontario
EF2 Glenarm area City of Kawartha Lakes unknown unknown A barn was destroyed and a home lost its roof. Several trees were downed as well.
Sources: SPC Storm Reports for 05/20/13, SPC Storm Reports for 05/21/13, NWS Indianapolis, Enviroment Canada
List of confirmed tornadoes - Tuesday, May 21, 2013
F# Location County / Parish Coord. Time (UTC) Path length Comments/Damage
Indiana
EF0 E of Roachdale Putnam 39°51′N 86°44′W / 39.85°N 86.74°W / 39.85; -86.74 (Roachdale (May 21, EF0)) 0630–? 0.25 miles (400 m) Brief tornado damaged a barn and downed several trees.
EF0 North Salem area Hendricks 39°52′N 86°38′W / 39.86°N 86.64°W / 39.86; -86.64 (North Salem (May 21, EF0)) 0640–? unknown Brief tornado damaged a home and a barn. Several trees were downed as well.
Ontario
EF2 Glenarm area City of Kawartha Lakes unknown unknown A barn was destroyed and a home lost its roof. Several trees were downed as well.

I copied the tables as-is, but I already coded path width (use {{{pathwidth}}} throughout), and can adapt the tables to whatever is decided here. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 20, Midnight Missouri tornadoes

[edit]

It's been bothering me for a bit now but could we move the two tornadoes that occurred just after midnight local time on May 20 in Missouri to the May 19 section within the outbreak article? From a meteorological standpoint, they were associated with the events from May 19 as they occurred from the squall line that developed that night. Also, it creates an awkward jump (in my opinion) with the next tornadoes in the state touching down 15 hours later, after the events in Oklahoma began. I was thinking of marking the two tornadoes with a double dagger (‡) that denotes that they occurred on May 20 but were associated with the events of May 19. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be okay with me, but remember to do that with other articles as well. United States Man (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But if they are after 1 am, they should go with the current day. Only if before 1 am should we add them to the previous day. If they were surveyed and reported by the NWS to be on a certain day then they should be left there (SPC is irrelevant in this situation as going by that would be very confusing). United States Man (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So basically keep the split at 0600 UTC? SPC uses a 1200 UTC split (8 am CST) for their products for what it's worth. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe not. How about a 0700 UTC split (for daylight savings/standard)? SPC runs too far into the morning. To me, it's like we are displaying the dates incorrectly if we use "SPC time". 0700 UTC: final answer. :) United States Man (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, alright. 0700 UTC works for me (for this article we're only looking at fudging 23 minutes over anyways). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how about us going to bed? United States Man (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WPC Products

[edit]

Just so I can update the Meteorological Synopsis fully later on

Short Range Discussion
Mesoscale Precipitation Discussion

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on May 18–21, 2013 tornado outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 30 external links on May 18–21, 2013 tornado outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:April 6–8, 2006 tornado outbreak which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tornado outbreak of May 18–21, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tornado_outbreak_of_May_18–21,_2013&oldid=1213960711"