Talk:Tornadoes of 2026

Listen, we need to be meteorologically accurate here. According to official ESWD/ESSL data, this tornado had a confirmed baseline of 180 mph and potentially peaked up to 216 mph. This officially makes it the strongest documented tornado globally for this year so far. Removing this context downplays a massive meteorological anomaly. Let's find a neutral way to keep this global context in the text. StormL00ver (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

From my understanding the International Fujita scale corresponds with its corresponding EF rating (as in IF3=EF3), but I am not sure if this has ever been discussed on Wikipedia before. Mesocyclonic93 ^(t)_(c) 18:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Nope.An IF3 equals to an high end EF4 or an EF5 in the Enhanced Fujita Scale StormL00ver (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

IF3=144-216 mph winds so it could be an High end ef3,high end ef4 or an ef5 but this tornado had minimum windspeed of 180mph equal to an high end ef4 StormL00ver (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Also eswd said that this tornado could had windspeeds around 216 mph at max StormL00ver (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The Enid tornado was rated 180 mph, so that does not matter. Also, the minimum windspeed of this tornado per the IF scale is 144 mph, 180 is the median. Mesocyclonic93 ^(t)_(c) 18:42, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the official report. The ESSL/ESWD didn't just give a generic IF3 rating; they specifically assigned a central estimated wind speed value of 180 mph (290 km/h) for this event based on the actual damage context. This isn't about the theoretical floor of the IF scale (144 mph), it's about the officially recorded data for this specific tornado. At 180 mph, it mathematically matches the high-end EF4 intensity, regardless of Enid's historical rating."

StormL00ver (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Also enid had 175 mph winds at max. StormL00ver (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

According to DAT, the Enid tornado had 180 mph max winds. Mesocyclonic93 ^(t)_(c) 18:48, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Even if modern DAT automation rounds the Enid rating to a generic 180 mph placeholder, you are still missing the core meteorological difference here.

Enid's 175-180 mph represents its absolute maximum ceiling (peak). Conversely, for our May 3rd tornado, the ESSL explicitly tescilled a central estimated value of 180 mph (290 km/h), with localized damage context tracking winds up to 216 mph (348 km/h).

You are trying to compare Enid's peak intensity with this tornado's baseline. Combined with a 650-meter wedge width and a 29km track, the kinetic energy and overall vortex scale of this system completely outclasses Enid, whether your automated DAT toolkit rounds it or not. The official ESWD data is absolute." StormL00ver (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Well the thing is, the IF scale is intended to result in the same rating for any tornado as for its equivalent EF scale rating, so in practice if a tornado is rated IF3 in the IF scale then it would very likely be rated EF3 in the EF scale, despite different windspeed analyses.^[1] This is because the IF scale is based off of the Fujita scale, and the EF scale is as well. This is why we designate the strongest tornado based off of the rating number, and not the raw windspeed. Mesocyclonic93 ^(t)_(c) 19:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@StormL00ver: please do not re-add the "strongest worldwide this year" as without a definitive source that explicitly says that it is WP:OR on your part. ^EF₅ 19:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I hear your concern regarding WP:OR, but mentioning official data isn't original research. The ESSL/ESWD report explicitly tracks this event with a central estimated wind speed of 180 mph and posibly peaking up to 216 mph (IF3). If we look at the verified global data database for 2026, there is currently no other documented tornado that exceeds or matches these specific figures. StormL00ver (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Also I'm A Huge Fan StormL00ver (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

You are the reason I wanted to join this page as an editor .And here we are :) StormL00ver (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't really consider myself a "celebrity" lol, I'm just a normal ol' editor. Thank you regardless! Nice to be recognized sometimes. ^EF₅ 23:51, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess my issue is more with the fact that there isn't a centralized "database" where it can be said that it is the strongest - using DAT to back it up is WP:SYNTH as the ESWD and NWS don't collaborate. ^EF₅ 23:49, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Ignoring the likely AI usage in this query, It's simple why this wouldn't work. We put the maximum rated tornado in the infobox, not the tornado with the "highest winds". To keep it simple and non-painful, an IF3 usually converts to an EF3 whenever IF and EF scores are compiled into something on Wikipedia, like a tornado count box or the infobox. This would mean Enid is the highest rated as an EF4, even if the wind speeds for the IF3 technically "exceed" or "tie" it. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello Lightbulb Noob, I appreciate you clarifying that.

I fully grasp your perspective on the infobox policy and how the Wikipedia template automatically shifts IF3 to EF3, maintaining Enid's higher position in the infobox ranking. I concur that we ought to use the standardized format for the infobox to maintain clarity and adherence to the guidelines.

Nonetheless, given that ESWD clearly indicates the upper-limit wind speeds potentially reaching up to 216 mph(348 km/h), marking it as the highest meteorological wind speed recorded for a tornado worldwide this year, I recommend retaining this precise phrasing in the main text or section notes instead of the infobox. In this manner, we comply with the formatting guidelines for the infobox while maintaining the significant scientific details of the event within the article. Tell me your thoughts. StormL00ver (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you have sources stating that it is stronger than the Enid, OK EF4? Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm gonna say this again, the IF scale is based on 1 second winds, while the EF scale is 3 second winds, going off of 3 second winds the IF3 had winds of around 170-175 mph, not the strongest of the year. ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

The event has been set to QC0 on eswd so i wouldn't be surprised if they're re-evaluating it and it receives an upgrade to IF4. Loaf5979 (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello Lightbulb Noob, I appreciate the straightforward inquiry.

To be scientifically accurate: no official source clearly claims it is "stronger" overall, since Enid has a confirmed EF4 rating, while this occurrence is officially categorized as an IF3.

The foundation for comparing wind speeds originates directly from the official report by the European Severe Weather Database (ESWD) for this occurrence. The ESWD information provides the highest estimated wind speed for this tornado at 348 km/h (216 mph). From a scientific perspective, 216 mph falls within the EF5 wind speed category on the Enhanced Fujita scale, exceeding Enid's 166–200 mph range.

This is precisely why I concur with you that Enid should stay elevated in the infobox hierarchy because of its official EF4 rating. However, because the official ESWD source specifically estimates a peak wind speed upper bound of 216 mph, it is a significant meteorological detail that should be included in the main text as an upper-bound estimate, instead of asserting a definitive "stronger than Enid" statement.StormL00ver (talk) 13:23, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Why are you using AI to reply lol Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

this is like arguing Enid is stronger because the EF4 range is 166-200, or F4 being 207-260. ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Exactly, different scales have different wind speed estimates lol Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

I am focusing on the official ESWD data points rather than personal writing styles. My main objective was simply to highlight that the 348 km/h (216 mph) peak parameter exists within the official source documentation.

However, I agree that trying to cross-compare the distinct wind speed baselines of the IF, EF, and legacy F scales can lead to inconsistencies. Since we all agree that Enid retains the definitive higher rank in the template hierarchy due to its EF4 status, I’m perfectly fine with leaving the layout as it is to prevent any scale confusion. Thanks for the discussion. Also, I'm not using AI; I'm just trying to write professionally. StormL00ver (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

it certainly looks like you're using AI. Either way, as others here have said, it's "highest-rated tornado" not "highest tornadic windspeeds." Thus Enid would be the answer for highest rated tornado, as it's the only one on any of the rating scales to get a rating of 4 this year (so far). From how I understand it, while the estimates on windspeeds might be different between rating scales, the actual damage needed for ratings is roughly similar, especially these days. Also, we've had tornadoes rated F4 as recently as 2021 (2021 South Moravia tornado) be listed alongside the EF4 tornadoes from that year, despite F4 technically having a higher windspeed estimate; to do what you're suggesting and go with highest windspeed estimate would just open a complicated can of worms because some tornadoes get damage estimate ranges and some are rated on different scales. This is before you factor in DOW data for a select few tornadoes, which would open its own can of worms. So just keeping it as "highest rated tornado" is better than going by "highest tornadic windspeed." AutisticYapper (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed, otherwise tornadoes like 2013 El Reno would be labeled the "strongest" of their year, when that's clearly not the case. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

i want to update the count for may 17-18th new count - 13 efu 7 ef0 17 ef1 1 ef3 38 torns overall Hi there person123 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi!

I'm kinda new to editing and I'm currently trying to help by putting the recent meteorological events into a data table.

But I'm kinda having trouble doing it.Also I fear I might accidentally mess up the page design.

Could someone suggest any specific table styles or templates that fit with the rest of the article? Any advice you could give would be super helpful and would make a big difference. I really want to contribute effectively and properly.

Thanks a bunch StormL00ver (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I have been checking the NWS website and for the past day or so, there have been a few tornado watches and warnings issued around Arkansas/Missouri Theobegley2013 (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a moderate risk today. Ari 1600! 🇺🇲🇭🇳 21:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Outbreak CONFIRMED'. On 6-10-2026 tornadoes are literally raking Missouri in Unionville, MO and Milan, MO. So far, got 6 known tornado reports that they were on radar, two or three of these reported on the ground with reported damage near Unionville, MO caused by a tornado. The one near Unionville, MO got videotaped and placed on the Internet. Sources: US National Weather Service, some storm chasers. The front causing the severe weather is still active and will be in Illinois and certain other states, as is a appearant Low Pressure cell. I'd place this in the article, but the article is protected.~2026-34311-81 (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

June 7th (Missouri) An ongoing tornado outbreak is going on in Missouri. A confirmed tornado has been alerted for the city of Springfield. NathanPlayzYT (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now: Appropriate text should be proposed when reliable sources are available. LizardJr8 (talk) 02:37, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

forgot to add a description to my edit in the main article, so consider this that. Added the info on the MDT risk today + source AutisticYapper (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Just wanted to give a PSA that this exists for anyone interested in helping out with this draft, after today an article is badly needed AutisticYapper (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

I can help, I am just not familiar with starting a whole page. But we definitely need this one sooner than later, now that we reached the threshold of 30 for the OIS. Stocha0314 (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{{subst:trim|1=

In the "United States" section under "{{Tornado Chart", please change: |Total = 700 to: |Total = 702

Reason: The individual counts (84 + 237 + 337 + 31 + 12 + 1) sum up to 702, but the total field was not updated when the counts were changed.

}} ~2026-34773-49 (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Already done Someone else has already corrected the total. Theeverywhereperson talk here ^{In solidarity!} 16:09, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

A couple tornado warnings have been issued in Western/Northern Pennsylvania. Theobegley2013 (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

That is very true, especially in the areas surrounding Jefferson County. We should probably add this to the page. ~2026-35285-78 (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

There's a day 2 moderate risk for tomorrow, are we going to add anything about this tomorrow? Ari 1600! 🇺🇲🇭🇳 19:12, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe but a tornado needs to happen first. StormL00ver (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

There probably will be at least one tornado but maybe more. Ari 1600! 🇺🇲🇭🇳 14:46, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

you are probably right but it isn't confirmed right now so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ StormL00ver (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add the June 14 tornado outbreak in the Ohio Valley and Appalachia. ~2026-35396-20 (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Edit requests are for requests to make specific, precise edits, not general pleas for article improvement. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:23, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Warnings in gulf coast + Upstate NY.

The ones in New York may be connected to the storm system in Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio from last night Theobegley2013 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Update the IF3 thing on European tornadoes to 2, and include the IF3 rating of the June 22 Kushva tornado ~2026-35168-25 (talk) 06:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now. The tornado has not been officially rated yet. This edit may be done if it receives an official F3/IF3 rating on either https://tornado.gispsu.ru/ or https://eswd.eu/en. Tetradisulfate (talk) 07:17, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I've since seen, when I created this it was labelled as an IF3 on eswd, interesting to see what it will be rated. Loaf5979 (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

June 22 Kushva tornado has an unconfirmed IF4 report, one to watch. Loaf5979 (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

you need to show proof and source to back it up. StormL00ver (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

also the internet says it is an IF3 not an IF4.Could you show source of it being an IF4? StormL00ver (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

It was a brief IF4 report on ESWD. Has since been removed, it remains unrated. Loaf5979 (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

but it is removed right now becausu of not enough evidence about it being an If4 so it is currently unrated StormL00ver (talk) 03:21, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

It is now rated IF3 although there is a possibility of IF4 if it's found out how well built the homes were. Loaf5979 (talk) 14:40, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey everyone, NTP officially confirmed 6 tornadoes in the Peace Region of Alberta on June 15, which means it was an outbreak. One of these was an EF2. Given that region doesn’t have tornadoes too often, and it was classified as an outbreak, can we add a section? CKulak05 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Wisconsin/Colorado getting tornado warnings Theobegley2013 (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Multiple tornado warnings Theobegley2013 (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

not all tornado warnings drop tornadoes, there were like 5 weak tornadoes today ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Fair Theobegley2013 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Please read this >> WP:TORNADOCRITERIA Tetradisulfate (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The June 16-19 and 20/21-22 events need articles, they both had numerous tornadoes, and several strong tornadoes, and the 17 had the Effingham County EF3, along with the 21 having the Dix EF3. ~2026-36568-31 (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The 17th has 2 EF3’s now, and 55 total tornadoes, it definitely needs a separate article. ~2026-36333-48 (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

since there was likely enough activity in June (especially when combined with May) to warrant a new article being created for July, and I didn't see a July Draft when poking through drafts, I created Draft:List of United States tornadoes in July 2026 for the month. Just putting this here as am gonna hold off on publishing until there's a confirmed tornado in July this year. AutisticYapper (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this going to be added to the article or? Loaf5979 (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

also Akcamezra is IF3 again (for now) Loaf5979 (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm surprised it has not been added yet not going to lie. TornadoEF4 (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Akçamezra IF3 got upgraded to an QC1 so I added it StormL00ver (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

you can check the eswd StormL00ver (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

We need to add a July tornado list ~2026-38115-99 (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

the EF2 in Indiana with the 63 DBZ debris ball has been upgraded to EF3 140 mph winds. ~2026-24153-23 (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

It has already been changed! Thanks for helping though! ~2026-36568-31 (talk) 14:53, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Can we make a set of guidelines for adding tornadoes? mainly the European page cause people have been adding anything recently, wind reports and non-landfalling waterspouts. ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

im thinking 2 guidelines could be:

-Only adding waterspouts that touch land

-Only add reports that are in the Tornado category ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I would support this, with one caveat-waterspouts that cause any injuries or fatalities should be included regardless of whether they technically hit land or not. This would be a rare scenario yes, but not unheard of. AutisticYapper (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

i agree, it's been such a fight on the European page with people adding stuff that shouldn't be there. ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 20:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

that's fair, although I will say, edit warring with @Hjalpingers (pinging them into this as they seem to be the other main person involved) is probably not a good idea. I will agree though that waterspouts that don't hit land, and cause no injuries or fatalities, should not be included. AutisticYapper (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm just trying to keep the page as accurate as possible, but you are right ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@AutisticYapper I agree as well to be fair, but this would need a very big change to the page and i highly doubt that someone or a group of people will actually manage to delete events that are waterspouts that don't hit land, because im pretty sure there are a lot of them Hjalpingers (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

my proposed guidelines for the European page, you can suggest your own if you wish:

"-Has to at least be a QC0+, QC1, or QC2 report, QC0 reports are unreliable even if the tornado DID happen.

-Has to be in the tornado category, wind reports marked as possibly being a tornado should NOT be added.

-Waterspouts can only be added if they are stated to have touched land, the only exception being waterspouts that cause injuries and/or fatalities.

-A tornado MUST be on ESWD for it to be added." ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd agree with all of those guidelines yeah AutisticYapper (talk) 20:47, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

@ELLEWEATHERRRR honestly, these are somewhat good, except the last one. not all tornadoes are on the ESWD, some are on other platforms like WarnWetter (german weather app made by the DWD), so honestly, i think the last part should be that tornadoes must be on the ESWD database OR in other platforms that report weather events Hjalpingers (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

the article states only ESWD tornadoes i thought ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

"For consistency, this list primarily uses the IF-scale, the preferred scale of the European Severe Storms Laboratory (ESSL) and its database, the European Severe Weather Database (ESWD)." ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

@ELLEWEATHERRRR pretty sure WarnWetter (or in this case, the DWD) is not only a partner of the essl, but also uses ESWD verified reports, so technically WarnWetter literally uses the ESWD to do its job as a weather app. what im trying to say is that the DWD is using info from the ESSL/ESWD so technically both WarnWetter and the ESWD database are somewhat the same with reports Hjalpingers (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

it isn't that big of a deal, if they're a partner of ESSL then reports there could get added to ESWD fast, if you really feel the need to add something you can hide it then show it when it gets added to ESWD. ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 16:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

So I know the NWS isn't classifying this as a tornado for now, but given the media coverage, and the general rarity of even funnel clouds in Alaska, I feel like it should at least be asked if we should include this event as a rare oddity. Some sources will be included below just to illustrate the media coverage and also to have saved if it is determined we should add it.

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/weather/2026/07/06/funnel-cloud-not-tornado-july-4-phenomenon-spotted-in-interior-alaska/ https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2026/07/06/funnel-cloud-sighting-interior-alaska-prompts-social-media-stir/ https://www.youralaskalink.com/news/local/rare-funnel-cloud-spotted-over-denali-highway-during-fourth-of-july-weekend/article_5c12e1f0-f9bf-4b3a-9cb8-a290b4161e26.html AutisticYapper (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

also gonna link NWS Fairbanks tweets on this

https://x.com/NWSFairbanks/status/2073942311378014598

https://x.com/NWSFairbanks/status/2073942539615248664 AutisticYapper (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

calling it just a funnel but saying with certainty that the one in 2024 was a tornado is egregious Loaf5979 (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah it's definitely odd. Tbh if this wasn't a serious discussion on Wikipedia, and just me ranting to friends, I'd have put quotes around "Funnel Cloud" on the topic name. But seeing as this is Wikipedia, and I wanna be serious and not commit the sin of original research, gotta go with what the NWS is calling it AutisticYapper (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah of course, unless new evidence comes to light Loaf5979 (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/07/china/man-blown-from-12th-floor-apartment-deadly-tornado-china-intl-hnk I saw this on CNN and said that it reached speeds up to 160 mph, which is a EF3 on the Enhanced Fujia Scale. Also, many people think that Super Typhoon Bavi caused the tornado Gemzilla (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

idk where Bavi came from because its not even near China, interesting ~2026-36568-31 (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

think OP meant Maysak with the bit about Bavi. It is worth noting that Bavi could hit China in the next several days though AutisticYapper (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I have created a detailed draft for the May 3 Akçamezra, Turkey tornado, which is currently listed in the article. The draft now includes official meteorological data from ESWD and extensive impact/aftermath reports from official sources like AFAD and Anadolu Agency. I would appreciate it if anyone from the tornado task force could review the draft or help move it to the mainspace. Thank you!

Draft link::Draft:2026 Akçamezra Tornado StormL00ver (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

hope this gets accepted, the May 3 event as a whole needs more coverage. hopefully it's quick as well as i've been waiting on news for my 1913 taff vale article since early may Loaf5979 (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the support! I completely agree, the May 3 outbreak was a significant event that deserves thorough documentation.I hope your article gets accepted too! :) StormL00ver (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, it's my second draft article as my first was declined, was on the Neede IF5, not notable enough apparently. Loaf5979 (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

My first article got removed too because I accidently published it as an article instead of a draft and I made a huge mistake writing that article.I'm not defending myself I made a terrible article but atleast I learned from it. StormL00ver (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

It got rejected and i'm convinced the reviewer didn't even read it Loaf5979 (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Update: The ESWD has just updated the preliminary report, noting that the case is currently under active analysis for a potential upgrade to an IF4 rating based on recent ground, drone, and satellite surveys. StormL00ver (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I just saw an article for the EF2 tornado in China in July, but I checked like 2 minutes after, and it got deleted. Why did it get deleted? It caused 10 fatalities and 300+ injuries. It most likely should deserve an article. ~2026-34483-87 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia has something know as notable subjects.İf a subject isn't deemed notable enough it mostly gets removed.I don't say this tornado wasn't strong or not notable it is just the wikipedia rules. StormL00ver (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Unless a tornado is exceptionally notable, there has to be at least a 6 month wait to prove lasting coverage. ~2026-36333-48 (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

These articles are mostly alright, except for the fact they're ridiculously US centric, as well as anything related to tornadoes on wikipedia.

The Tornado count not being every reported tornado worldwide is possibly the most useless thing of all time, and isn't an accurate representation of how active or inactive a year has been. There is the argument that other countries don't have reliable data, which is a ridiculous take as even the NWS fail to report some tornadoes and have inaccurate paths, tracks etc.

Putting out these stats really doesn't help the ridiculous amount of misinformation circulating around online.

There's also a ridiculous amount of significant tornado outbreaks that have occured in Europe and the rest of the world don't have their own articles when they could definitely deserve them, and the most detail they have on the tornadoes of YYYY article usually looks something like this: 'A violent tornado moved through (town) killing 5 people and injuring 6, this tornado was rated (rating)'

The need for 'notability is also totally ridiculous', i've seen some abysmal sourcing for articles, the montville IF5 literally used tornado archive as a source, when tornado archive couldn't even put it in the right place on the map.

There'll also be some random US tornado from like 1972 with an article even though it definitely wasn't as notable as something like Neede.

I tried to make an article on Neede and the 1927 European Tornado Outbreak, to which i got told the event wasn't notable enough, however, somebody will look at the least notable tornado of all time and decide that it deserves an article.

There being no combined tornado count at all is absolutely beyond me, but the Deaths (US) and US tornado count are not needed in the infobox, however, a worldwide tornado count absolutely would be.

There is zero need to exclude the rest of tornado on the deadly tornadoes map either, no matter how poorly documented a majority of recent tornadoes have a confirmed death count, so there's no reason not to include it.

US tornado tracks makes a bit more sense but a better idea would be to just have all tornadoes with confirmed tracks on it rather than just the US.

The events section is fine as is but these articles as a whole are too US centric when they don't have to be. Loaf5979 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah you are kinda right about that... StormL00ver (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

To be fair, a vast majority (70-80%) of tornadoes occur in the U.S. Also, there is nothing stopping you from making non-U.S. tornado outbreak articles. Take the 2025 Southern Brazil tornado outbreak for example. Because tornado outbreaks are much more widespread events than individual tornadoes, they don't need to follow the same notability rules. There is a draft for the outbreak in Turkey. It needs some work, but I believe it could be notable enough for an article.

Also, I made and update the map of the U.S. tornado tracks. The reason I don't include non-U.S. tornadoes is because the data is often too low quality or copyrighted. Though I could look into getting ESWD data in the map, there also comes an issue where the map file size gets too large and I end up having to trim out information (which was already an issue for the 2025 map). Tetradisulfate (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

I think a good idea for a tornado map might just be a Significant Tornado map worldwide, i do now realise i didn't take everything into consideration regarding file size. Loaf5979 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

yeah ait looks good but it might need some improvements StormL00ver (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

would it be possible to make a separate map for all European tornadoes? Whether it appears in this article or the List of European tornadoes in 2026 article, it would be a good thing to have. As for South America and Asia (in particular China), while a map could be good, I feel like as of now there's not enough documentation, especially in rural areas, of tornadoes for it to be 100% necessary, but making one for the yearly lists could still work probably. AutisticYapper (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I've looked into it and unfortunately I cannot make a map out of ESWD data, their non-commercial user agreement policy states that "The User must ensure that it is not possible that any third party can recreate the original data from the derived product with reasonable accuracy." Because interactable maps on Wikipedia are made with raw GeoJSON code that anyone can access, it is very easy to copy the code and just paste it into any program that accepts GeoJSON and get an exact copy of all the data without permission.

Tornado Archive can get away with it because they have received permissions from the ESSL and do not allow for the downloading of European data.

However, Canadian tornadoes from the NTP Dashboard are free to use, so I can see if we can get that added to the map we already have. Don't know about other countries but I can look into it as well. Tetradisulfate (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Nevermind, turns out that NTP data is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0, which is forbidden on Commons Tetradisulfate (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

damn, well that sucks. Understandable though AutisticYapper (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to create a draft article for this event, going into more detail about it, currently the ESSL have only confirmed 2 tornadoes, but there's at least 4 more based on satellite imagery. Loaf5979 (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

we probably don't need an article for it, even if the other 2 tornadoes are confirmed, most of the damage was done by one tornado, and it didn't even cause any fatalities. Would also fail WP:NTORNADO for now. I also undid your edit adding the unconfirmed tornadoes to the article for now, for more discussion on that see the guidelines discussion above that Elleweather, Hjalpingers, and myself had a couple days ago. AutisticYapper (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

fair enough, this has given me an idea to have something like a notable tornadoes section on things like 'List of of European tornadoes in 2026' considering most events are isolated. Loaf5979 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Could maybe work. Something to discuss with the other main editors on that page I suppose. AutisticYapper (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

NTP has confirmed two EF2 tornadoes from July 8, and are investigating tornado damage from July 10 and 11. EF2 tornado also confirmed on June 28 Loaf5979 (talk) 11:42, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

making this section so as to avoid any potential edit wars, but anyway, yeah I just think it's important to add any events that meet the criteria, as I said in my edit summary, even if it's a case like this one where it barely passes the criteria. I can see the argument for changing the criteria a little, maybe making it so that for inclusion it either has to be, say, 3+ injuries, or at least one life-threatening injury, but that's not the criteria as it stands, and so I just feel like we have a duty to include events like this as a result. Pinging User:ELLEWEATHERRRR into this as they were the one who removed this section initially. AutisticYapper (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

i actually agree, there should be some change to the criteria as you stated. ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 08:04, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I think at least 1 major injury or more than 3 or 5 injuries would be a better criteria ~2026-36568-31 (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Chiming in since I saw the edit dispute while reading over the last few days. This is, essentially, the first tornado that actually met WP:TORNADOCRITERIA that anyone thinks shouldn’t be added. The one injury rule was added since a person being injured is almost always what is needed for news articles, even for weak tornadoes (). Honestly, I would tell editors to just accept it to the list and not try to change the consensus. In some states, Thomas P. Grazulis even stated one injury makes a tornado one of the “worst tornadoes” in that state. . For example, making so more than one injury is needed would actually remove the January 8–10 (United States) section, which was 15 tornadoes that only caused one injury. No one is questioning why that mini January outbreak is on the list. The main reason this tornado is being questioned is the fact it is a solo EF1 tornado that caused an injury. Going through the talk page for the 2025 & 2026 articles, TORNADOCRITERIA doesn’t really have any actual disputes. So, from my opinion as a retired editor who just wanted to chime in before disappearing again, just ignore the debate over the injury thing. Not worth the debate energy. TORNADOCRITERIA was discussed/debated for 4 months (March-June 2024) just to get the current criteria points with consensus. WeatherWriter (talk) 04:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

you bring up some excellent points on this, though imma still wait to readd for now, I really wanna avoid any edit wars, and I've already reverted this once. I know the 3-revert rule is a thing, but I prefer to be safe as opposed to sorry. It probably should be added though for all the reasons you've said AutisticYapper (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I have readded this tornado as no one else has chimed in with comment and Weather Writer brought up some really good points. AutisticYapper (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey everyone, I'm back from a long multi-year editing break. I was a long-time tornado article editor but most of you probably don't recognize me. I started in 2010 and stopped in 2024 on account of my mental health. Anyways, I'm more of a details/cleanup guy. I don't really create articles, but I mostly add details regarding DAT damage points, damage and survey/rating process information, and improve long tornado summaries by making them easier to read, more concise, and ensuring they are as accurate and reader friendly as possible. I'm resuming where I left off on Tornadoes of 2023, and will then catch up to 2026, 2025, and 2024 eventually. While I will re-word and add info, I promise I will not remove any pertinent information or undo anyone's hard work, sources and all. Even if the wording or formatting changes somewhat, I promise the crux of what you are saying and your sources will still be there. Anyway, I will mostly be in the background polishing up existing tornado information (hence the name) and will do my best to not step on any toes. Thanks! TornadoInformation12 (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Welcome back, TornadoInformation12!

It is incredibly exciting to see a veteran editor like you return to the community. Your experience in damage survey and rating processes is highly valued.

I actually just started my editing journey here in 2026, focusing on documenting severe weather systems (especially European/Mediterranean events). I am currently working on a draft for the historic Akçamezra tornado (a massive IF3+ tornado formed on 3 May outbreak event in Turkey).

Since you mentioned you love polishing up and adding precise details to ratings/surveys, I would be absolutely honored if you could take a look at it whenever you have the time. No rush at all, but having your experienced eyes on it would be amazing!

Glad to have you back! StormL00ver (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Thanks for the warm welcome and I will definitely have a look once I have a chance :) TornadoInformation12 (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey! so tornado archive updated and they added so many new things including multiple F/EF3s in Utah, is tornado archive an accurate source? i assume it is since it's on many pages, and i know these tornadoes happened as i've researched them. ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

DUDE!!!! YOU WERE MISSED!!!! THANK GOD YOU'RE BACK!!!! ChessEric 22:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Have any tornadoes been fully confirmed from this outbreak Theobegley2013 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, there was a tornado that ran through downtown Youngstown, OH but hasn’t been rated yet. ~2026-41186-95 (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, July 20th had several tornadoes that haven't been rated at all. HurricaneMelissaFan (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

The file has suddenly disappeared from the page, and it says that it is not a valid map, can someone fix this please? Thank you! HurricaneMelissaFan (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I beg that fatalities (US) is removed and tornadoes (US) is replaced with tornadoes worldwide, also a worldwide fatality map rather than just the United States, US fatalities is mentioned 3 times, including in the infobox (no other country gets this), when it's a totally pointless thing to have in the infobox, with the tornadoes (US) statistics, it's also useless as it is mentioned elsewhere, and there is no world tornado count, there is literally 0 reason for these to be in the infobox, unless you want to add every other country in the world. There's zero need for an article about a global phenomenon to be so centered on One Country, even if it gets the most out of all countries, just pointless stats that shouldn't be in the infobox Loaf5979 (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

adding to this, you could make an argument that other countries don't have reliable tornado counts, and that tornadoes are often missed, but this happens in the US as well so there's no excuse for it Loaf5979 (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

to be fair, most tornadoes take place in the US (like over 2/3), but also, as Tetradisulfate mentioned the last time this was brought up, much of the data for non-US tornadoes is not free in terms of copyright, and thus we kinda can't make maps for them. As for the US fatalities thing and the number of tornadoes stuff, that is a bit US-centric and I'd be fine with removing it, but I can also see the argument that tornadoes are just kinda US-centric in general due to it hitting the geographic lottery when it comes to having conditions ripe for tornadoes over a wide area and possible year-round in many places (especially the southeast and Texas). So I'd be neutral on removing the US fatality and US Tornado total from the main infobox, at least as of right now. AutisticYapper (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose There is absolutely no way that we will go back and count every single tornado that occurs around the world in a year. I can barely get people here to look up PNSs and NCEI reports for tornadoes in this country, let alone research tornadoes in other countries. Plus, a world map is way too big. The most impactful tornadoes almost always occur in the United States anyway, and most people that look up this information here are also likely from the United States and aren't looking for tornadoes from other countries, especially for years in the 20th century. Analysis of meteorological events is also much more advanced here than in any other country, so the idea that many tornadoes are missed in this country is absurd and is totally irrelevant because you could literally say that avout every weather phenomenon. If tornadoes were more of a global phenomenon like tropical cyclones, I'd understand your point. However, the U.S. averages more tornadoes in a year than every other country combined, and we've tried what you've suggested and found that it didn't work. We don't need to have this discussion again. ChessEric 01:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

just letting you know Eric you double posted this. AutisticYapper (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Oops. It gave me an error the 1st time, so I didn't realize it. Sorry. :p ChessEric 01:12, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

fair, and it's fine, happens lol AutisticYapper (talk) 01:16, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Also, since I know no one else is going to say it, the topic "I beg" is not appropriate and will get you ignored. Please look up WP:TALKNEW on how to start discussions. I recognize that you're new here, so I'm just trying to help you out since others might not be kind about telling you this. ChessEric 01:19, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

okay. Loaf5979 (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Are we going to make a section about today's storms? There was a tornado near Appleton, Wisconsin today. -Ari 1600! 🇺🇲🇭🇳 20:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Only if a source for injuries can be found. HurricaneMelissa 20:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably, not yet though. Something needs to meet WP:TORNADOCRITERIA before we can add it. Tetradisulfate (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I've heard there were some injuries but haven't seen source for it yet, so it can be added back once that's found. HurricaneMelissa 20:46, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, supposedly they are already surveying it. Worst damage I've seen seemed to be low-mid EF3 (in my very non-professional opinion), so if no official injuries are reported the rating would be sufficient. Tetradisulfate (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

They're already rating it? That's fast. HurricaneMelissa 21:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't there have been any injuries reported yet but there could be in the future. -Ari 1600! 🇺🇲🇭🇳 21:07, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

My bad for the error i forgot to put "think" after the word don't (my mistake) -Ari 1600! 🇺🇲🇭🇳 21:08, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Probably, right now it doesn't meet WP:TORNADOCRITERIA because no source for injuries has been listed, plus surveys have not begun. Considering the fact that surveys will begin tomorrow and one home {even if poorly anchored} was totally destroyed and several others were damaged, in my (Very non-professional opinion) it will likely be rated mid-high end EF3 at most, which already satisfies WP:TORNADOCRITERIA. If sources for injuries do appear however, we could add it as early as today. TornadoEF4 (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, they are surveying it right now. Also, WP:NTORNADO is only the guideline for tornado articles, but not for sections on Tornado of YYYY pages Tetradisulfate (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Weird, normally they don't start surveys till the day after. And I meant WP:TORNADOCRITERIA the first time, sorry. TornadoEF4 (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I mean, it was quite the major tornado for Nothern Wisconsin, but I’ve never seen surveys the same day unless it’s like a weak tornado HurricaneMelissa 22:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

My guess is because the tornado happened in the late morning and there were no storms behind it, so they could safely get there pretty quickly. Usually there are more storms behind tornado-producing cells (not to mention they usually happen later in the day) so it takes a while for surveys to start Tetradisulfate (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Something I have noticed on tornado articles, and almost exclusively on tornado articles, is the use of excessive, extreme, and sometimes hyperbolic adjectives to describe tornadoes. To name a few; "massive", "enormous", "extremely violent", "photogenic", "horrific", "historic", etc. I know that we want to be descriptive when describing tornadoes, but some of these words just do not fit Wikipedia's encyclopedic tone. As much as I want to go and make changes myself, I can't help but feel it would be controversial. So I have made a list of some guidelines that I think could be beneficial.

My suggestions are:

• Only use adjectives that are necessary to demonstrate a notable attribute of the tornado
  • "large", "long-tracked", "destructive", "deadly"
• The only intensifier that should be used in a majority of cases is "very"
  • "very large", "very long-tracked", "very destructive" ("devastating" is fine), "very deadly"
  • "Extremely" can be used, but it should only be used in, well, extreme cases
  • Don't use intensifiers on official rating classifications like "strong", "intense", or "violent". Anything above an EF4 is considered "violent". An EF5 tornado is not "extremely violent", that's not a thing
    • This also means saying "intense EF3" or "violent EF4" is redundant
• Don't use "historic" or anything along those lines, there is no way to prove that any tornado has that much staying power
  • For actually historical tornadoes, I would still advise against using "historic" because it could be seen as MOS:PUFFERY
• Avoid opinionated and overtly MOS:PUFFERY words like "photogenic". I've already gone through a lot of articles and purged this word, it is no different from saying a "magnificent tornado" or "beautiful tornado"
• As for words like "massive", "enormous", "catastrophic", and others, maybe just try using more basic adjectives first. They do have their place, sometimes. If you still think language like that is warranted, then go ahead

If you have anything to add or if you disagree, feel free to reply with thoughts. Tetradisulfate (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Comment I do feel like this is a good idea, but it would be completely impossible to implement. Specifically with the Intense-Violent adjectives. We have been using them for years, and there are hundreds of Wikipedia articles that contain them. And people are going to accept the norm, especially when there is no rigid criteria in place for such wording. As for words like photogenic and enormous, unless if their listed in sources, it counts as MOS:PUFFERY. TornadoEF4 (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It would certainly take a while but it is not impossible. This type of language is usually only used in the first sentence of articles/sections on more upper-echelon tornadoes. I can let list articles slide Tetradisulfate (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I feel like others should be allowed to voice their opinions in the next few days before we make such changes though. TornadoEF4 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Wanted to elaborate on my issues with "extremely violent". The term "violent", in the context of tornadoes, is an official rating classification by the NWS for EF4+ tornadoes. It is not just an adjective; it is a class assigned to the rating, similar to how Cat 3+ hurricanes are called "major". An EF4 tornado is violent, so is an EF5. Just because an EF5 is stronger than an EF4 doesn't make it worse than violent, they are in the same "violent" class. Saying "extremely violent tornado" is like saying "extremely EF4/EF5 tornado", which is not a thing. Why didn't we call, say, Hurricane Melissa, an "extremely major hurricane"? If you must emphasize the intensity of the winds with an "extremely", I would suggest saying "extremely powerful", though I think it would be more concise if you just said "violent". Tetradisulfate (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I feel like we need a way to differentiate between EF4 strength tornadoes and EF5 strength tornadoes, because a low-end EF4 and an EF5 are completely different levels. "extremely violent", despite not being an official classification, has been used in the past to describe EF5 caliber tornadoes, and I personally believe it does its job well at differentiating. Everything else I agree with though, especially with "photogenic". Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The ways we can allow readers to differentiate between EF4-strength tornadoes and EF5-strength tornadoes are by (A) using the official rating, (B) describing what the tornado did in plain and factual language, and (C) using images. It doesn't matter if a tornado is 'obviously' EF5-strength. If it was rated EF4, we can say that, we can describe what it did (destroyed a neighborhood, lofted a car 200 feet, etc.) and say the National Weather Service determined that it harbored winds of at least XYZ miles per hour. It's not for us to decide that a tornado was incredibly violent. Show, not tell, etc. Penitentes (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not for us to decide that a tornado was incredibly violent. I never said it was, and for the Enid example, the storm events page literally states that it "very highly likely" had EF5 winds. Using your logic, we can't call a tornado large because it's "not up to us to decide". It is not this big of a deal to call a tornado "extremely violent". Lightbulb Noob (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought up this discussion because the descriptions do bother me sometimes. It's also one of the reasons why I'm not really a fan of all these individual tornado articles being made in rapid fire fashion since the summaries aren't the most ideal. In fact, Jasper Deng brought up essentially this same topic when he started a GAR for the 2025 Enderlin tornado. At the time, I didn't understand it and got annoyed, but I later went back and apologized to them, while noting that I fully understood their intentions. I don't want this to be an extremely long reply, so I'll just go over some of the basic stuff I do.

When describing strength in the tornado table summaries, I'll typically only describe tornadoes as "significant", "strong", "intense", or "violent" to avoid redundancy. If a tornado is "high-end" or "low-end" (i.e., high-end EF2), I'll list that instead. I normally won't do that with EF0 or EF5 tornadoes though since their the lowest and highest ratings respectively. The only time I'll put both is if the tornado in question is significant (EF2+), but is small and/or short-lived compared to what we typically see from them. For example, I started the June 21 Sedgwick County, Kansas EF2 tornado summary with, "This narrow, brief, but strong high-end EF2 tornado..." given that most people wouldn't expect a tornado of that nature to be strong. In section summaries, I generally follow the same principle when 1st describing the tornado. Thereafter, I'll use both adjectives, but not right next to each other. When a tornado is strenghtening, I use it to express that the tornado has a reached a threshold that, once reached, makes it more destructive than most other tornadoes, especially once the reached the intense category (EF3+). When a tornado is weakening, I use to express that even in a weakened state, the tornado was still doing significant damage. For an example, see the section summary I did for April 23 Enid EF4 tornado. In articles, I might put both adjectives together in the lead, although I can't give an example of this since I believe they've been changed; the tornado summaries follow my section summary technique. In all these cases, I won't call tornadoes weak since the majority of them are weak unless they're long-tracked and/or large in comparison to other tornadoes of similar intensities.

When describing size, I made my own criteria, although I've never shared it before. When a tornado is over 880 yards (.5 miles) wide, I consider it to be "large". If a tornado reaches 1,760 yards (1 mile) wide, I describe it as "very large". A tornado that reaches 2,640 yards (1.5 miles) wide is "extremely large". My highest adjective is "massive" and is reserved for every tornado that is 3,520+ yards (2+ miles) wide. Since most tornadoes are small and weak, I typically avoid using "small" unless the tornado is stronger then most tornadoes of that intensity, like the Sedgwick County, Kansas tornado I described earlier. The top of that threshold is about 100 yards. If the DAT shows or NWS summary talks about a longer-lived tornado shrinking or growing, I'll probably list that too.

When describing longevity, any tornado that tracks 25+ miles is "long-tracked". I may occasionally use that for tornadoes that track 20-25 miles, but nothing below that. Occasionally, I'll use "long-lived" if a tornado does not track particularly far, but is still down for a significant period of time, like the Enid EF4 tornado I talked about earlier. However, I do use "brief" pretty regularly, especially for tornadoes that cause little to no damage since there is almost no other way to describe them. I don't really have a threshold for it, but I normally use for tornadoes that have less than a 2 mile track and/or last 2 minutes or less. I don't normally use speed, but if a tornado has track length that is around the same length as the amount of time it's down (i.e. a tormado travels 20 miles in 20 minutes, which is 60 mph), I'll sometimes say it's "fast-moving." I almost never note tornadoes as "slow-moving" unless they're long-lived significant ones, and I'll typically just say long-lived instead of slow-moving, like the Enid EF4 tornado I talked about previously.

I typically stay away from trying to describe a tornado's shape and appearance unless I see a video of the tornado itself or its summary list an adjective. A lot of tornadoes are not necessarily visible and can be seen as ugly-looking blobs. Past experience has shown me that such words are a matter of opinion and can cause petty, unnecessary arguments. The only words I use regularly are "multi-vortex" and "drillbit"; however, if I see "wedge" in a summary, I'll leave it alone.

Since I normally only handle individual tornadoes now, I'll only update leads and Meteorological Synopsis. The only recent exceptions have been for articles I decide to revamp, like the Tulsa tornadoes of 2017 and the 2018 Iowa tornado outbreak. I'm a little more active on the section for notable tornadoes and tornado outbreaks on the main page, but I still only rarely create sections these days. Therefore, I don't really have an opinion about what's written in those.

Those are the guidelines I follow and this consistency helps me to create and improve articles. I know everyone has their own writing style, though, so I try to stay away from always "correcting" tornado sections and articles. However, general guidelines would be nice to have, which is why I listed what I do. I hope we can have a good and peaceful discussion about this. ChessEric 22:09, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and fixed up this article a bit on the "strong EF2" tornado front, removing either the EF2 or Strong descriptor, as you're right that is redundant. Also a few other fixes, in addition to adding some events that hadn't been added yet. As for the rest of the stuff you said @Tetradisulfate, it is all good points, and will try to keep in mind in the future. AutisticYapper (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think we should wait until we're done talking about this before doing this 1st. Plus, you removed some ratings when you needed to remove the adjectives. ChessEric 03:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

For the first point, I was simply doing the changes that seemed reading through this to be least controversial, but fair enough. As for the second, my thinking was that a "strong" tornado implies EF2 or equivalent, but to the average reader that might be confusing so you're probably right that I didn't implement it properly, my bad on that. AutisticYapper (talk) 13:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. I was stressing the second point more than the 1st. Its alright. ChessEric 17:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Why changing the image? The one before showed the worst damage the tornado caused. It was the collapsed home, rated 145mph. I see no reason changing it to imagery showing lower-rated damage?! It's really become a trend. We don't need to change every single detail just so it can appeal to someone's individual preferences when there wasn't something to improve in the first place. Stocha0314 (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Technically the tornado as a whole got 140, which you can check by clicking the centerline on the Damage Assessment Toolkit. I changed the image because I thought it better represented the severe damage caused, with the very stubbed tree, flipped truck, and destroyed bakery in the background. That area was given 140, which is technically the peak. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

It isn't. You just copied the slightly false information flying around on social media. Initially, the overview of the damage path on DAT typically shows the lower-bound windspeed of set rating. This is why it's important to check all DIs. There is a damage polygon specifically showing 145mph for the collapsed home, which is indeed the worst damage that was caused by this tornado. This is how the EF-scale works and this is the public information that should be represented on this page, if imagery of that damage exists. It's not a huge problem or something, I will not change it back. But maybe I was able to convince you. If not, it's okay. I just wanted to share my perspective. It's a question of principles. Stocha0314 (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

"question of principles" it's a single photo bruh. And no, the overview on the DAT path doesn't typically show the "lower-bound windspeed". Lightbulb Noob (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't say that. But it does initially. The survey's not done and typically the windspeed of the first added EF3 DI or most common EF3 DI shows up on the overview. The NWS is busy with the ongoing survey and probably hasn't had time to adjust it yet. But it's slightly incorrect. It's 145mph. While I get the idea of the picture showing more of the emotional impact the tornado had, it only represents high-end EF2 tree damage in the foreground, not even focusing on the EF3 structural damage in the background while still labeling it as EF3 damage. I prefer scientific accuracy over "sensationalism", but both is fine in our case since it's only a minor difference in intensity. I don't care that much about this specific choice of image. I rather care about the trend of not choosing the best imagery even if it already exists. Stocha0314 (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The truck and tree wasn't rated EF2, and it's in an EF3 area, but I guess I get your overall point. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

the garden city, Mississippi EF3 has been upgraded to high-end EF3 with maximum winds of 160 mph, and a peak width of 1.5 miles, upgraded due to tree damage. ~2026-41857-20 (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I changed the article. Feel free to correct or rephrase stuff if needed. Stocha0314 (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

On July 27, an enhanced risk for severe weather was issued by the SPC for portions of the Upper Midwest, primarily for a damaging wind threat. Still, a meager 2% tornado probability contour was in place to cover a large portion of eastern Wisconsin. Despite low confidence in tornado activity, a large and destructive EF3 tornado touched down just west of Appleton, Wisconsin at around 11:55 am. Residents in the path of the tornado were given just minutes to prepare due to the rapid touchdown and intensification of the tornado. Shortly after touching down, NWS Green Bay upgraded the tornado warning to a “Potentially Dangerous Situation” tornado warning. The tornado proceeded to pass through Menasha, inflicting heavy damage to residential and commercial areas, before becoming a waterspout over Lake Winnebago. Video from Lake Winnebago captured footage of a phenomenon known as a meteotsunami, induced from the tornado crossing over Lake Winnebago and displacing water. Numerous businesses and homes were severely impacted, trees were shredded and debarked, and more than 110,000 people experienced power outages. The worst damage occurred on the southern side of Menasha, where a home was completely destroyed and swept off its foundation, earning an EF3 rating with estimated wind speeds of 140 mph. ~2026-42135-71 (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A tornado occurred in San Antonio, TX on July 15th and i would like to add it. Chumammer (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Weak tornadoes with no deaths or injuries are not notable enough for inclusion in the yearly article, though it looks like more information can be added to the monthly list. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

"flie cannot be displayed" ~2026-41857-20 (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

@Tetradisulfate pinging you to this as you're the map person. I will say, I checked on both mobile and PC and it doesn't load at all on mobile, and on PC it does load, but you have to zoom in your whole window to actually zoom AutisticYapper (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

This is another bug I can't do anything about unfortunately, probably going to have to put a link to the data directly again Tetradisulfate (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

should we include this in the July 27-29 section? I will include the source that mentions this, apparently there have been 2 arrests already for this.

https://www.wbay.com/2026/07/29/menasha-tornado-looting-arrests-damage-inspections-underway-after-monday-storm/ AutisticYapper (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why it can't be used. ChessEric 20:06, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

alright, I added it, just didn't know if it was the sort of thing that should be added to the season article or not, but there's no standalone article on the tornado as of now, so prob does make sense to add to this article AutisticYapper (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Usually, we don’t start drafts for-non-violent tornadoes this quickly, but this one is already being worked on, it’s at Draft:2026 Appleton–Menasha tornado. HurricaneMelissa 03:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Compared to previous years, too many insignificant tornado events are being added, which makes the page look cluttered. Furthermore, the maximum wind speed for the Menasha tornado is constantly being changed back to 140 mph, even though it is actually 142 mph, as can be verified in the DAT (two DIs). It doesn't matter if the overview only shows 140 mph. Stocha0314 (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

as @Nicholas Krasznavolgyi said in their edit putting it back to 140 mph, sometimes the DAT DI's don't line up 100% with what the tornado is actually rated, which you can see by clicking on the actual tornado polygon. I'm paraphrasing and simplifying there but that's the basic gist. I will be putting it back to 140 MPH for this reason, just a heads up AutisticYapper (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yep. In the DAT editor, the lower-bound wind speed for DoD 9 (all walls collapsed), which was assigned to the home, is 142 mph based on the damage indicator. However, NWS offices often round estimated wind speeds to the nearest 5 mph in their official reports. In this case, the DAT still lists the unrounded 142 mph value, likely because it simply wasn't updated after the final rating was issued. The official estimated wind speed is 140 mph (EF3), as stated in the Public Information Statement (PNS) and NWS Green Bay's official posts. This is also why the Damage Assessment Toolkit should be treated as a preliminary analysis tool rather than the final authoritative source. Nicholas Krasznavolgyi (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

DAT estimates aren't always changed (see the Bolivar–Cleveland, Mississippi tornado from January 11, 2020 on the DAT, for example), but everything else you said is spot on. ChessEric 20:05, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

How are too many insignificant tornado events being added? All of them meet the criteria as far as Im aware. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

looking at the ESWD there was an IF1.5 tornado in northern Sweden, potentially north of the arctic circle (it's super close). Normally I'd be thinking of including it as a rare oddity as a result of this fact, but I can't find any sources other than the ESWD talking about it, which is frustrating. Still worth watching to see if it gets upgraded to IF2, at which point it would definitely be added to the article either way I suppose. AutisticYapper (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

A storm system moved through Indiana and Ohio yesterday afternoon and evening, although the system was in other states. Multiple tornado warnings were triggered. Theobegley2013 (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

There were some confirmed tornadoes in Iowa on August 7. Theobegley2013 (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

They have been added to the Monthly List, but do not meet the criteria to be on this page. HurricaneMelissa 11:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

ESSL has done a major crackdown and is now basically paywalling **ALL** weather-related data that is more than a week old. Non-paying users are now blocked from seeing any archived data from more than a week ago. Directly Per ESSL, As of this moment in time, **ANY** data on ESWD from more than a week ago can only be obtained by: Filling out their User Agreement document, signing it, filling out an application form, then telling them what project you are working on and they determine if they will give the data for free or require payment.

On top of that, the data they give you is now restricted for person, non-commercial usage. Commercial usage is now dictated by them, with the most likely yearly cost of € 295 / year.

European tornado lists can cease starting August 2026. Especially since, as of this moment, it will be virtually impossible for editors to accurately do verification on any European tornadoes as well as European tornado lists.

@ChessEric:, @EF5:, @Lightbulb Noob:, @TornadoLGS:

Glad I ain't writing articles anymore since ESSL just forced Wikipedia to become more US centric. Lol! WeatherWriter (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

All the lists we already have should be fine to keep due to WP:PAYWALL but new stuff is likely gonna be an issue. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

genuinely, I wonder if it might be best going forward to have the "Tornadoes of 2027" and beyond articles be "US Tornadoes of 2027" and then just have the list pages for South America and Canada, like it's gonna be US-Centric as all hell anyway with this change. Idk, there's probably a better solution but it's late and I now have a headache. Good lord. AutisticYapper (talk) 06:36, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

...WTF? ChessEric 02:20, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

pardon my french, but WTAF? Why would they do that, genuinely? @Tetradisulfate that answers that question we were talking about on the European page a few hours back. Also gonna ping @ELLEWEATHERRRR to this as you're also a major contributor to that page. What the hell. AutisticYapper (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Huh. That's stupid. Guess we should put a notification on the Euro pages that they probably won't be updated anymore. Also, because of this change we need to update the access level for ESWD citations. Would this count as a (registration required) or (subscription required)? Tetradisulfate (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

İt is all because of a person which made 300 False reports all of them being IF5.The description of the report were: banana,mango,67 etc.He even reported a tornado with a width of 1 cm. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 06:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I feel like the way to combat this would be making it so you have to prove you know what you're talking about before submitting a report, so as to prevent little Timmy from submitting dozens of troll reports, but whatever. If it's cause they have limited funding I guess I kinda get it, but I wish they'd release reports to the public on at least IF2+ tornadoes, whether on twitter or other social media, or on the site itself. AutisticYapper (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

THAT'S THE REASON FOR THIS CHANGE!?!? WHAT KIND OF SOLUTION IS THAT???? ChessEric 23:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't think it needs all caps Eric, but yeah. I linked a twitter thread an ESSL member did on this below, I'll re-link it here. Only vaguely talks about it, but does confirm there were many false reports.

https://x.com/Djpuco/status/2081344859978321936 AutisticYapper (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

So it seems part of the explanation is also performance issues caused by querying data en masse. That seems to make more sense that just the false reports, since they could easily make it so you'd need an account to submit reports but not to view data. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Now THAT makes more sense. LOL! ChessEric 23:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

is there a hybrid of the two tags? If not, I'd lean towards subscription required as most people will need a subscription to access it AutisticYapper (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

btw, @Tetradisulfate, apparently local Russian meteorologists as an F4, (see source below). I will work on implementing this into this article, just letting you know here once again cause we were talking about it on the European page. Is worth noting I can't confirm whether it's been rated IF4 by the ESSL, but still has been rated F4 on the OG Fujita scale by Russia.

https://incidentia.ru/news/tornado-v-kushve-podtverzhdyon-kak-f4-2026-08-11 AutisticYapper (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm adding it to the F4/EF4/IF4 list right now, I'm just saying it is official because a ton of Russian sources are calling it official Tetradisulfate (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm adding it to the section about the tornado in this article, so please don't change that section so as to avoid an edit conflict AutisticYapper (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

It's still IF3 according to some ESWD people in a discord server I'm in. Also, I'm not sure how reliable that article really is, and whether or not we should include it. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it's reliable enough that we can add it alongside the known IF3 rating, like we've done this before, such as with the Tornado in Russia on June 17 of last year AutisticYapper (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I won't add it the Europe as a whole chart as an IF4 for now, and I'm not gonna be the one to add it to the main season infobox as it probably needs a note saying it's rated IF3 by the ESSL, and I still don't know how to do notes LOL. But yeah, I've added the info to that section AutisticYapper (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Man, I can't wait to have a low-end EF3 intensity tornado at best next to Enid for the maximum rated tornadoes! Lightbulb Noob (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

That's why I personally don't care for the "maximum rated tornadoes" in the infobox. That's pretty much the reason that I added infoboxes to the U.S. list articles, because it serves as a directory of sorts to notable tornado sections and only including the highest rated tornado can overshadow weaker tornadoes that were technically worse. Like last year when Enderlin got upgraded, it took the place of the 5 EF4s that were already there, including the Somerset–London tornado which was way worse in my opinion (impacts not intensity) Tetradisulfate (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

what if we did all violent (EF/F/IF4+) tornadoes instead of just the highest rated? Lightbulb Noob (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Or we could just do the ones that get an article. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Something like that, but also F/EF/IF3 tornadoes can be really impactful. Pretty much all of the truly significant tornadoes from the March 31-April 1, 2023 outbreak were EF3 Tetradisulfate (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Yea for sure, it's tricky. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

true yeah. Maybe it should just be ones with a dedicated article like Lightbulb suggested AutisticYapper (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Only problem I see with it is that it takes a while for tornadoes to get articles, so it would be empty in the meantime. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

tbh this is something I've toyed with in my own head, the only hangups I can maybe see is when we eventually get another super outbreak in like 30 years, but that can probably be done on a case-by-case basis. Also some older years even without super outbreaks involved could be an issue with the number of violent-rated tornadoes. Still, could be good going forward at least. AutisticYapper (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

(1) I feel like that infobox is a little lacking, but I feel like the max rating is best since it involves a fact rather than the trying to hand pick individual notable tornadoes to add up there, which I believe will do nothing, but cause edit warring. (2) Over a decade ago, the events section featured an overview summary of the most notable events of the year. I've been wanting that to come back as that would help with U.S.-centric problem. ChessEric 23:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

All of these sources are claiming the F4 rating

https://incidentia.ru/news/tornado-v-kushve-podtverzhdyon-kak-f4-2026-08-11

https://newsroom24.ru/ekaterinburg/news/criminal/2026/news_339485/

https://vsenovostint.ru/2026/08/11/tornado-v-kushve-okazalsya-samym-moshhnym-za-9-let-nablyudenij/

https://pogoda.mail.ru/news/71949977/

https://www.ural.kp.ru/online/news/7116407/

and probably more

It is also worth noting that ESSL isn't necessarily the only "official" rating source for European tornadoes, unlike how the NWS is the official rating source for U.S. tornadoes Tetradisulfate (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

This is like Newnan getting EF4 lol, I guess it can't be helped. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

yeah. Again, I do think it's worth having a note in the main infobox that it was rated (for now) IF3 by the ESSL, but I do think it should be added there regardless. And yeah the ESSL isn't gospel on European ratings. AutisticYapper (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

"The ESSL isn't gospel on European ratings" Yes, I get that, but I wasn't sure who even gave the Kushva tornado F4, like what group or whatever. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

fair enough on that, though with the ESSL paywall now we're gonna have to rely on other sources now anyway. I probably worded that badly so apologies, I'm just tired LOL (what else is new). But yeah, that's fair what you're saying. AutisticYapper (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Nah you're alright, but yea that's true, which stinks. Hopefully they get the problem resolved soon. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

hopefully yeah, tho I did go digging on twitter and saw someone I think from the ESSL saying that it's not just cause someone added a bajillion meme reports (although that was the catalyst), but also cause they have a funding problem, which, fair enough. Still wish they would let the public see IF2+ rated tornadoes going back more than a week though. Here's the twitter thread I mentioned btw:

https://x.com/Djpuco/status/2081344859978321936 AutisticYapper (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

main thing was the meme reports, but they also do legit need funding, so again, I get it AutisticYapper (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Yea, that sucks. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Also I am currently applying for VOP and they are looking forward to it.So this article might not cease to exist. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 06:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

We can see reports for the last week anyway so we can still update it so long as we do it quickly. Loaf5979 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Just floating the idea. Would it be out of the question for there to be a shared ESSL account among some of the regular editors? TornadoLGS (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's allowed but even if not I don't see why it wouldn't be a reasonable exception to make. Loaf5979 (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

As someone who added most tornadoes on that page january-may, this is very disheartening to hear as I loved adding tornadoes. But at least there's still the Canada page. ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

There is still a way but its much more slower.We will need to add tornadoes quicker and if there was an update that got published in ESWD that is about a tornado which hapened more than a week ago we will have to do more digging and it will be much more longer. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 16:25, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

All of this wouldn't happen if people wouldn't submit false report for ''fun''.Kinda sucks that it is this way. ⚡ StormL00ver ⚡ 16:28, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

literally one of my deepest regrets from the past is doing that once, i'm surprised they don't check submitted reports before actually adding them to the database however. Loaf5979 (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Per prevots twitter post Loaf5979 (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

There have been two significant U.S. tornadoes this year, those being the Garden City–Thayer, Mississippi EF3 tornado on May 6 and the Appleton–Menasha, Wisconsin EF3 tornado on July 27. I'd assume it would be pretty uncontroversial if either of these tornadoes received a section in an outbreak article. That's the thing though; they don't have an outbreak article. Neither of the events they were associated with were significant enough to warrant their own outbreak article.

This creates a problem where both of these tornadoes deserve more substantial coverage on Wikipedia, but there really isn't anywhere else other than a dedicated section or article that would be suitable for said substantial coverage to go. They can't have articles because they haven't met WP:NTORNADO yet, they can't have sections because their respective outbreaks were too insignificant for an article, and their summaries would likely be excessively long compared to other summaries if we were to just expand their entries on the list article. All these tornadoes have anywhere on Wikipedia at the moment are a few sentences in this article, a few sentences in the list article, and perhaps one or two sentences in the articles of affected towns/cities. That's just not enough, these tornadoes should have their own sections. The question is, though, where to put them?

We have been talking about it on Draft talk:2026 Appleton–Menasha tornado, and here are a few options that we discussed;

• Option 1: Create a dedicated "notable tornadoes" article
  • EX: Draft:List of notable United States tornadoes in 2026
  • Suggested by @Lightbulb Noob, would be an article comprised of every tornado section for the year. Would contain excerpts to preexisting sections in outbreak articles and contain additional sections for tornadoes that are notable enough for a section but don't have an outbreak article to put it
• Option 2: Append new sections to the already existing list articles
  • EX: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tetradisulfate/sandbox&oldid=1369258855#
  • Tornadoes that warrant a section but are not a part of a significant outbreak can get sections in list articles. The new sections would be appended at the end of the month sections (for example, the Appleton–Menasha tornado would be at the bottom of the "July" section but the "August" section would still be below it). This is similar to how sections are already appended to the bottom of the "Confirmed tornadoes" section in outbreak articles

Here are also some options if you don't like the section ideas;

• Option 3: Make articles on the tornadoes and move them, even though they have not proven lasting coverage yet
  • Make articles like the 2022 Andover tornado early just so there is a place where the information can go, even though they have yet to completely meet the criteria described in WP:NTORNADO
• Option 4: Make outbreak articles even though only one tornado was the only significant thing about it
  • Something like the Tornado outbreak of April 8–9, 2015 or the Tornado outbreak of February 7, 2017

And, of course;

• Option 5: It's fine as it is
  • Don't change anything

Feel free to reply with any additional suggestions. I personally think Option 2 is the best, but Option 1 is also good. It is also of note to mention an RfC exists on the criteria for tornado sections, you can view that here. Tetradisulfate (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, after thinking it over, I think either Option 1 or Option 2 would work great. Option 3 seems like more trouble than its worth, Option 4 feels like almost doing too much, if that makes sense, and I obviously don't agree with Option 5 lol. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I've actually been slowly working on making a summary for the Mississippi tornado, but I do believe an article is needed for it. As far as the Wisconsin 1...let me get back to you on that.

As far as options go, Option 3 or 4 seems like the best things to do here. If a tornado is significant enough, I don't think the lasting coverage should apply and with the recent string of articles being made for numerous notable tornadoes, I think that's the best strategy.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but option 5 is probably just not feasible anymore with all the tornado data we can get these days. However, I actually recently tried Option 1 for the 2011 Super Outbreak, and was promptly shot down by MarioProtIV. Option 2 defeats the purpose of the list articles, which is only for tornado summaries and should not include tornado sections, and honestly leads back to option 1.

Fun fact: the Tornado outbreak of February 7, 2017 article was originally just for the New Orleans tornado before I expanded back in my early days on Wikipedia. However, that day also had another EF3 tornado and a killer EF1 tornado, so the New Orleans tornado was not the only notable tornado of the outbreak. ChessEric 10:23, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

"which is only for tornado summaries and should not include tornado sections" Why can't we just, change that lol. And the problem with option 3 is that it will still leave out tornadoes that are more iffy on whether they will get an article, but still definitely deserve a section. Option 4 might just make it so we have too many outbreak articles for one given year to be honest. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

personally I think i like the sound of option 1 but i'd prefer for it to be worldwide, as there are too many tornadoes in Europe/South America without good documentation on wikipedia, even though plenty of info can be found online about them. Loaf5979 (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that this would make it even more broad and 'unrelated', making it much more like a WP:COATRACK article. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

But I do agree that many international tornadoes likely deserve sections as well. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it differs from these as it specifies that the things in one of them articles are completely unrelated, while going into detail on notable tornadoes without articles seems related enough to me. that's just my view. Loaf5979 (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Eh, fair, but people have still raised concerns even with it being US only so I'm iffy. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2026 (UTC)