::As much as I'd like to see this shelved quickly, I don't think SNOW applies since there is some support, and this RM is barely an hour old. [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 01:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
::As much as I'd like to see this shelved quickly, I don't think SNOW applies since there is some support, and this RM is barely an hour old. [[User:TornadoLGS|TornadoLGS]] ([[User talk:TornadoLGS|talk]]) 01:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
:::In this certain circumstance, it probably does. Usually you cannot move a page if a RM is ongoing. Normally I would wait until this discussion closed to move to the 13–17, but since this page is now on the front page of the wiki, the article was move protected meaning I have to submit a request. As such, I strongly believe it’ll be rejected if this discussion is still going (and thus leave the title inaccurate). And the opposes outweigh the very tepid source (only 2 users). I would say [[WP:NORUSH]] but these technical requests can be complicated. '''''[[User:MarioProtIV|MarioProtIV]]''''' (<sup>[[User talk:MarioProtIV|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/MarioProtIV|contribs]]</sub>) 01:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
:::In this certain circumstance, it probably does. Usually you cannot move a page if a RM is ongoing. Normally I would wait until this discussion closed to move to the 13–17, but since this page is now on the front page of the wiki, the article was move protected meaning I have to submit a request. As such, I strongly believe it’ll be rejected if this discussion is still going (and thus leave the title inaccurate). And the opposes outweigh the very tepid source (only 2 users). I would say [[WP:NORUSH]] but these technical requests can be complicated. '''''[[User:MarioProtIV|MarioProtIV]]''''' (<sup>[[User talk:MarioProtIV|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/MarioProtIV|contribs]]</sub>) 01:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
::::Didn’t you just say earlier you’d cool down on the constant moves? It’s getting disruptive. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 11:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
:It seems worth noting that other outbreaks like the [[2020 Easter tornado outbreak]] definitely weren't exclusive to the day in their names. The "Pi-Day" name also seems pretty common on social media and the fact that the NWS even used the name definitely makes it worth discussing. I'd support it because I don't think it would detract from the significance from the 3/15 event and the name is definitely much more memorable, especially for a major outbreak like this [[User:Yobatna|Yobatna]] ([[User talk:Yobatna|talk]]) 01:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
:It seems worth noting that other outbreaks like the [[2020 Easter tornado outbreak]] definitely weren't exclusive to the day in their names. The "Pi-Day" name also seems pretty common on social media and the fact that the NWS even used the name definitely makes it worth discussing. I'd support it because I don't think it would detract from the significance from the 3/15 event and the name is definitely much more memorable, especially for a major outbreak like this [[User:Yobatna|Yobatna]] ([[User talk:Yobatna|talk]]) 01:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
::[https://weather.com/news/weather/news/2025-03-13-on-todays-date-pi-day-tornado-outbreak-2024 2024's outbreak] is also referred to as such by some so that’s another fly in the ointment. Also, as Cody said, not enough for COMMONNAME, as 2020’s Easter was far more referred to as such by everyone because of it occurring on a major Christian holiday, while Pi Day is not as significant as a holiday. Now if the outbreak had started yesterday and ended tonight though then "2025 St. Patrick's Day tornado outbreak" would’ve sufficed, but alas… '''''[[User:MarioProtIV|MarioProtIV]]''''' (<sup>[[User talk:MarioProtIV|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/MarioProtIV|contribs]]</sub>) 02:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
::[https://weather.com/news/weather/news/2025-03-13-on-todays-date-pi-day-tornado-outbreak-2024 2024's outbreak] is also referred to as such by some so that’s another fly in the ointment. Also, as Cody said, not enough for COMMONNAME, as 2020’s Easter was far more referred to as such by everyone because of it occurring on a major Christian holiday, while Pi Day is not as significant as a holiday. Now if the outbreak had started yesterday and ended tonight though then "2025 St. Patrick's Day tornado outbreak" would’ve sufficed, but alas… '''''[[User:MarioProtIV|MarioProtIV]]''''' (<sup>[[User talk:MarioProtIV|talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/MarioProtIV|contribs]]</sub>) 02:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma 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.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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.
A news item involving Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 18 March 2025.
Wikipedia
Split outbreak and flooding, duration?
Wildfire conditions shouldn't be given more than a passing mention (perhaps linking to a March 2025 Texas wildfires or some variant, the fire conditions began today and may just outlive the storm system), but flooding isn't assured and usually doesn't occur cotemporaneously with a tornado outbreak, so this article should just focus on the outbreak and put flooding in a non-tornadic impact section, or split off into its own article if it gets that bad. Departure– (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The outlook is getting increasingly worse (two consecutive 30% risks issued earlier this morning!) but the flooding hopefully won't be too bad. — EF513:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, one more thing I noticed. Per the CPC, we only got a risk for flooding in today's outlook. The previous one was a "high risk" for heavy precipitation. I don't think the CPC issues high risks for flooding, only "flooding possible". Departure– (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A tornado has been confirmed and there's heavy media coverage, it'd easily be notable by the time any AfD is older than 24 hours. EF522:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With my administrator hat on, this presence of this article in mainspace is a massive CRYSTAL violation. If it weren't for IAR and the fact that I know it'll deservedly be right back in mainspace within 24 hours, I would be moving it to draft space or sending to AfD as we speak. In the future we've got to exercise just a little more judiciousness with how soon we create these articles, or at least when we move them into mainspace. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)22:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we discussed that last April. As the page creator I wasn't thrilled to see the "move to main space" on my watchlist, but this is one of the rare cases where we could see something devastating unfold (15.5 on the STP!) EF522:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would the Cali EF0 count? If not, we shouldn't include it. In a hurry so my messages may have some grammatical errors. EF515:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't make it an outbreak, but it does justify tornado in the title. But, unless we're going to move this to Tornado of March 13, 2025 and have the content be just on the unnotable EF0, outbreak works under the context this'll almost certainly be a proper outbreak that will be notable in time. Departure– (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Giant WP:CRYSTAL violation that WP:IAR overlooks. Having this in mainspace under a typical and standard name would improve collaboration both within weatherspace and with new editors, improving the news flow, and giving those at Current Events an article to work with. It'll undoubtedly improve the encyclopedia in the short term, and basically everything except for the title and notability doesn't need to be predictive, so I say ignore all rules. Departure– (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fire weather
Can anyone get me some sources on preparation or impacts etc from fire weather over Texas and other places today? I see on satellite an apparent fire has ignited in Armstrong County, Texas within the last hour in an extremely critical area. Departure– (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found at least [1] and [2] on the first two news stations I checked. There should be other stories out there from local media as well, if you can find them. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)16:17, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move proposal
Why don’t we change the title to Tornado outbreak of March 14–16, 2025? There is a high risk of severe weather issued for tomorrow, March 15, and an additional slight risk issued for Sunday, the 16. StormHunterBryante5467 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should wait till the storms inevitably start firing off and tornado warnings are issued, as obvious as it is that the event will be destructive we don't actually know how long it'll continue for. EF518:30, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
shouldn’t the title include March 13? A tornado did occur in California and titles are to include every date a tornado touched down, even if it was weak. 69.123.54.241 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just one teeny tiny little question: why on earth do we have an article for a tornado outbreak that hasn't even started yet? This goes against tornado articles 101, you don't create a tornado article until it's over. I would like to request someone re-draftify this and pronto. Gun jumping only causes problems, I ran into the same issue last year as an IP editor. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page!18:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Clyde, do you not see the consensus and reasoning above? An administrator has argued to keep it in mainspace. This is like the issue with Tornadoes of 2025, by the time an AfD starts the event will have started. I'd personally object to a draftification as the page creator, which WP:DRAFTIFY cites (point 7) as a reason not to draftify an article). — EF518:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5 I see the reasoning, but I also saw the same admin say that it was a "massive CRYSTAL violation", and I've seen high risks bust before. Like i said, i had the same kinds of discussions when I was an IP, and when I was using my former username, and I still think moving it back to draftspace is a good idea. Now you have a good point on the imminent part, and that's why I ain't sending this to AFD right now, but I still think redraftifying for about 24 hours wouldn't be a bad idea. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page!18:41, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you missed the WP:IAR part that came right after. I personally object to a draftification; we had issues last April because people made it an issue and then left the project a mess. Nothing good can come of having a draft-mainspace move war; just as nothing bad can come of leaving this up for just a few extra hours (24hrs is too many seeing as this is a multi-day threat). IAR overlooks TOOSOON, as well (as noted above by @Departure–:Having this in mainspace under a typical and standard name would improve collaboration both within weatherspace and with new editors, improving the news flow, and giving those at Current Events an article to work with. It'll undoubtedly improve the encyclopedia in the short term …). I'd also like to know the "gun jumping problems" you had as an IP (if you don't mind disclosing); I'm curious as to what problems this could make (/srs). I have zero doubt in my mind this wiill be a devastating weekend for MS and AL; ever Day 2 High Risk thus far (April 14, 2012 and April 7, 2006) has produced over 40 tornadoes and killed over five people. Both have articles, too. Isn't TOOSOON an essay, anyways? Not that it means we should discard the entire idea, just that is doesn't have to be strictly followed. EF518:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(And to clarify, that is now a formal objection to draftification as the event has begun, you'd need consensus to move, if I'm reading NODRAFT point 7 right. That day 2 risk, though… this is really going to be historic. (For the archives five years in the future) EF522:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@StormHunterBryante5467, even if it's just for a couple of hours, and then once it's demonstrated it's notability, we can put it back in mainspace and put a current events tag or something. But in my opinion, I have to agree with @Ks0stm on this and say that until it actually starts really getting underway, it's a violation of TOOSOON and CRYSTAL. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page!18:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it is too soon for this in name space. However, this absolutely should be in the draft space, since it is almost certain it will be warranted based on the forecast. That said, it would be like doing an article for a hurricane while it is a tropical storm 48-72 hours from landfall. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main difference here is that the event has already taken lives and is forecasted to be historic (aside from the fact that it's already started). Tornado outbreaks don't work the same as hurricanes, especially with advanced forecasts. EF522:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single significant tornado has touched down. There should be no article until that happens. So this should either be draftified or BLAR’d to Tornadoes of 2025 at least until we start getting PDS warnings or reports of major damage . TornadoLGS (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I object to this move because the system has concrete effects; heavy snowfall and a tornado in California, fires over Oklahoma, and blowing dust over Texas; all of which have already happened. If the outbreak stopped right now, it would still likely have some sort of article. Also, there's a load of cancellations that sure as hell aren't going to be un-cancelled. See also WP:NOTTOOSOON. Departure– (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it's good to note that tornadoes are not the only thing that makes a storm notable. Even if the event underperforms (which I doubt) we still have wildfires, dust storms and other non-tornadic events notable on their own. EF500:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saw that, apparently it struck and collapsed buildings near Mansfield too. Would support a “storm complex” in the title. EF501:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - while the tornadoes aren’t notable just quite yet, the wildfires and dust storms make this easily notable. If tomorrow really does what they expect it do to, I’d consider a move back. EF501:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wildfireupdateman, EF5: I am opposed if the end result is a possible move right back to a tornado outbreak title tomorrow. If that's the case then let's just save moving it for adding days as needed. We can evaluate whether this event was more notable as a tornado outbreak or storm complex once all is said and done; real time waffling won't help. Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)01:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Union, MO looks like it may take a hit, although this isn’t the tornado update forum, it’s the name-change forum. I still support, but once we get confirmed damage reports I’ll probably change my mind. EF501:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Clyde: Do you still support some form of draftification? Round one of tornadoes is over and we're currently in "break" period before the high risk outbreak later. EF514:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have any sources on this? This and the one in Rolla, I hear, are seemingly going to be the most important from today's outbreak. This'll be St. Louis' 3rd now. Wonder how they'll wind up recovering with all the NOAA and FEMA cuts. Departure– (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Significant damage reported in the Affton area (STL metro), although it’s a breaking story so not much. EF502:50, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if you can get a news source, I'd appreciate it.
Guys we can't just be putting tornadoes in tables with no sources. I know they happened but we need to cite stuff, this is easy to do. Can we please do this if we're gonna add tornadoes during ongoing events? Thank you! Timcigar12 (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know some tend to source using confirmation via PDS warnings, and I feel that's the furthest the Wiki should go on accepting ongoing storms reported. Even then, there's a chance that there was no tornado there to begin with. Departure– (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Contents dont match title.
its name is Tornado outbreak of march 14-15 but its not just a tornado outbreak, I think it could be split into several articles OR renamed to a general term like Severe Weather Event Of March 13-15 2025. As it includes March 13th in its stuff despite its title being 14-15. BelowFlames (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a confirmed photo of twin twisters, might be worthwhile to mention it in a later version of the article. Not going to post it since i do not know the rights situation.
It was part of the same low pressure system that is responsible for this outbreak, so it makes sense for it to be included. Yobatna (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yobatna: Just a little tip: requested move templates don't work in the article namespace, which is why it's not showing up. You'll have to do it here in the talk. Procyon117 (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge 2025 Oklahoma wildfires here
I propose this short article on Oklahoma wildfires gets merged here, as it already has coverage here, and was caused by the same storm system. Departure– (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that there are numerous fires from the source [3] that don't appear in either article. A majority of this year's fires in Oklahoma happened from this event. Departure– (talk) 13:25, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a wildfire editor, the 2025 Oklahoma wildfire page is not for merging into articles like this, as it is an article of the entire fire season of Oklahoma. Not just the March 14-15 wildfires. If a wildfire were to happen in November in Oklahoma, it would be added to that article and not this one. WatchOutBroo (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing this - I'll admit I jumped to the conclusion it was only a compilation of fires on the 14th. But, I do think some tables about the larger fires in OK would be useful on this page. Departure– (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This tallies 14 deaths so far, can someone use the sources given in the comments and update it? On mobile and suck with source editing. EF515:13, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PDS warned and moved north of town, although there was no "confirmed" tag so we have no idea whether this is/was on the ground. Sixteen confirmed deaths from the storm according to CBS, so this is unfortunately not going to be a good day for the South. EF516:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5: That wasn't a radar glitch, there was a second tornadic circulation that went right over Rolling Fork. I saw it myself and took a few screenshots. Departure– (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's an awful lot of lines going on. Apologies if that came off as hostile in any way, I brought that up in a purely informative way. Poor Rolling Fork. Departure– (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely okay, it's a human trait to not fully understand the magnitude of a tragedy till after it happens. Massive tornado heading into Tylertown, MS as I write this, it has a TDS and is observed. EF517:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been making a GIF of it like the one on the right. Something about seeing a storm like this as it goes on is real nice, and there are only a few like this on the site, so I'm paying very close attention to the radar and my image will probably be added to the article shortly.
This does mean I won't be able to contribute to the article as I'm actively working on getting media, but whatever, no deadlines. Departure– (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a PD-automated photo of it near Tylertown (will upload momentarily) and it looks incredibly similar to the EF4 tornado that destroyed Bassfield in 2020. Smithville, MS might take a hit, too. EF518:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was? I thought all traffic cameras were stationary (ARDOT, etc.); please do speedy delete it if you find confirmation it was human controlled (on mobile). EF518:54, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For all I care, this is April 27. There's too many damn tornadoes to keep track of to make gifs of every single one. I got both Tylertown tornadoes and the one currently near Decatur MS done, and I'll call it there. Both Tylertown storms will be uploaded soon. Departure– (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An top-bottom overlay of both of the Tylertown storms on VELO would be super helpful. This really is April 27 and we haven't even seen the storms enter AL yet. EF519:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An top-bottom overlay of both of the Tylertown storms on VELO would be super helpful. This really is April 27 and we haven't even seen the storms enter AL yet. EF519:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 15 March 2025
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't get why that tornado is included in this article as it was rated EF0 and was in California which is very far away from Missouri/Mississippi where the worst impacts are. EuropeanXTwisters (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thought this was a move to "storm complex". The Cali tornado was brief and I honestly wouldn't call the start of the outbreak on the 13th. EF520:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I find the original (current) title easier to understand. That new proposal is (no pun intended) more "complex". If it's more accurate though, I won't object. Are these other effects usually understood to be part of tornado outbreaks? Renerpho (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While there are no "accepted" things that usually come with outbreaks, dust clouds and floods are incredibly common in conjunction with tornadoes. April 27, 2011 spawned heavy flooding and another tornadic storm in Deer Lodge, TN earlier this year also had a flash flood emergency. If you want more info, go to any tornado outbreak page and it should have a "Non-tornadic effects" section. EF521:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nobody will know of the tornado of March 13th in California when compared with the large outbreak on the 14th/15th. I would support March 13-16 instead. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Given the current scope of the article, I think a tornado outbreak title would be more appropriate than a storm complex one. There is enough to be said about solely the tornadoes to justify a standalone outbreak article, and the non-tornadic effects can be linked to separately (like with the 2011 Super Outbreak and 2011 Mississippi River floods). RajanD100 (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the addition to March 13th because although it was in conjunction with the same system, it was not part of the outbreak. If this was called the Mid-March storm complex then I could see adding that information. But an EF0 that was a stand alone tornado should not cause a name change to a tornado outbreak article especially since it was on the opposite side of the country and did not contribute to the outbreak. 2601:485:8100:2310:AC99:F23C:CE81:BA25 (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question — How much time has passed between the tornado on March 13 and the first tornado on March 14? I have not found such information. The Seal F1 (talk) 09:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This should be resolved as WP:SNOW with the majority of support. Also, we need to move the page to include the 16th now as well (which I attempted to do, but was reverted because apparently this needs to be closed first - shouldn’t the need to extend the date override that?). --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Ratings are always "preliminary" for 3 months after the survey. "EF3+" could fix that instead of never listing any ratings. EF519:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wait till surveys confirm damage in Tylertown. It's pretty obvious from drone video that the town was hit, but we'd need a reliable source. EF521:58, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was the California EF0 technically part of this outbreak as being from the same storm system? It's caused a lot of issues and it would be great if we could clear this up. EF522:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no mention of an "EF4" rating and AccuWeather has a history of inaccurate forecasts/damage estimates. I say we just wait till the survey, they seem to be going along quickly. EF523:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioProtIV: I saw that you made an edit listing the Bakersfield tornado as an EF3. I checked a few NWS-related sources and didn't see anything about the rating for the Southern Missouri tornado. I am wondering, what source did you use to include this rating? Thanks, Chris ☁️(talk - contribs) 02:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC) Source was provided in the article after this. Chris ☁️(talk - contribs)02:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Horizontal vortex on radar indicated tornado in Oakland City Indiana
Pardon, the source says "Sent to me" - did you make this yourself? Who sent it to you? This is vital information for the copyright status of the image. Departure– (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Do they have an account on Wikipedia? They own the copyright and are in charge of whether or not the photo has a compatible license with Commons, which only allows free-to-use works. Departure– (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once I'm back home and on my computer I'll go searching for PD-automated photos (MO, MS and AL are littered with traffic cams) but yes, you should contact VRT. EF516:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, local news has more info about damage from the Neoga tornado - including "substantial" damage to Neoga Elementary School and Neoga Junior/Senior High School. Ereb0r (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 22 - "This is only the 3rd time since at least 2006 (when we can easily query our records), and likely only the 3rd time in SPC history based on available data, that a High Risk has been issued on Day 2. The 2 previous times were: 4/14/2012 4/7/2006" - via NWS SPC - reliable, not easily replacable Departure– (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. Ref 32 - "Tornado Emergency continues for Prentiss MS, Bassfield MS and Silver Creek MS until 1:45 PM CDT" - via NWSTORNADO - see above. Departure– (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 35 - "We have confirmed 3 tornadoes from yesterday's storms. An EF-2 in Jefferson County from Hillsboro to Arnold. An EF-2 near Villa Ridge and an EF-1 south of Union in Franklin County. We will continue surveying other areas in Missouri and Illinois tomorrow and Monday." - via NWS St Louis - replace with IEM survey if possible, but reliable Departure– (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Tornado Outbreak Intensity Score article, an outbreak is notable when the score reaches 20 points. With 3 EF2 (2 points each) and 3 EF3 (5 points each) tornadoes already confirmed, the current outbreak already has a score of 21, earning this outbreak a spot in the Tornado Outbreak Intensity Score article. 68.41.225.115 (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wait till Grazulis inevitably tweets the score (I think he does that?) but I'll add it shortly regardless. EF516:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Score has now doubled since I first mentioned it, to 42.
The Diaz EF4 is worth 10 points, and the first Tylertown twister is still yet to be surveyed. We've got a guaranteed 50 point plus outbreak here.
We would've done well to heed the advice given to Julius Caesar.
I've noticed that neither the Greenwood, MS tornado nor the Morgan City, MS tornado have any sort of explicit mention in the article. Both tornadoes were visually quite large, and seem to have been notable. I'll admit, I still barely have an idea of how to do anything right, so I'm just wondering if anyone else could try to do something about that. Featherweight.wx (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have reliable sources reported on them? Even if it's obvious that a large tornado could have occurred, we'd need "solid" proof (i.e. news stations or preferably the NWS) that the tornadoes occurred. EF516:35, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That damage looks bad. I'd say that's enough for a spot on the table but a rating shouldn't be included since it hasn't been officially assigned an EF rating. EF516:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it looks like they counted only 2 deaths in AL and 1 additional non-tornadic death in OK. Not sure why they didn't count 3 for AL. Anyways it's 23 (+1?) tornadic and 13 non-tornadic Yobatna (talk) 19:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've sourced that in the article, and will migrate it to a PNS / DAT source as soon as possible. I'd doubt an EF5 rating, because, of course, and since surveys have taken so long, I find it unlikely they wouldn't have found the EF5 damage by now. Also, just because you see how bad it is up front doesn't mean it necessarily will get worse, as common as that may be. This event wasn't exactly April 27, as much as I thought it might be. Departure– (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, that was based off wind speeds and once NWS surveyors got their stuff together, they realized the EF scale didn't incorporate wind speeds and they downgraded it. Maybe my username will finally mean something, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they nudge the wind speeds up. EF520:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be bloody unfortunate, because Diaz and Arkansas in general is where I had the lowest expectations for storms. I don't even know if anyone was hurt in Diaz, seeing the much higher death tolls in Mississippi. Departure– (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But yes, I say we stop "bickering"(?) about the rating; it had an immeasurable and unfortunate impact on human life either way. EF520:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really Diaz; all the ones in Mississippi. From Diaz, there's reports of three injuries, and all are going to make it. Like the e-mail from NWS Paducah about Mayfield being EF5 said, loss of life in the community is more devastating and important than a rating. Departure– (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. This tornado ripped a steel beam that was cast and anchored in concrete three feet out deep of the ground, sort of like the Greenfield parking stops but if the surveyors actually paid attention. EF520:51, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see; while unlikely I wouldn't say it's impossible. There's a photo of the hole where the beam used to be, it's pretty deep. I believe it's from an NWS employee, but will have to double-check. EF520:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't feel like working with tables today, I'm going to summarize and add sources for surveys that I see on the PNS. Feel free to add them to the article. Departure– (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either that, or if using midnight local time as the cutoff, make sure it's done correctly. Right now I see tornadoes from the 0400 UTC hour grouped with the March 15 tornadoes. Midnight CDT is 0500 UTC. WISkies (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Kentwood-Tylertown-Bassfield tornado was actually two separate tornadoes: an EF3 in Kentwood and an EF2 in Tylertown. I'm not 100% sure if this is the case, but I thought I'd mention it here as I just found this source (it was geoblocked for me so I used this). harrztalk23:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because they haven't surveyed the full path yet (sometimes tornadoes will be reported as "multiple" but later be confirmed as a single tornado, like HPC), but who knows. I'd wait for a little bit, and if that connection isn't made, then they're separate. EF523:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what you have read on that article is probably a misunderstanding. One tornado happened through kentwood-tylertown-bassfield and then another tornado formed behind it, while in bassfield and hit the same areas (similar to that of the 1974 Tanner Tornadoes) GDJackAttack1 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2025
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
add more detail to diaz ef4 tornado, since theres a good amount of available information what happened during it and stuff Atynzx (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many tornadoes are shown on the DAT with a placeholder "N/A" polygons. These include Gordo and Troy to Perote, which both have been added as EF?, but also E of York to SE of Livingston, W of Newbern to Morgan Springs, N of Bentleyville, N of Jackson Gap to Daviston to Wadley, N? of Elrod to S? of Echola, Willow Point to S of Windham Springs, Browntown, and Sipsey. Should these be added? Gordo and Troy already have so I believe these should too. TecheWX (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The DAT polygons in Alabama? To my knowledge those are where surveys are ongoing, and may or may not actually have tornadoes there. Departure– (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please leave unnecessary information out of the first paragraph
The information regarding the SPC outlooks is not relevant to the entire event as a whole. This info already exists in the meterological synopsis section of the page, as well, so it was duplicate Shank$ter (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I don’t personally see the need for the removed info to remain in the first paragraph. It already exists in the relevant section of the page, and isn’t really relevant overall to the entire outbreak, aside from a flashy headline Shank$ter (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those outbreak pages also show that info in unnecessary places. The meteorological synopsis is the place for that stuff. Otherwise what’s the point in having dedicated sections for the event? Shank$ter (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I understand why the .gif of the Tylertown tornado might be suboptimal, but @MarioProtIV: do you have a reason why the Diaz tornado should be in the infobox instead of a satellite view of the outbreak? It might be the most important to the weather community but I don't think it's worth replacing an image of the outbreak as a whole, especially when it can easily fit further down in the article. Departure– (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say the Diaz tornado has its own section so it can have its own infobox altogether, but that's probably just me. The satellite view works, but do we have a better view? It just seems... low-quality. — EF515:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The image is the best-quality that I know of right now, but a higher resolution one might come later down the line. That doesn't get away from the principle of this. I do think Diaz could have a section if we can find sources beyond just the high rating. Departure– (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There’s already a satellite image in non-tornadic impacts, and I felt for right now the Diaz tornado can be in the infobox at top until @EF5: can create a image with all the tornado warnings for the outbreak to use (until everything is surveyed and then can have Cody make the standard map with the SPC outlooks and tornado reports). Eventually the Diaz tornado will have its own section so that’s where ethe image will eventually go. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should a gallery be added at the bottom for now? I don't know what would be best for the infobox, probably the non-tornadic effects image of the outbreak's fires, dust, wind, blizzard, and initial squall line, as I think that's the best representation of the storm. Departure– (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does PRIMARYTOPIC have to do with the existence of a gallery? Plus, isn't a satellite image a better representation of an outbreak than a single tornado? Departure– (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how a satellite image, showing the scope of convection at one point in time over a large region, is a worse representation of the "extent of the outbreak" than a single tornado, when there were more than 50 across the outbreak. Departure– (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't the satellite image also function as a temporary image? I don't care what it's going to be after it's replaced right now, I'm trying to resolve our dispute about the Diaz doorbell camera vs Satellite image of the outbreak in the infobox now before anything gets replaced. Departure– (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Diaz image would fit just fine in the Meteorological Synopsis for March 15, and the only reason it was removed was because it was moved back to the infobox. I personally see the reasoning for doing so as shoddy as well. Departure– (talk) 15:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why can we not do things differently once in a while? It's always "per previous" or "see prior" and never "trying something new" or "seeing if this looks good". Consistency isn't a suicide pact and needs to be broken once in a while to grow as an encyclopedia. EF515:26, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with that is that that image hasn't been created yet. Media could be created but hasn't been and we're discussing what it should be for the time being. Departure– (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wxtrackercody makes those maps and it’s recommended we wait until everything is surveyed before he can create that map. That’s why a map of just the warnings so far is sufficient enough. This isn’t really a big deal, tbh, just being overblown. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found an image of the warnings published online from the NWS and IEM data, so I’ve added that and moved the Diaz image back down. It’ll do for now, though would still be great if EF5 can make a better one on his own time (with a darker base map too). MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 16:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Section / Article for Diaz
I know Diaz is a high-end EF4, but really, why is it given a whole section? There isn't much prose to write and it wasn't too impactful overall, Rolla and numerous others were more impactful than it by far. I know a draft was created for Diaz but I really don't think it even has enough for a section right now. Departure– (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The header states that the EF4 in Louisiana and Mississippi struck Tylertown and Bassfield, but this isn't mentioned in the NWS Jackson survey. Per the survey, it isn't listed as hitting any towns in particular, but the survey header mentions Carson, Society Hill, and Darbun - Bassfield and Tylertown are under different surveys for EF3 tornadoes. Departure– (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it's because NWS Jackson has completed its survey, but NWS New Orleans hasn't. If you look at the Damage Assessment Toolkit, the path is shown to begin near Kentwood, LA, but the DIs end right at the border between the two. Yobatna (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2025 (2)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Has the tornado that created the tornado emergency for Van Buren get rated yet? Also, same question for the one that passed through Cherokee Village and Horseshoe Bend
So we can probably assume that the NWS in that area is still rating the Cherokee Village tornado or haven’t got to it yet? Ender IV (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further research I believe the Larkin EF4 did not impact Cherokee Village, according to the article it ended south of Franklin. While the Cherokee Village tornado did pass near Horseshoe Bend, which is near Franklin, it went considerably further up to CV.
Or, the Larkin EF4 information is wrong and went further into Cherokee Village. I was watching Ryan’s live stream during the outbreak and he was concerned about the tornado heading to CV, and it looked like on the live stream that it did pass through.
So I did a little digging in the DAT and went to the Gordo EF2 and used the measurement tool on it. And I found that it was apparently over 2.5 miles wide!
So either the path width indicated on the DAT is inaccurate or this is true.
I also saw a photo of the Gordo tornado and saw on it that it was also quite large, possibly over a mile in diameter.
I would send a photo but I am very new to editing here on Wikipedia so my suspicions should be taken with a grain of salt.
That's the "potential" chunk of track, meaning they haven't surveyed it or are in the process of surveying. It's likely to be thinned out once the survey results are posted. EF515:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They usually put those there when they have a general idea of where a tornado hit, via satellite or other methods, but don't have exact details. :) EF515:41, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's listed in the DAT as "Potential Tornado Track 4" - i.e. that's the area where NWS Birmingham will be surveying for damage from the Gordo tornado. The tornado itself hasn't been confirmed to be that large. Departure– (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I jumped the gun a bit and filed a technical move request (since this is in ITN and move protected) before discussing here so I’ll see what others think. Anyway, so upon further investigation, I found that the main low pressure that caused the outbreak did not form until the 14th according to WPC surface maps. Additionally, there is about a 34 hour gap (10Z 3/13 to 20Z 3/14) between the California tornado and the first tornado touchdown of the 14th. As such, I think it is a bit SYNTHy to consider the 13th as part of the outbreak. They were part of the same broad jet stream pattern, but not the system itself (the California system dissipated over the mountains before the Rockies low formed). Thoughts? MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, no per the reasons stated in the RM. Consensus was made on this just three days ago and that isn't likely to change for at least the next while. — EF521:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think consensus could change if it was indeed a different system, since that was the main reason for including the March 13 tornado. In the meantime, I think moving it to include March 17 would be warranted while we discuss again whether to exclude March 13. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Debate about the meteorology aside, we need to also keep in mind the time element. There's no official definition of a tornado outbreak, which makes titling these articles very subjective. Most modern definitions of a tornado outbreak require at least 6 tornadoes with a gap no longer than 6-9 hours between them. If we apply that definition, the CA tornado should not be included. Generally speaking, I'd be inclined to lean toward a stricter definition of what we define as a tornado outbreak on Wikipedia. It would help cut down on the continuous tornado outbreak sequence titles we have to deal with in May/June (for instance, last year we have an outbreak sequence of May 19-27, whereas NCEI defines two different outbreaks on May 18-22 and May 25-26). wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 23:02, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually brought up splitting the May 2024 sequence into two based on that exact report, and I have two drafts in my userspace on standby if we’re going with that. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 14th 15th and 16th are the same outbreak though and pretty much everyone refers to it as such (and it all came from one system). The California tornado on the 13th is removed enough as Cody said to be excluded. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 00:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
I'd like to see some sourcing referring to it as such. It also isn't too fitting since there was quite a bit of significant activity on March 15. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose a move, but since the 14th outbreak in AR/MO was of such a large scale I'd support adding a bold name for that. Maybe we should have been more apprehensive about the Ides of March, though. Departure– (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There was about the same amount of activity on March 15. It's being called the Pi-Day Outbreak by the Little Rock WFO, which was mainly affected on the 14th. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment – I highly recommend this WP:SNOW closes as I am trying to get this page moved to include the 17th (the first request was rejected on grounds of infighting above) and it will almost certainly not work again if this RM is still going. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:41, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd like to see this shelved quickly, I don't think SNOW applies since there is some support, and this RM is barely an hour old. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this certain circumstance, it probably does. Usually you cannot move a page if a RM is ongoing. Normally I would wait until this discussion closed to move to the 13–17, but since this page is now on the front page of the wiki, the article was move protected meaning I have to submit a request. As such, I strongly believe it’ll be rejected if this discussion is still going (and thus leave the title inaccurate). And the opposes outweigh the very tepid source (only 2 users). I would say WP:NORUSH but these technical requests can be complicated. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:49, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems worth noting that other outbreaks like the 2020 Easter tornado outbreak definitely weren't exclusive to the day in their names. The "Pi-Day" name also seems pretty common on social media and the fact that the NWS even used the name definitely makes it worth discussing. I'd support it because I don't think it would detract from the significance from the 3/15 event and the name is definitely much more memorable, especially for a major outbreak like this Yobatna (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2024's outbreak is also referred to as such by some so that’s another fly in the ointment. Also, as Cody said, not enough for COMMONNAME, as 2020’s Easter was far more referred to as such by everyone because of it occurring on a major Christian holiday, while Pi Day is not as significant as a holiday. Now if the outbreak had started yesterday and ended tonight though then "2025 St. Patrick's Day tornado outbreak" would’ve sufficed, but alas… MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 02:04, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A name doesn't necessarily have to be unique to a single year; I mean, look at the 3 different "Palm Sunday" tornado outbreaks! I also don't really see why the "Pi-Day" name itself is a problem, everyone knows what it is, and it's not like it necessarily has to be a major (holi?)day to be a name (like the 2012 Leap Day tornado outbreak) Yobatna (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yobatna and Hoguert: In those cases though, the holiday named was the most significant day of the outbreak. In the 2020 Easter tornado outbreak, more than half the tornadoes were on Easter. And the Monday after is also often called Easter Monday. In this case (based on the totals so far), only 22 out of 94 tornadoes were on March 14. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could definitely be argued that the 14th was the most significant day of the outbreak. The biggest problem here is that there really isn't a definitive way to determine the most "significant" day of an outbreak. While the 15th had the majority of tornadoes, the majority of violent tornadoes and the majority of fatalities occurred on the 14th. It really depends on the metric you use. Yobatna (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That was less than half of the outbreak. A comparable scenario would be April 9-10, 2009, which April 10 was Good Friday, but it didn't move to that name since that was an outbreak that spanned two days almost evenly. Other names have often used days that were the vast majority of the outbreak. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of tornado outbreaks that you could argue were "unfair" to other events in the outbreak. For example, in the 2020 Nashville tornado outbreak, the vast majority of tornadoes took place far away from Nashville, and the one that did pass through Nashville wasn't the strongest or deadliest tornado of the outbreak (which would go to an EF4 tornado that went through Cookeville and killed 19 people, as compared to the EF3 that went through Nashville and killed 5). Yobatna (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per fact that this invalidates the entire rest of the tornado outbreak aforementioned due to the fact if we move it to "2025 Pi-day tornado outbreak" It will basically claim that the tornado outbreak happened in one day, Shaneapickle (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give the same example that I did in a previous reply: in the 2020 Nashville tornado outbreak, the vast majority of tornadoes didn't occur in Nashville, nor did the strongest or deadliest of the outbreak. Another example is the 2008 Atlanta tornado outbreak, where many strong and deadly tornadoes occurred in the Carolinas. I don't think this title would suggest that these tornadoes all happened on the same day, and past examples show that it shouldn't be a problem. Yobatna (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support + Split - What occurred on Friday, March 14 should deserve it's own standalone article due to the extreme localization of the event, as well as the fact it was a completely different shortwave trough the produced the storms. Furthermore, since Pi Day is the term used by the NWS, I do believe that's what should be used in either the title or lead. Wikiwillz (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think it should be split off, as the march 14th system produced the march 15th, the march 16th, and march 17th systems in the east. Shaneapickle (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose splitting — shortwave troughs don't define tornado outbreaks. The tornadoes, as established by the 3/13 tornado in CA or the 3/17 tornado in NC, were all part of the same storm system so they should be included in the same outbreak. Yobatna (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Now the only reason I am against this is because this was a multi-day outbreak. If this happened on just the 14th I'd be all for it. It's like how the April 26 outbreak was named the "Arbor Day Outbreak" by NWS Omaha, but it was part of a multi-day outbreak. So we can reference the name in the article that it's known as it for whatever areas but it won't be the official name since it was multiple days. Timcigar12 (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative proposal Could we avoid renaming or splitting, but just mention the name in the lede? So, "From March 13 to 17, 2025, a historic tornado outbreak, sometimes referred to as the Pi Day Tornado outbreak, affected much of the Midwestern into the Eastern United States..." - I'm thinking this is a fair compromise which balances the consensus here with the prominence of the alternative name? FlipandFlopped ツ04:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now: If that's what most sources would call this outbreak, then probably yes. Also remember that Wikipedia doesn't always use "official names", and Im a bit against "historic" in the first sentence without the source. The Seal F1 (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I know that, but are there any other sources that call the outbreak "historical"? If not, then this is clearly not an encyclopedic tone at the very beginning of the article. The Seal F1 (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an official confirmation on March 15th, by storm chaser's themselves that in Collins, Mississippi, A tornado ravaged through the north part of town
This should be added, as a storm chaser youtuber, along with a live stream by a storm chaser, has shown that there was a tornado on the ground near collins. Shaneapickle (talk) 02:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm bringing this up here because it looks like there's discussion to merge the tornado list article with this one. There are several events on the List of tornadoes in the outbreak of March 13–17, 2025 article that have the wrong date on them. For instance, the Diaz, AR tornado is under the March 15 heading despite having taken place on the 14th, and it looks like it's the same for several other events as well. Once the surveys are finalized we'll have to make sure that the tornadoes are listed under the right date. On a related note keep in mind that tornado events are listed based on the local touchdown date but UTC time. Yobatna (talk) 05:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The UTC time doesn't matter for the dates, as "all dates are based on the local time zone where the tornado touched down; however, all times are in Coordinated Universal Time for consistency." Since the official survey lists 3/14, the tornado should be listed under 3/14, not 3/15. The UTC Time column is a different matter. Yobatna (talk) 06:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ref 14 - "Tornado Emergency continues for Darbun MS until 1:30 PM CDT" - via NWSTORNADO - reliable but replacable. Departure– (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Ref 35 - "We have confirmed 3 tornadoes from yesterday's storms. An EF-2 in Jefferson County from Hillsboro to Arnold. An EF-2 near Villa Ridge and an EF-1 south of Union in Franklin County. We will continue surveying other areas in Missouri and Illinois tomorrow and Monday." - via NWS St Louis - replace with IEM survey if possible, but reliable Departure– (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EF5 14:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)