Jump to content

Talk:2011 Super Outbreak

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angiest (talk | contribs) at 16:42, 2 May 2011 (→Consolidation: Hackleburg -> Phil Campbell -> Mount Hope -> Hatton). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Sequence?

I have some doubts about this being a tornado outbreak sequence per the parts of the definition at that article of "period of continuous or near continuous high tornado activity" and "very few or no days with a lack of tornado outbreaks". I don't really see that nearly half the days here qualify as having had tornado outbreaks, primary among them the 21st, 23rd, and 24th. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 14:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 19/20th event was a separate storm system from the current one. From what I've seen, the 21st to today has been a single stalled out front with multiple low pressure centers forming along it. Only recently has it become a significant outbreak but the tornadoes from the 21st to the 24th are a part of it. It may be hard to tell from the storm reports alone but synoptically, there were two separate events that took place in quick succession.
Also, the ongoing outbreak warrants its own article as it's about to become extremely active. The SPC already issued a high risk and is going to expand northeastward to western Tennessee soon. The first outbreak is a borderline article as it only meets the general tornado requirement but resulted in no loss of life. I think they should be split to the April 19 – 20, 2011 derecho and tornado oubtreak and the Late-April 2011 tornado outbreak. As a side, I still proprose that the April 14-16 event be titled the Mid-April 2011 tornado outbreak...but I digress. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough for me on keeping this outbreak...to me any high risk outbreak is notable, because if it mostly busts and only produces mostly non-significant tornadoes then I consider that almost notable on forecasting fail alone. Still, I have to agree that the 19-20 system is borderline. If we could get a source or two explaining that this is a sequence, that would pretty much seal the deal on this article, but as it stands now I have to agree that the split is for the better. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think 19-20 was a separate event, and out of scientific accuracy it should be split. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to what I can decipher from this, it appears that the April 19-20th event was a separate derecho event at least ahead of the April 21st-ongoing event. The events should be split, though in due time if needed. 68.58.76.65 (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there were some 6 other deaths (non-tornadic) in Arkansas. I don't know if that needs mentioning in the article or not. Plus, there could be substantial damage and other deaths due to flooding from this event. 68.58.76.65 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support splitting the article. Per other uses. --Kuzwa (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be for April 25-27. Everything else should be out. Truthsort (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cyclonebiskit- There were two back-to-back meteorological events the derecho and tornado event on the 19th and 20th and then the stalled frontal system producing an extended outbreak from April 22-28, It's looking like April 27th in particular will be a historic day possibly overshadowing the April 14–16, 2011 tornado outbreak. The ongoing outbreak warrants its own article split to the April 19–20, 2011 derecho and tornado outbreak and the April 22–28, 2011 tornado outbreak.
If we're going to split this up, then we also need to split up the May 2003 sequence. Also, if the Tuscaloosa/Birmingham tornado is the same in both places, I'd call this an EF6.

I think this is turning into a Katrina-like event. Subarticles may be warranted, a first for a tornado event. Perhaps merge all the April outbreaks into a single article, then branch out - April 4-5, 8 (marginal?), 9-10, 14-16, 19-20, 22-23, 25, 26, 27, (28?) each with subarticles. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F/EF6 is only a hypothetical category with outrageous wind speeds. It looks like we have at least an EF4 and probably an EF5 for the Tuscaloosa/Birmingham tornado. And it appears from initial reports and also radar signatures that it is the same tornado that hit both cities, the TVS and debris ball didn't cycle btwn the two cities. The parent super cell produced at least three tornadoes across MS, AL, and near northwest GA.
Actually, EF6 doesn't exist at all. See Enhanced Fujita Scale. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 11:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand the subarticle comment. we can move this page to April 2011 tornado outbreak sequence and on that article talk about the general overall climate pattern that has existed throughout this month. April 2011 looks to be a record breaking month, well over the old April record and I believe it might approach the overall monthly record. from that article we have sub articles such as the existing tornado outbreak articles earlier this month, the April 19-20 derecho event, and the current April 22-28 outbreak (possibly split into 1) April 22-25, and then 2) Super Wednesday (April 27th) into the 28th. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This April has already smashed the old April record for tornadoes. Also, while I hate to speculate, the damage I've seen from the Birmingham definitely looks like EF5-scale damage. Well, we can only wait now. 68.58.76.65 (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vilonia tornado

Preliminary rating of EF2, likely to change though. 68.58.76.65 (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to know is, did it scour pavement or not? If it did, I can't imagine an EF2, or possibly even an EF3 doing that. Biturica (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we should never believe preliminary reports. People say a town was "Wiped off the map" when really just a bunch of mobile homes were destroyed and roofs severely damaged. I wish emergency managers would learn to use hyperbole responsibly. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 15:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't help much

I would be off the hook here today, but I am on vacation and on a laptop. I will put up ratings of confirmed but not much else now. BTW one of the 150 or more tornadoes I went through today...stay safe everyone! CrazyC83 (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who the hell is writing this stuff? The APril 26 description is ridiculous... who cares about Southern Michigan when destructive tornadoes occurred in MS/LA/TX???? And the massive flooding elsewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.95.2 (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge St. Louis Tornado?

While the tornado was the strongest to hit the St. Louis metro area since 1967 and temporarily closed the airport, the tornado had a very limited area of EF4 damage mostly EF1 and EF2 strength for most of its path, also very little injuries and no fatalities. We also have much of the same info in the section of the outbreak. It seems a bit light to have its own article , we certainly have stronger, more damaging, and more deadly/injury causing tornadoes without separate articles. Bhockey10 (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agreed. 68.58.76.65 (talk) 02:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the merge as well. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support this. This was the strongest storm in the metro area in 40+ years. The fact that "other stuff doesn't exist" (to borrow from OTHER STUFF) is not a valid argument for the St. Louis article to be merged. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 04:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My main reason for having this merged is the lack of fatalities and few injuries which make tornadoes stand out. Granted this tornado hit a major city and temporarily crippled a major airport, its effects were really short-lived (airport). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to throw a couple of things out there and then stand back, because I am biased in more than one way in this instance (I created the article and I am originally from the St. Louis area) - A) The fact that there was a lack of fatalities makes this storm notable, in my opinion, given the length of time that it spent on the ground and the area in which it struck. One would only need to look at (for example) today's tragic events in Tuscaloosa, Alabama and other regions of the south to realize that St. Louis County and the Metro East got extremely lucky (some are going so far as to call it a "miracle"). B) This very scenario has been presented on at least a few different "doomsday" / "worst case scenario" television specials (I know of one off the top of my head that The Weather Channel runs fairly often during tornado season) about a tornado of any significant size striking the St. Louis area (and the TWC episode specifically focuses on St. Louis, btw). The second part is completely trivial, I understand that, but I think that this storm is notable enough to stand on its own. But, I will of course support whatever consensus might be reached, even if rather begrudgingly.  :) StrikerforceTalk Review me! 06:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One reason there wasn't many injuries is because there was advanced warning and it was a EF1/low end EF2 along most of it's path [1]. It wasn't on the ground for an extreme amount of time. Although it's technically the "highest rated tornado since 1964" there have been worse/more notable tornadoes in St. Louis and other metro areas. The television doomsday events are more on the line of the Tuscaloosa mile wide EF4/EF5 directly hitting a downtown/high density populated area. The major reason why it got coverage was the airport being shut down for 24 hours- The tornado was more of a media hype than a notable destructive deadly tornado. The reason for the article shouldn't be because it was the technically strongest tornado in the St. Louis metro since 1964. There are plenty of cities that haven't had a tornado, if one hits it'll be the "strongest tornado EVER" in that city. Despite the media hype it's a rather routine tornado- tornado touches down, buildings damaged, some injuries. That happens almost every Spring day to towns and cities (large and small) in the Midwest. Separate articles for tornadoes should be reserved for the few notable tornado events that had large scale destructuction, large scale economic impact, and very deadly/lots of injuries such as OKC, Greensburg KS, (Tuscaloosa/Birmingham possibly)... Bhockey10 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article organization

Here is my suggestion: since April has been a record-breaking, record-tragedy month, almost continuous, some unique things are needed here. Here is how I would set it out:

I sure hope May is nowhere near as bad!!! CrazyC83 (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clueless on this one, I'll go with whatever so long as it makes sense at this point. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I like this idea. Hopefully we don't have to do this for a long time. Have the outbreak sequence article cover the whole month of April 2011. The only one I disagree with is the St. Louis tornado having a separate article. In the scope of things it's not really significant enough to warrent its own article (see above section on merge). Keep STL in the outbreak sequence article along with the tornadoes that occurred between the 19-20 event and April 25-28th or since the 22nd was essentially the beginning of the outbreak, have the article cover the 22-28. Bhockey10 (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm down with this, I doubt there will be much dissent if you would like to go ahead. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This latest outbreak (25th-27th) definitely needs its own article. Unfortunately I dont have much time to help out.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 03:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I originally stated that 25-27 should get its own article, but given the circumstances of what has happened today, I think today should have its own article. Truthsort (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lists are given their own articles once more than 50 tornadoes are confirmed and there are multiple destructive tornadoes. The 25-27 should stay within a single article accounting the synopsis and major tornadoes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 25-27 should be their own article, but today shouldn't get it's own alone. Yesterday and the 26 were part of the same synoptics/setup and all 3 days were deadly and devastating. Today was the real historic day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.95.2 (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm just going to go ahead and split it. No reason to connect the 19-20 outbreak with this one...to do so is original research. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 10:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else created the stub-article 2011 Tuscaloosa, Alabama Tornado. If it was SO bad, maybe that one tornado warrants a sub-article that obviously needs expansion? I'll be able to do little until tonight though, then I can get ratings and some upgrading at least. CrazyC83 (talk) 11:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. That single tornado might have caused 100 or more deaths (presuming it was on the ground the whole time its parent supercell was warned), which would be the first time since the 1950s that so many had died.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 11:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might warrant its own article in the future. But I suggest waiting for official NWS surveys before breaking things up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.95.2 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Catoosa County, Georgia?

Does anyone have sources or info as to just what happened there? I've heard all sorts of wacky things including that they are requesting a "mass casualty" trailer of some sort. We need sources before we can put it in the article though, so could any of you help me dig out some sources? 69.134.14.210 (talk) 03:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the article, Emergency mgmt is reporting 4 dead in GA, 2 in Trenton and 2 in Ringgold/Catoosa Co. not much info in the article or on the phone interview on the weather ch, but it sounds like a tornado caused some building collapses in Ringgold. Bhockey10 (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28th April tornadoes

Do tornadoes that have been reported on the 28th April need to be put in the list? I'm unsure when the outbreak finishes in terms of adding tornadoes to the list (I presume its when the weather system stops producing tornadoes, but I could do with some clarification) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 28th is part of the outbreak unless each day gets its own article as I recommended. CrazyC83 (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Should have thought of renaming while I was moving stuff around. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 11:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't split each day into its own article. This was a three-day synoptic event, and the level of editor interest is not sufficient to maintain a flotilla of articles. Split when necessary, not preemptively. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsville/Madison County, Alabama?

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/110427_rpts.html shows several items for Madison County, Alabama, and it is referenced as a source for the table, but the Madison County events have not been mentioned in the table. I don't understand how the table is compiled, else I might put some things in myself. While not as dramatic as the Tuscaloosa-Birmingham event, it certainly warrants detailed coverage. "As many as 300,000 homes" are without electricity in the area - a transmission line from Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant in Limestone County were damaged, the mayor is saying to plan for 4-5 days without electricty, conserve water.[2] -- ke4roh (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8 dead in Madison County.[3] -- ke4roh (talk) 14:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've been using SPC storm reports for the table since they have lat/lon and other good information. Problem is there are definitely tornadoes missing from that list, including tornadoes that killed 8 in Virginia: Fox Toledo. Unfortunately, I think we have to stick to the storm reports for now to be consistent; hopefully the missing tornadoes fill in as the day wears on. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 15:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided seems to be the same one that ke4roh provided above, which mentions several tornadoes in Madison County. If that is the source being used, then I think those tornadoes should be added to the table. Calathan (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are the same link. Our table contains many fewer entries than that report. (Ignoring the fact that relatively few (if any) reports from HUN are mentioned.) I agree it shouldn't include every entry. How are they selected? Is there a tool to generate Wiki markup from the NWS report, or is that something I should write tonight? -- ke4roh (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking online and saw pictures of significant damage in the Anderson Hills area near Harvest that was hit by the 1995 Anderson Hills tornado. Apparently some of the same buildings were hit (e.g. the Piggly Wiggly mentioned in the article on the 1995 storm was apparently hit in this one . . . it is mentioned as damaged in the NOAA link you provided). Should the article on the 1995 tornado be given a hatnote pointing to this article so that people looking for information on the current storm can find the right place? Or perhaps the Anderson Hills tornado article should be moved to 1995 Anderson Hills tornado? Calathan (talk) 15:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the 1995 article. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuscaloosa tornado rated EF5

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/local/2011-Tornado-Season-120860029.html & http://cw.ua.edu/2011/04/28/students-residents-feel-tornados-effects/ it was rated EF5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.39.109 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial; no word from the NWS via PNS or website yet that I can see. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 15:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets wait for official word... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.203.244 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is unofficial, but I think it's still fair to keep the plus sign next to the "EF4" in the Maximum Rated Tornado section in the infobox, denoting that there is at least one tornado that was potentially stronger. For the record, Dr. Greg Forbes from the Weather Channel took an aerial tour of the damage in Tuscaloosa and said if he had to give it a preliminary rating, it would be EF-5. He gave the usual cautionary disclaimer, but sounded pretty confident with this response. He's been doing this 30+ years and said this was one of the worst tornadoes he'd seen, in terms of damage. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 07:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ongoing events

Is this an encyclopedia or a newspaper? MachoCarioca (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[clarification needed] Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an especially up-to-date encyclopedia. Funny enough, it's more up-to-date than your typical dead-tree newspaper edition in some cases. Ever noticed how news of someone's death hits Wikipedia instantly? See also Talk:Timeline of the Fukushima I nuclear accidents/Archive 2#Overblown daily diary. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is because oftentimes an editor somewhere spots the initial news release and rushes here to put it in. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why hasn't MS been updated? The 30 deaths there are pretty finalized... Clarke County is Missing.

Images useable in this article

Here is a link to flickr Creative Commons images: [4] There look to be some good damage photos. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 17:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-tornadic events

I think it may be necessary to add a "Non-tornadic events" section to the article, on account of the fact that the storm system that produced the destructive and devastating outbreak has also caused some flooding. In fact, it is debatable whether the death toll is entirely from the tornadoes (which if it is, may be attributable to people not hearing the warnings, ignoring the warnings until it was too late, or people seeking shelter in places that didn't protect them enough), some of the deaths could have come from flooding. TVtonightOKC (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that belongs in the article. While the tornadoes are undoubtedly the highest priority, other events were damaging and notable as well. That should be below Aftermath. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is ample information to add into the article then. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article need to be protected

A lot of edits have happened to this article today that have been reverted (for justifiable reasons!)

I have seen several times where unconfirmed reports of an EF5 (or the impossible EF5+) rated tornado are posted to the article and are subsequently taken down. Then, of course, there was the move to renaming the article the 2011 Super Outbreak. Before that there was a Late-April 2011 Tornado Outbreak Sequence. Does it make sense to protect this article for the next few days while real data about this outbreak is being gathered? Angiest (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might be best, lots of false ratings being added. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it was warranted, only semi-protection, where registered users could still edit. TVtonightOKC (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A request for semi-protection has been added. -\-Marcusmax(speak) 20:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Angiest (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The request was denied. -Marcusmax(speak) 20:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I heavily support pending change protecting it, if possible. At the very least move protect. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the last request was denied, but I have had to fix false tornado ratings a few times now and I am getting fed up. Plus there seems to be somebody trying to move this to "2011 Super Outbreak" -Marcusmax(speak) 20:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do TPTB at Wikipedia not want this to be a reliable resource for information on this historic event? Having unverified information continuously being added as fact and then reverted makes this a difficult article to follow. I'm sure this page is getting a lot of traffic, and incorrect intensity ratings should not show up here as fact. I would say it is fine to record the speculation of knowledgeable individuals (such as meteorologists) who think a particular storm may have a certain rating, so long as it is part of the narrative, and not in the summary information. This article should really have some protection for at least the next few days. Angiest (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not me -- Ks0stm reverted my one and only edit here -- but considering the relative scale of the event compared to the other Super Outbreak listed in Wikipedia, a discussion of renaming might be appropriate. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.151 (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be an article only for April 27

I understand that the last three days were all part of the same system, but yesterday was an utterly historic day and what happened on 25-26 was, in all honesty, not as important as yesterday. Truthsort (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was all part of the same outbreak, it is possible that a few select tornadoes could get their own sub-article. Obviously yesterday was the most fatal day, but meteorologicaly it is all the same.-Marcusmax(speak) 20:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once more information comes in I think there should be a separate article (not just section) for the Tuscaloosa-Birmingham tornado like there is for the 1999 Bridge Creek-Moore tornado. It will after all go down as one of the most destructive single tornadoes in U.S. history. bob rulz (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, Cyclonebiskit, you've set a standard example =P. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 19-20

When you click on April 19th - 20th it links back to the 25th -28th

There should be its own page for them.

Also I like to add 1 Tornado to the list of April 19th West Salem, IL (I do not know the EF of it but I can first hand tell you it did touch down and hit. I was traped in my trailer as it moved it was a low level as it only did minor damage it hit about 9.41pm central time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.129.82 (talk) 22:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that a table that breaks down the confirmed fatalities related to the tornadoes so far be added to the article, that is if the count can be broken down county-by-county for each state affected. The structure of the outbreak death toll table, which I am not use has been used in any more recent articles about significant, noteworthy tornadoes/tornado outbreaks that have caused fatalities, requires that information for fatalities for each state and the county/parish/borough be included. TVtonightOKC (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually been keeping a tally of fatalities in a sandbox but I don't recommend adding it until the deaths are finalized. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, adding a note about deaths, injuries, or major damage to the stubs on the various places affected would be worthwhile - and chances are there won't be edit conflicts either. :-). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The single Kentucky death listed was a highway police officer who hydroplaned in standing water and died in the resulting crash. No tornado was involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.160.171 (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

- In my second edit to this article, I made a skeleton for the April 28 summary, with link-only references. (Could someone else, better than me at wiki ref cites, clean them up?) There were also reports of tornadoes in New York, but that link is blacklisted? www.examiner.com/weather-in-albany/storms-ravage-central-new-york-overnight-with-tornadoes-reported - Tenebris 23:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nitpicking

The article really needs a comma in the title, after date and before the year. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a comma after the date already, and other tornado articles do not have a comma after the year (e.g. April 6–8, 2006 tornado outbreak, April 10–11, 2001 tornado outbreak, May 1–2, 2008 tornado outbreak). There was also a move page war on July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike [5] after a RM discussion. hbdragon88 (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I corrected myself incorrectly, in between editing and calming children. There ought to be a comma after the year, in agreement with just about every US style manual (since this is a US date format). My favorite comment in the discussion you just linked to is "i don't know the intricacies of punctuation usage, but to my untrained eye, it seems wrong." They were looking at the correct way of doing it.

I'm not about to start edit-warring on it--but I would like to point out that a comma after the year is the usual way of doing it (except, apparently, in tornado articles?) and it is what style manuals prescribe. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to find other examples, since typically having the month/date and year is considered WP:PRECISION overkill. Likely the other best example in a MM-DD format is September 11, 2001 attacks which also did not have a comma after the year until it was moved to the simpler September 11 attacks. In other cases, such as Baghdad bombing, they're all in the DD-MM format. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions

I am trying to do as much as I can but I am limited as I am not online much this week and next. Here are some suggestions:

  • 1) Focus on confirmed tornadoes, don't worry about reported as much, especially for tornadoes that did not result in fatalities. It will take some time to sort everything out.
  • 2) ONLY use NWS offices as sources, not the media, for official ratings and totals. Add as much detail as possible in the damage list.
  • 3) Many sections for notable tornadoes will likely be needed, and even subarticles if necessary for especially notable tornadoes. It is probable that several subarticles will be needed.
  • 4) Ultimately the tornado chart will be moved off to its own article as well.
  • 5) Tornadoes of 2011 is a lower priority right now.

CrazyC83 (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elmore County, AL?

I live here and there are five confirmed dead, 1 missing from this tornado but I don't see it in the list. http://www.wsfa.com/global/Category.asp?C=195969&clipId=5798657&autostart=true http://ema.alabama.gov/filelibrary/PressRelease/NR%20Latest%20Fatalites%20195_042811.pdf 68.207.220.27 (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing the backlog of unlisted storms with Storm Wikifier

There is a whopping lot of damage on http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/reports/110427_rpts.html which is not included on this page. To ease the burden of converting it to wiki format, I have created some simple Javascript. Get the CSV report from NOAA and paste it in to the storm wikifier to get a head start on listing your storm of interest. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the CSV data should be included in the paste area and how does it read dates? Thanks for getting this running, it'll prove invaluable for saving time in the long run, updating these tables with numerous reports is time consuming work... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Ke4roh/Storm Wikifier for a bit more documentation. -- ke4roh (talk) 04:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow great find! Duplicate reports are to be careful of though, since especially the long-trackers will have many reports for the single tornado. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just spruced it up a bit to pull the offset (2 WNW) from the city automatically. That should make it a little easier. If there is some place this tool should be listed for general promotion purposes, please reference User:Ke4roh/Storm Wikifier so that I can handle any support issues that come up. -- ke4roh (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why stop history at 1950?

The article states this is "the second deadliest tornado day since 1950". While that appears to be true it does not seem to give a good measure of comparison. There are three more deadly US tornado outbreaks...

"Tri-State" March 18, 1925 695 deaths Natchez, MS May 6, 1840 317 deaths Super Outbreak April 3–4, 1974 315–330 deaths

So perhaps rather then stopping the scope of the article at 1950, it should include all documented US outbreaks.

Sources: Single tornado deaths: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tornadoes_causing_100_or_more_deaths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Outbreak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodb56 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1950 is regarded as the year when reliable records began for tornadoes. Prior to that, tornadoes basically came out of the blue and often resulted in enormous fatalities. In the past 60 years, major leaps in technology have allowed us to go from zero-skill forecasting to having 20 minute lead times for tornadoes. With that amount of time, the number of fatalities has drastically decreased and only the most intense tornadoes result in more than ten fatalities these days. I may have digressed a bit there but basically, 1950 on on are considered to be "modern" outbreaks and thus are compared within a 61 year period. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1950 is as far back as consistent official records go: the NCDC storm database begins in 1950. Also, official tornado forecasts were banned before the early 1950s, so it represents the era of storm warnings as well. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 06:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting, though, that if the death toll for this outbreak exceeds that of the 1974 Super Outbreak, it will have been the deadliest U.S. tornado day since the Tri-State Tornado outbreak of 1925, which is regarded by many to have been the worst tornado disaster in U.S. history. The 2011 outbreak is also the deadliest tornado event in Alabama since the March 1932 outbreak (~268 deaths in AL in that event). Overall pre-1950 tornado records may be spotty, but major death toll events have been well-documented since long before then. (CapeFearWX (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Tanner, AL

I don't see verification of the EF4 tornado in Tanner, AL, from NWS yet. However, Tanner was hit by two F5 tornadoes in the Super Outbreak. That probably is worth a mention in one or both articles (this and the Super Outbreak article). Angiest (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found the Public Information Statement for Tanner. An excerpt: IN THE COMMUNITY OF TANNER...THE INTENSITY WAS MAXIMIZED WITH A LARGE SWATH OF EF-4 DAMAGE AND A NARROW CORRIDOR OF HIGH END EF-4 TO NEAR EF-5 DAMAGE. That would be historically significant, and probably does worth mention. Angiest (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link, please - Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 14:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, the information about the April 27th tornado in Tanner is documented by NWS Birmingham as a Public Information Statement, but the link to that statement will change with time (it could conceivably be moved by the time I post this note). The preliminary EF4 rating for that tornado is already in the table in this article. As to the history, that is documented in the Super Outbreak article(s). Super_Outbreak#Tanner.2C_Alabama_tornadoes 143.111.80.27 (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some new additions..

The Mabank tornado was an EF1, the Seven Points one (over Cedar Creek Lake) was an EF0, and there was another one not listed here in Eustace that was an EF0. That's all according to this - http://www.srh.noaa.gov/fwd/?n=severewx042611

I'm not sure how to cite this, so can someone please be so kind as to add these? Thanks Foofish (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the contribution! I did not add the Eustace one yet pending their more detailed analysis. I don't mind if someone else wants to add it. -- ke4roh (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Disaster template

I added the {{recent disaster}} template to the top of the article. Hope that was OK. I couldn't get the "areas" option to work out correctly, so I just left it out. Please add it if you feel the need. - Bkid My talk/Contribs 06:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll

I know it's a bit late to bring this up, as the death toll should be pretty close to final today or tomorrow, but I don't agree with the trend (not just on this article, but in other mass-casualty disasters) of just taking the one source with the highest number and using that. I believe we should either A) use a variety of sources and say things like "around 300 killed" or "at least 300 killed", or B) Find the death toll with the most support among different news sources. For instance, the source for 305 dead (Wall Street Journal) was, and still remains, the only source listing that number. As of a few minutes ago, however, a new Alabama death toll has been confirmed, so numbers are changing across the board:

  • Boston FOX affiliate: 310
  • ABC news: "More than 300"; 309 if you add their reported totals for all states.
  • CNN: 300
  • MSNBC: 300 (though one part of the story says "300", while another says "more than 300"

Not to mention all the out-of-date sources. I am going to change the total to "at least 300" based on these sources, and I hope people will show restraint in changing it as the number continues to fluctuate. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 09:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The highest number is not always the most accurate, and rephrasing as stated above is the best way to cover all the bases until an offical and final number is given. - Bkid My talk/Contribs 10:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a post from the weather blog operated by WBMA/WCFT/WJSU (or "ABC 33/40") in Birmingham, posted Friday morning, detailing the death toll in the state of Alabama as updated by the Alabama Emergency Management Agency. Not that one county had their death count revised downward. [6] TVtonightOKC (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I disagree. I think it was prudent for several sources to say "around 300" because it's getting close to that via official sources. Using "at least 300" is actually inadvisable because that implies we are agreeing with the media sources' use of original research. CNN said "nearly 300" for the last couple of hours, not "300", I believe. The main CNN article did link to another page here listing 298 total deaths to date. Like mentioned at the CNN main article, "The state said 36 people died in Tuscaloosa, the hardest-hit community. Heather McCollum, a city spokeswoman, said Friday that 42 people had died in that city, but those additional deaths had not yet appeared in the official state report.", I also agree that the numbers across the board would be changing later today -- I only suggest to use the lowest official numbers out of caution. Cheers, CalvinTy 19:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, as I am not used to working on current articles, even the Boston Fox article has now declared 319 dead, and it said, "as the official death toll from tornadoes and flash flooding across America's South hit 319.". Go figure, my earlier comment is too old.  :) Cheers, CalvinTy 19:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, it is a moot point, as the death toll went up again, so it is safely over 300 Twister death toll 318; most since 1932 outbreak How do you think we should deal with this, since 315 is an important milestone (means this outbreak beats the Super Outbreak).-RunningOnBrains(talk) 19:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The Boston FOX article was referring to mxFOXAL.com. There, at myFOXAL.com, the article was updated 4 minutes ago, now stands at "334 dead" (the difference between 319 and 334 was 15 more AL deaths, it appears). Regards, CalvinTy 19:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons: They include the 13 fatalities in Arkansas and have an over-count in Virginia. The official toll in Virginia is five. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cyclonebiskit. Yes, I live in VA so I had already checked VA numbers to be 5. Looks like AL numbers are now 228. The other count to question is why did AR jump from 1 to 13? I presume one KY death was a late addition, but time to confirm all of those numbers. Regards,CalvinTy 19:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we now consider a table of fatalities by state? With each state sourced by that state's official numbers? Looks like what we have now is this:

(updated by CalvinTy 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Fatalities by state

Alabama: 228[1] (was 210)[2]
Tennessee: 34 (as of 29 Apr 2011 1000 CDT)[3]
Mississippi: 33 (as of 28 Apr 2011 1945 CDT)[4] *not sure why many sources cite 32
Georgia: 15 [5]
Arkansas: 13 (as of 28 Apr 2011 2000 CDT)[6]
Virginia: 5 [7]
Kentucky: 1 (cannot find source-- number seem to come from Alabama's sources -- but I wonder if someone googled this and saw the top entry & thought KY had 1 death but it really was from 2009?)

Total: 317

I will try to make a table (first time)... anyone can beat me to it, that's fine. Cheers, CalvinTy 19:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm collecting sources and updating the above data accordingly so anyone can copy & make a table if it's agreed one is suggested. I can't think of other recent Wikipedia article where we had multiple deaths across U.S. states recently so I don't have a baseline reference to insert the table into the article. Feel free to use the references. Regards, CalvinTy 20:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All done for now (for references). Cheers, CalvinTy 21:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the table & put it under "Aftermath" in the article. Hope it's good start. Regards, CalvinTy 21:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should specify tornado deaths... Arkansas only had 5 tornado deaths, not 13.

Kentucky source: [8] I can confirm a miraculous no-deaths (and very few serious injuries, thank God) for Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and the Eastern Seaboard from SC/NC north. (After last week, at least NC was (relatively) spared.) There was one more death in Ontario (straight-line winds). [9] - Tenebris 16:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Update

Currently major news outlets are reporting

  • CBS: 340 deaths (as of 1pm)
  • ABC: 345 (as of today, time not listed)
  • CNN: 337 (as of 2pm)
  • Reuters: 356, (as of 12:30pm) but using an Alabama death toll which has since been revised downward
  • Associated Press: 341 (as of 5pm)

Which to me is a pretty large range of uncertainty. AP is the most up-to-date by several hours, but I'd like to see one more outlet give that number before upping the listed total. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 21:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the SPC has made their first update to the official list of tornado fatalities. Not sure why they only have 307 fatalities for this outbreak, I'm sure it has something to do with waiting for official surveys so they know it was tornadoes instead of straight-line wind. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 22:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well also their numbers will be lower because everyone is running with 13 deaths for AR. 8 of those were flooding. 5 were tornadic. 4 in Faulkner County, 1 in Sharp County. Speaking of flooding... the massive flooding ongoing warrants its own article. All time crests are being broken from Cairo downward with mass evacuations beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.95.2 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a new one that you should add.

This goes under Georgia. Newton, Morgan, And Greene Counties. time of touchdown: 111 AM EDT Location of touchdown: 1 mile west of newborn. Tornado is EF1. for the summary, copy and paste the following link below into the address box http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ffc/?n=20110427_svrstorms [10] --184.36.198.238 (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, it has been added! -RunningOnBrains(talk) 19:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EF5 in Monroe County, MIssissippi?

From the NWS in Memphis:

PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MEMPHIS TN
812 AM CDT FRI APR 29 2011
...PRELIMINARY RARE EF-5 TORNADO IN MONROE COUNTY MISSISSIPPI...

--Cornince (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given this, I'll do up a stub of an individual-storm section, as any EF5 warrants individual treatment. rdfox 76 (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Script to format survey reports

This little Perl script will take the all-caps NWS format from its input and capitalize it more properly. If you find yourself doing a lot of this, perhaps it will help. 

perl -e 'while (<>) { chomp; tr/[A-Z]/[a-z]/; $a.=" " . $_; } $_=$a; s/(?:^|\.\s)\s*(\w+)/\u\L$1/g; print;'

Apologies for the long rundown on the EF4 at Fyffe. Perhaps it needs a section of its own? -- ke4roh (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to split off any tornado with major damage and/or multiple deaths if there's enough information for at least a full paragraph. I don't think anyone's going to argue with you, since it would be easy to merge sections later if we want to consolidate. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 19:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA in AL

Is there a good reason why two twisters in Georgia (and so described) are left in the Alabama section? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They started in Alabama and continued into Georgia, thus are listed under Alabama. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duration

Not to sound stupid but the info box shows this as 3 days long but isn't april 25-28 FOUR days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aelita hopper (talk • contribs) 18:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had already changed the duration to 4 days before seeing this comment here; I agree it is 4 days. Cheers, CalvinTy 19:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My fault. I added the initial April 28 section without seeing/changing the 3 days to correspond. - Tenebris 14:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.241 (talk)

Hackleburg

According to [7], the Hackleburg tornado was an EF3+ with wind speeds of at least 180 miles an hour. For those of you who are familiar with the enhanced Fujita scale (which I believe is most of you), I think you already see the problem. So, what are we to put in the article? Do we assume they put down the wrong wind speed, the wrong rating, or do we do something else entirely? Discuss. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 20:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for my own personal thoughts, I believe it would be a lot easier to typo from EF4+ to EF3+ than it would be to typo from anywhere from 165- mph to 180 mph. I'm still hesitant to put in in the article though. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 21:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NWS offices in Huntsville and Calera are still sorting through all this, so it will likely change and/or be corrected. I'd say just sit tight for a little while. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I suspect happened is that they meant to say "EF-4 tornado or potentially higher" and not "EF-3". Reading the information they say that "damage was consistent with a violent tornado". Tornadoes are typically classified as "Weak" (EF0-EF1), Strong (EF2-EF3), or Violent (EF4-EF5). They also state again that winds were estimated to be 180 mph.Lou1986 (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hackelburg is an EF5. Confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.95.2 (talk) 23:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/29/severe.weather.glance/index.html
  2. ^ http://ema.alabama.gov/filelibrary/PressRelease/NR_updated_storm_information_april29_2011_3am.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.tnema.org/news/tema/?p=871
  4. ^ http://www.msema.org/documents/42811SevereWXdeathupdate1.pdf
  5. ^ http://www.gpb.org/news/2011/04/27/10-twisters-hit-georgia
  6. ^ http://www.adem.arkansas.gov/ADEM/PressReleases/viewpr.aspx?id=115
  7. ^ http://hamptonroads.com/2011/04/hampton-roads-under-tornado-watch-8-die-va-storms
  8. ^ http://www.lex18.com/news/beshear-tours-storm-damaged-areas-in-western-kentucky
  9. ^ http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/04/28/wind-toronto.html
  10. ^ National Weather Service. "Summary of North and Central Georgia Tornado Outbreak April 27th and 28th". Tornado in newton, morgan, and green counties. National Weather Serice in Peachtree City. Retrieved 29 April 2011.

Cleanup the April 25th section

"Initial reports indicate that a tornado either 3 miles (4.8 km)[8] or 0.5 miles (0.80 km)[9] wide caused significant damage in the town."

Shouldn't this statement be revised, now that more is known about the Vilonia-Romance, Hot Springs Village, and Little Rock AFB storms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.208.195 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be to their page for this specific tornado disaster. Wikipedia does allow this, as the Red Cross is a well-known non-profit organization.

24.8.177.59 (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Most significant tornadoes" section

As far as the "Most significant tornadoes" section goes, I think a description of the Ringgold, Georgia tornado should be added to it as a subsection. Like the other twisters discussed in the outbreak listed there, it has been oft mentioned in the media, and it has produced damage almost as severe as the Birmingham/Tuscaloosa tornado and the Smithville tornado, along with being possibly long-track and producing several fatalities. TVtonightOKC (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep adding there, there are a lot of "most significant tornadoes". CrazyC83 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Small Georgia tornado 'east of Cherokee County

Anyone got this one yet? Here's something I found on a mailing list I'm on that may shed some light on either one in the table for Georgia or one not otherwise known of. Since it was pulled from an email I redacted the from/to email addresses but the rest is what was needed, the message was typed so hastily apparently the subject line was the message the law enforcement agency wanted out. I don't recall the tornado actually hitting Cherokee County though despite the warning.

Warning extended. Sirens have been activated three or four times. Twister on ground in county just east of Cherokee. No damage reports yet.

Forwarded Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 10:38 PM Subject: Fw: 4/27/11 WEATHER ALERT: NEW TORNADO WARNING UNTIL 1130 FOR CHEROKEE COUNTY

      1. END #### —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.149.120 (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a couple of thoughts

maybe nobody else will agree with me on this but it seems the main article section on th Tuscaloosa/Birmingham tornado is nearly big enough perhaps for it's own sub-page (maybe, maybe not)

second, the main article has a breakdown by state of fatalities, perhaps the confirmed tornadoes section table could be expanded to a simple numeric breakdown of how many tornadoes (broken down by ef rating) in each state as well as an overall total, basically a 2 dimensional table format 70.131.62.231 (talk) 04:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I wonder how long "April 27, 2011 tornado outbreak" will survive as the colloquial name of this outbreak, given its severity. Most major outbreaks have developed a nickname of some sort over the years. I wonder if anything will catch on. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 09:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It probably will, and once such happens, the page can be moved there if it catches on. But only if it becomes popular consensus. CrazyC83 (talk) 13:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if the final name is "Super Outbreak II" or "2011 Super Outbreak" (which makes the original one the "1974 Super Outbreak". This storm system is very similar to the first one, only a lot worst. And reports are saying only the 1925 Tri-State Tornado was deadlier (for tornado days since 1900).--Halls4521 (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CrazyC, I wasn't proposing moving the article yet, you can put away the sword now lol. Yeah, I think with all the comparisons to the Super Outbreak, something like that may eventually catch on, but I think it could be a while before something does. The official announcement of the day's final tornado tally and subsequent historical comparisons may spark something. And note the 337 death toll listed in the article covers the entire four-day outbreak, not just the superoutbreak of the 27th. I know most of those occurred on the 27th, but it doesn't have to fall very far to drop out of second place. The 1932 Deep South tornado outbreak is sitting there at 332 (268 in Alabama). And note that the 317 from May 17, 1840 was all from one tornado. The total for the outbreak was probably higher. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 20:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The National Weather Service is referring to it as the capital-lettered "Super Outbreak" on several pages, such as: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/news/display_cmsstory.php?wfo=hun&storyid=67512&source=0. And NOAA says this will confirm as greater in both number of tornadoes overall and number in a 24-hour period (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/april_2011_tornado_information.html), so a rename seems to be in order.Sqlman (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to its significance, there will likely be a storm assessment which provides a name for the outbreak in about a year. Thegreatdr (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making the push to request this article be moved to the 2011 Super Outbreak (which in turn would mean the current Super Outbreak would be moved to 1974 Super Outbreak and the term would become a disambiguation page). Multiple sources are referring to it as a Super Outbreak, most notably the National Weather Service whose name for a particular outbreak would be the primary one. Additionally, Fox News ("similar super-outbreak struck in 1974"), ABC (WJLA) (Major news agency), ABC Local (Another part of ABC showing consistency), MSNBC (KJRH) (Major news agency), NBC (Major news agency), Christian Science Monitor, Radio Iowa (shows that it's being used outside of the affected region), Minnesota Public Radio (same as Iowa), Discovery channel. There are also tons of other places calling it the Super Outbreak but I think the above is sufficient. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the name from NWS Huntsville, it should be seriously considered. I would want to see a second office do so as well before making the move. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather keep a descriptive name (such as the one we have now) unless a single name for this outbreak is being used by multiple official sources; we don't want to endorse any one version, since there really is no official method of "naming" tornado outbreaks. If another office terms it the 2011 Super Outbreak, I'd be okay with it, but as a name only. A super-outbreak is not a type of outbreak. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 03:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I generally dislike long-winded names such as what we currently have ("Late April 2011" would be a step in the right direction), and for such a historic, watershed event like this one, I feel like the public needs something to latch on to. And while I have mixed feelings about stealing a name from such a hallowed event, I can't help but feel, with all the comparisons, that one name or another involving the term "Super Outbreak" will become popular, especially once the NWS finally comes out with the official tally. As for the idea of "superoutbreak" as a generic term, note that in older documents, the 1974 event is spelled as one word "Superoutbreak" and I think this is how it was generally thought of; that it wasn't just a tornado outbreak, it was a super tornado outbreak. Because it was the first and only one that was ever really thought of in this way, "Superoutbreak" morphed into "The Super Outbreak". Just my two cents. And also note that another media source, Jim Cantore, referred to this as "Super Outbreak II". I don't want to say it's inevitable, but that's the direction we're headed. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 08:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard more and more references to a "Super Outbreak" as time goes by, so we might as well take the plunge and rename the article to 2011 Super Outbreak, considering that the current title, while descriptive, was also completely made up by us, and is anything but concise. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NWS Mobile, Alabama is referring to this as a "super tornado outbreak" now too. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree on renaming the article 2011 Super Outbreak (since that what it was), I think we should wait before making it official (around 5 to 25 days). The reason is that I want it confirmed by the national branch of the NWS. The 1974 Super Outbreak is confirmed by the national branch but this one is not (yet), only the local branches - and the media - are calling it that. Remember, the 1932 Tornado Outbreak was also called a "Super Outbreak" by the local branches too (and NOT the national branch).--Halls4521 (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1932 was, really? I haven't heard about that. National acknowledgement probably won't come until a final report is issued in about a year, per thegreatdr. I would be okay with pulling the trigger now, not only because I feel that it's inevitable, but because I think there's a wide degree of acceptance. I agree, official acknowledgement would be nice, but I think the National Weather Service is probably waiting for us, i.e. the media, to establish a popular consensus before they throw their weight behind a name. Also, the NWS doesn't see it as appropriate to christen an outbreak so soon after the event. Several different offices are referring to it as a "super tornado outbreak". That's as heavy an endorsement as you're going to get for the time being, and knowing the NWS, that's a pretty heavy endorsement. They wouldn't use such a term lightly. And honestly, I have a hard time picturing us 5-10 years from now calling it anything other than the "2011 Super Outbreak", referring the the 1974 event colloquially as the "first Super Outbreak" or the "original/old Super Outbreak". -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 21:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SPC FAQ is calling it the Dixie Outbreak. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the first time I've heard that. Unless I see a bunch of other sources start using that, I'm going to remain skeptical of that name. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 22:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing is there are several outbreaks that could/can be called a "Dixie" outbreak. Plus this outbreak went as far north as (southern) Canada, so it too big to call it a Dixie/Southern tornado outbreak.--Halls4521 (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There were NO tornado deaths in Kentucky

Per these links http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/48974/stats-from-seconddeadliest-tor.asp?partner=accuweather

http://www.weather.gov/view/states.php?state=ky&map=on

The one death in Kentucky was an error started by someone with bad information. Please remove Kentucky from the deaths list

Censusdata (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to USA Today, the one death in Kentucky was indirect and flooding related. A police officer hit a large pool of water, skidded off the road and into a utility pole. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 20:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Link? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths from thunderstorm impacts not from tornadoes (i.e. straight-line winds, hail, lightning, flash flooding) should be listed separately as they were from the outbreak but not tornadoes. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 08:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. From my perspective, the best you could do in separating deaths is isolated incidents which can be confirmed for certain as non tornado-related, because no tornadoes were present at the time. But how can you ever confirm whether someone was killed specifically by a tornado or by any of the severe thunderstorm standard package which is usually present at or near the same time in the same place? - Tenebris 02:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.93 (talk)

Injury Statistics are Massive and Should be Added

For example, hospitals in Tuscaloosa alone have recorded 990 people injured. When you compare this to 36 confirmed deaths in Tuscloosa, that's 20 injuries for every death. If this ratio holds for the entire outbreak, there could have been more than 6,000 people injured. Only documented statistics should be added to the article, but once confirmed, this detail should be included in the opening paragraph.

74.205.144.180 (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's (approx) 30 injuries for every death in Tuscaloosa. Yes the injury totals for the total outbreak should be tracked and will be quite large.

24.8.177.59 (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary reports

I updated the preliminary reports to 426 due to the large increase in reports on both the 26th and 27th 24.235.72.105 (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you include the reports from Environment Canada? CrazyC83 (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not if someone wants to get those it would be greatly appreciated. 24.235.72.105 (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

500+ missing???

How is this not being more widely reported? 570 still missing in Tuscaloosa:Update on Tuscaloosa from Mayor Maddox UA confirms five students killed in storm -RunningOnBrains(talk) 23:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tuscaloosa Mayor's office thinks it may be an inflated figure and that many of these people may have survived but haven't yet checked in with authorities. However they also say that the death toll is still expected to rise.

24.8.177.59 (talk) 01:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the article to that effect. Falconusp t c 21:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

The EF ratings from April 26 are false. The NWS in Memphis and Nashville did not survey the reported tornadoes for that day and did not confirm the ratings. I have e-mailed the respective NWS offices to alert them that someone is claiming ratings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.95.2 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A) I presume you mean the 25th in Tennessee, since that's what you were posting about on this page.
B) That error has already been fixed. Seems that it was old vandalism that snuck under the radar.
C) It's pretty rash to email the National Weather Service over the contents of a Wikipedia page. Seems like a waste of their time, seeing as they have jobs to do. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 01:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Our dept had to contact them anyway for verification purposes.

I also think it's unnecessary to list what counties in Michigan went under tornado warnings on April 26. Dozens of counties in other states also went under warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.50.95.2 (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation: Hackleburg -> Phil Campbell -> Mount Hope -> Hatton

Hackleburg should be consolidated with the Phil Campbell and Mount Hope to Hatton storms per [8]. I won't have time to grab that report and integrate it into the storm description for awhile. Please see the note about meteorologist Gary Dobbs's being tossed 40 feet by the storm which I included in the table of tornadoes (and which also needs to be consolidated). -- ke4roh (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were they confirmed as a single tornado though? CrazyC83 (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's straightforward to match up the two storm surveys and draw a straight line on the map from one to the next. The reports both discuss Hackleburg and Phil Campbell. Birmingham list of tornadoes with Hackleburg survey Huntsville survey. There is no indication of parallel tracks, but there is mention of continuous destruction throughout and where the BHM report leaves off and the HUN report starts.
 Done -- ke4roh (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on http://www.srh.noaa.gov/hun/?n=franklin-al_lawrence_limestone_madison_franklin-tn_counties the Athens/Huntsville tornado should be merged with Hackleburg. They were apparently one very long track tornado. It is also possible the wrong description is attached to that section. The section in question clearly references the damage assessment to Tanner that is in the page I linked above, but I couldn't find Athens mentioned. Angiest (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citing NWS special weather statements?

http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=HUN&issuedby=HUN&product=PNS&format=CI&version=12&glossary=0

At this moment, that link points to a report headed thus:

000 NOUS44 KHUN 300356 PNSHUN ALZ001>010-016-TNZ076-096-097-301600-

PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE HUNTSVILLE AL 1056 PM CDT FRI APR 29 2011

...UPDATED PRELIMINARY STORM SURVEY INFORMATION ...FRANKLIN AND LAWRENCE COUNTIES...


But later, when they come up with more statements, it will point to another report. I have yet to find a stable link for referencing these things. How about you? -- ke4roh (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://webcitation.org/archive You give this site a link and your email address, it spits out a permanent link to a snapshot of the page at that moment. I have been citing Public Information Statements using this for years, and it's very quick. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 13:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity coming back to Huntsville

I'm happy to report that electricity is coming back to the Huntsville area [9]. After their trip to the grocery store and gas station, perhaps some can settle in here and help me document the mess that happened across North Alabama a little better. There are numerous reports at [10] which news media seem to ignore in favor of the Tuscaloosa/Birmingham tornado. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of reports from Huntsville NWS that I haven't checked against this article:

-- ke4roh (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And hopefully some of those people getting power back will be able to upload a photo of the actual tornado for us to use! I can't believe there isn't a single Creative Commons or NWS web image of ANY of the tornadoes out there...I've sure as heck been looking. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 14:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Super_Outbreak&oldid=427090842"