Talk:2007 Elie tornado

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Manitoba.

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Mid‑importance

	Weather portal 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tornadoes portal This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Mid-importance).

Article use

Normally, such would not be warranted for a single tornado with no deaths in a rural area, but this was an F5 so that is a special case. CrazyC83 19:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely the reason why I thought it should be a separate article of its own! :D NorthernFire 21:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F-5 or EF-5?

Shouldn't this tornado be rated EF-5 not F-5? --AquaTeen191 20:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article carefully enough, you will notice that Canada has not officially adopted the Enhanced Fujita Scale system like the US has done. Yes, if a twister like that had occurred in the US, it'd be rated an EF5. But because it occurred in Canada, it should remain F5. NorthernFire 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I see that now. --AquaTeen191 21:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - If Canada adopts the EF-5 system, would this then be an EF-5? 204.82.159.219 13:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Yes. Even a strong F3 (158-206 mph) on the old scale could conceivably be an EF5, provided of course that its winds were at least 200 mph (the minimum for an EF5 tornado). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.86.252 (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Environment Canada, in a press release, mentioned it would remain EF5 if the Enhanced Fujita Scale was used. It just changes the wind estimates, but both scales are damage scales not wind scales so the estimates are similar. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

"If the tornado had continued along its southeast track, it would have hit the main part of town"—is this true? From both standing on the ground and looking at the map, it appears that the main part of the town is northeast of the Tornado-damaged area. There were several houses in danger to the southeast, but the description is not quite right.

(I was also entertained by CBC Radio's anniversary news report today, which said that "most of the town has been rebuilt."). —Michael Z. 2008-06-22 14:23 z

I'm the one who did the damage surveys for all of the tornadoes mentioned and the details in the Pipestone and Oakville tornadoes are news to me; if anyone who added this information has support for it, I would like to see it, as the Pipestone tornado I rated and F3, and that is its official rating. If I see evidence pointing to F4 I would like to see. Now I'm not sure if I can include an email address in this "talk" area so I won't at this time; however, if anyone knows that I can, please let me know. And of course, any documentation of further damage near Oakville and Pipestone would be appreciated. 205.189.8.130 (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have seen nor heard any new information/confirmation of a) other tornadoes during the Elie and Oakville storms, as well as no other damage from the Pipestone other than from the damage survey, I have done an extensive cleanup of this entry to reflect what is actually know. Again, if this extra information can be show, please do so and a) this article can reflect any new information, and b) the official damage survey can be reopened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.8.130 (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation is also needed for the section regarding the Pipestone tornado. Until a reference is added I will list that section as needing citation. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado list

I decided to hide it, because:

There were also tornadoes in the US over that period. They are not listed, but were part of the same system so they belong here if such a list is kept. Tornadoes in the June 21-24 range also belong here.

If carried as an outbreak, an article would not really be warranted as the overall numbers were too low.

Any other thoughts? CrazyC83 (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name

I moved "Elie, Manitoba Tornado" to "Elie, Manitoba tornado" to comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events). --Rosiestep (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F5

The article says that it was one of the only two F5 tornadoes of 2007. That is incorrect, as the other one was in the USA, so it uses the Enhanced Fujita scale. I've compared the two EF5 tornadoes that occurred in the US recently, and they are both equivalent to F4's on the old scale. This means that the Manitoba storm is the only ever recorded F5 tornado with winds of 420+ km/hr since 1999. I'll just edit the article to note that it is so and that it is one of the two F5/EF5 tornadoes of 2007, and will also note that the other EF5 was actually equal to an F4. If I'm wrong, than can someone please correct me? UltimateDarkloid (talk) 10:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite correct; the F and EF scales are damage scales, with theoretical wind speeds attached to them; no wind speeds have actually been determined but rather estimated based on damage. Canada used the F scale and the US uses the EF scale; in essence, F5 damage is EF5 damage, so they really should be considered to be similar in destruction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.8.130 (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the beginning of the article to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.8.130 (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A video was taken of the tornado & put on YouTube."

Whoop-di-doo! Is this really necessary to have in the opening section?

Also, just a side-question, did they really use video evidence to upgrade the rating? How is that legitimate? 129.3.150.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The tornado was originally rated F4 in spite of evidence of F5 intensity partly because it was slow moving and thus would have basically sat on tom of one structure of an extended period. Analysis of two separate videos in the second survey revealed that the tornado actually had a meandering path and moved somewhat faster than initially thought, therefore exposure to extreme winds was briefer than the first survey had indicated. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 Elie, Manitoba tornado. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130427003723/http://www.theweathernetwork.com:80/news/storm_watch_stories3? to http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/storm_watch_stories3&stormfile=Assessing_tornado_damage__EF-scale_vs._F-scale_19_04_2013?ref=ccbox_homepage_topstories

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Duration and Timeline

The article states that the tornado touched down at 6:30 and lasted 49 minutes. I can’t find any sources that claim this and the government page of the tornado from Enviorment Canada states that it touched down at 6:25 and lasted 35 minutes Here. I’m going to edit the page and sources to the correct information. --Wikiwillz (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak chart?

I'm confused as to why a tornado outbreak chart (under section confirmed tornadoes) through June 22 to June 23 is included in this article, since this article is about the single F5 tornado, and not the outbreak itself. I'm pretty sure this article should be split if the outbreak itself is significant enough to be written about. --Wikiwillz (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiwillz: I don't think the outbreak, excluding the Elie tornado, is notable enough for a standalone article and it would be an unnecessary content fork to split. We could, alternatively, remove the Elie tornado from the table and relabel the section as "other tornadoes." Something similar has been done at 2013 Hattiesburg, Mississippi tornado. One difference, though, is that page page links to a monthly tornado list for the chart instead of containing the chart itself, but no comparable list exists for Canadian tornadoes. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TornadoLGS I think the "other tornadoes" suggestion is a great idea. I'll do that right now as well as adjust some of the information on the article to match other significant tornado articles, since I was already adding some extra information and sources to the page. Wikiwillz (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]