This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tornadoes of 2024 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Latest comment: 29 days ago9 comments7 people in discussion
Hey all, back from an unannounced break. Before my break, it looked like there was overwhelming support to go back to the old format, but now it looks like everything is dead in the water. What happened? I cannot make sense of the discussion. If most users want the old format, don't we just go to back to the old format? I don't understand what is getting in the way, and would really appreciate it if someone explained the current situation.
TornadoInformation12 (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12Reply
Personally I opposed the new format at first, but have come to enjoy it better as I've used it frequently over the past months. I did not even know there was a discussion to revert back to the old format to begin with, so maybe that may be a point; that said discussion was maybe not more extensively encouraged throughout the Severe Weather Project. Mjeims (talk) 16:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 26 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion
The editor who originally asked for this page to be semi-protected is a confirmed sock puppet of Lokicat3345; a user who is currently banned from Wikipedia last year due to persistent disruption and vandalism. This page is NOT being persistently vandalized at the moment and therefore does not need to be protected. If a legitimate need for protection were to arise; we can start a new discussion. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 25 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion
So I think the new tornadic research section is a good idea, but I got to thinking and want some thoughts on which is the best format.
As is, meaning a except of the History of tornado research yearly section (noting that article is only probably 10% done, ballparked...only the larger-research stuff is in there for pre-2022)
Only yearly respective-related entries
Now here is the dilemma with both of those options:
With the first one, info from past years is included, due to research on past tornadoes being published this year. The second one is what I was originally thinking, but specific tornado studies are relatively rare (I think only a dozen have been published on AMS for 2020-2024 tornadoes). however, majority of research is wide-spread style. For example, the tornado alley shift paper published this year through AMS.
So yeah, really any thoughts or suggestions would be helpful. Like I said, I sort of prefer the 2nd option (not a true excerpt, but yearly-related stuff), however, the lack of individual "2024" (or "2023" or "2022" since those are also somewhat filled in) research is very obvious, since most of the entries and AMS papers aren't true case studies, but rather true academic papers. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)02:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Now that I think about it, the current (option 1) version might be good as well, since it shows what was actually published or what did occur during the overall tornadic year. But then again, past, non-related year (in this case, non-2024) tornadoes are mentioned. Yeah, I need others to chime in on this. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)02:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Im not sure I am a fan of it either since after all we cannot cover all of the "Tornadic Research" done, within a year or relating to a particular year for obvious reasons, including Wikipedia not being notable. I also feel that the section contains original research such as there being a nine day case study on a particular tornado. If it is too stay then it needs to be reduced just to the most notable pieces of research, cut down on all the Twitter ref and focus on the most notable research of the year.Jason Rees (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I might go with option-1 since many studies are not tied down to a specific year and may include things like long-term climatology. That being said, if a particular tornado had notable research published about it, it would likely be worth mentioning in the section for that outbreak (and/or the article if there is one). TornadoLGS (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The DOW measurement for the Greenfield tornado is currently outdated; it still has the old measurement of "possibly as high as 290 miles per hour." 71.221.155.84 (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
If citations are needed, the Doppler on Wheels Twitter/X Account quotes This NBC Article along with a followup "official" report Here. It is still worth noting that these are Calculations and Approximations with several assumptions, but the references and citations should still be updated to reflect the newer approximations DukeDragon28 (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Closing discussion per precedent that I set. The person who originally suggested this changed is a suspected sockpuppet of Lokicat3345 and has been blocked indefinitely. If you want to reply to me, do so on my user talk page. Otherwise, if there is a legitimate reason to pursue this change, we can start a new discussion West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Draft created for Hurricane Beryl tornado outbreak
Latest comment: 14 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't normally do this but given that Hurricane Beryl has been a prolific tornado producer, I made a tornado outbreak draft article for it. You can find it here. ChessEric21:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply