Draft for Texas Floods

I have created a draft for the recent floods in central Texas, as it is being covered by multiple major sources and impacting a region hit by flooding a year prior. It is located at Draft:July 2026 Central Texas floods. Chris ☁️^{(talk - contribs)} 22:35, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Take a look at 2000 Fort Worth tornado outbreak?

I was advised to post here after first posting at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Take a look at 2000 Fort Worth tornado outbreak?. Below is an excerpt from my original post:

Hi all, I'm not real familiar with GA but in the spirit of "If you see something, say something" I thought I would raise this here. I became aware of this article via RM: Talk:2000 Fort Worth tornado outbreak#Requested move 13 July 2026. The article apparently achieved GA status in 2017. Per the RM nom, the article has been rewritten to focus on a single tornado rather than to cover the entire outbreak comprehensively. § Other tornadoes contains no prose to provide context and § Impacts and Aftermath is empty.

Rather than initiate a formal GA reassessment, it was suggested that the active community here might be interested in taking a look at this article. The RM is still live and is also likely of interest. Cheers, —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I’ll take a look in a bit. ^EF₅ 19:14, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

Give me a few more days; I’m holed up at a kid’s summer camp and the work hours are very iffy on when I can actually do stuff with my phone. ^EF₅ 14:32, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for keeping in on your radar. I don't plan to push for any intervention at GAR or any other venues. I went ahead and removed the "Impacts and Aftermath" section heading since it was empty, but obviously this can be added back if corresponding coverage is added. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Per the below discussion about updating Wikipedia:Notability (weather), have there been any decisions on whether tornadoes should generally be part of an outbreak, or formatted to be individual events? I thought that the 2000 Fort Worth tornado outbreak should remain as is, due to there being multiple strong tornadoes. Also, what about the criteria whether there should be individual tornado articles as part of a larger outbreak? Just to pick some ones at random, the December 2023 Tennessee tornado outbreak is under 5,000 words. The body of the 2023 Hendersonville tornado article is 2,300 words, and the body of the 2023 Clarksville tornado is 1,700 words. So everything would fit under the outbreak article, especially if there was some sort of policy that encouraged it. Right now, it seems that any decently strong tornado can get its own article, which would be like if every Category 5 hurricane got an article. For example, the 1964 Central Nebraska tornado is a stub, but it was part of an outbreak of 73 tornadoes. I think things can be organized better. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Just noting that the RM was closed as 'no consensus', so the title retains the scope of covering an entire outbreak as opposed to a single tornado. Improving the article isn't necessarily an urgent matter and, per my earlier comment, I don't plan to make any moves with respect to the GA status of this article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Any interest in a project-wide newsletter?

Now that it's the middle of the summer, the hurricane seasons have been going for a while now, and there are plenty of tornado articles this year. There used to be a tropical cyclone newsletter, but I think it would be even better having one for the entire project. There aren't too many discussions that only affect tropical cyclones. For example, the proposal to merge the heat event with the infobox weather event appears on every single weather page. Not to mention, any new featured lists/good articles should be celebrated across the Weather Project.

I even came up with a name for it: the Monthly Wiki-Weather Review. It's a play on Monthly Weather Review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Who would be in charge of writing such a newsletter? I'd read it. MCRPY22 (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I'd read it too. Make a rough draft, BlueForce87 (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

We talked about this months ago and nothing came of it so meh. If this does get adopted I’d love to help out. ^EF₅ 14:30, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Newsletter/1 - I see that we tried this almost a year ago! Here is the basic layout for the first issue so far. We could use an opinion column (or two) for some basic project procedures/reminders. Maybe even a guide to dealing with sockpuppets/vandalism? Like, if an article is getting targeted a lot, it should be protected. I removed some of the more mundane parts of the newsletter, like DYK's and main page TFA's, wanting it to cover news. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

You should add topics for editors to work on. BlueForce87 (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

This is the first newsletter, so we need volunteers to write first, and I don’t want to tell them what topics to work on. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok I added a few ideas. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think the newsletter should also include newly created articles about older events. BlueForce87 (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to add. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@BlueForce87: OK I added a sampling of new articles from this year (that exclude weather events from this year). I tried to get some from a variety of weather types, which was tricky outside of the hurricane and tornado projects. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I added another section that I thought could be useful, which was about the series of articles for different weather types, and listing what the earliest entry is (and identifying what gaps there are). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Topic ideas

• Basic procedures/reminders
• A guide to dealing with sockpuppets/vandalism
• Location-specific list articles for different weather types (like List of New Zealand tornadoes, List of California floods, or Typhoons in the Korean peninsula)
• (Un)Reliable sources - mention Force 13, Accuweather, and other sources as being unreliable (possibly mentioning this discussion)
• Projects that require technical help

Rewrite NWEATHER

Could we have a discussion to rewrite WP:NWEATHER? Currently, it seems somewhat heretical to the encyclopedia's guidelines, particularly WP:NEVENT, as it asserts itself as specifically not obeying NEVENT. The first paragraph of NWEATHER is a huge example. Besides that, it is quite thin in some areas and is outdated in others. For example, it still recommends not using AFD to merge individual tropical cyclones when that is pretty much the only route nowadays. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 02:04, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

NWEATHER is weird; it’s not like objectively wrong in everything but I just don’t agree with a bunch of stuff in it; it feels very outdated. ^EF₅ 14:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I removed the landslide portion since landslides are not directly in our scope, it was only like 300 characters long, and the advice was boilerplate information. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I updated the tropical cyclone portion. I hope I reflected existing protocols, namely that all tropical cyclones are notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and then discussing the hierarchy (Tropical cyclones in 1991, then season articles, then individual storms). I wonder if there should be a section on "Effects" or met history articles, although I feel like there are so few of them, they should be handled individually. Also, like many other articles in the project, many effects sub-articles have been merged in recent years. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

For my part, I redid the lead to avoid saying "WP:IAR lol 😊". NWEATHER should be framed as being a compliment to NEVENT since NEVENT overrides whatever NWEATHER has to say. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I saw there was a discussion about making it an official guideline. Should that be revisited? BlueForce87 (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

No, the official guideline is WP:NEVENT, and even that has this part: "This notability guideline for events reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article about past, current, and breaking news events should be written, merged, deleted or further developed." The project notability guideline is more of a helpful guide that could be useful on current season talk pages, as well as serve as a guide to new users, and have a mention on the main project page. But I don't think there needs to be some kind of official label. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Found this draft

I found Draft:Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tropical weather which might be useful for this project. I don't know if it's still being worked on but I want to bring more awareness to it. BlueForce87 (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I have been slowly working on it. You can check the archives of here and a few subprojects around January. I struggled heavily in writing it as I only really edit Atlantic basin storms so I do not want to enforce rules only practiced there on the entire world. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

One thing that should be mentioned somewhere is that articles should not include when things don't happen. Earlier today, I removed this passage from Tropical Storm Bertha (2026): "According to the governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, Bertha contributed to no new flood reports impacting buildings after severe flooding in Central Texas." You'll see a lot in older articles something like, "The storm caused no known damage or fatalities." If we're going to make the TCMOS, then that needs to be mentioned somewhere. On a similar note, there should be some sort of mention that "Similar types of information should be grouped together." I was helping CapeVerdeWave (talk · contribs) work on the 1935 Yankee hurricane, and we got into extensive discussions about how to organize information. For example, coastal impacts should be mentioned in the same paragraph, rather than listing every example of coastal damage. Similarly, downed trees and power lines are common occurrences in landfalling storms, so not every instance should be mentioned. Ditto with floods. I think a good balance is going into relevant detail when there is an interesting example to give. One tree hitting a house isn't that interesting if there were many such instances, but if that tree killed a person, then it would make sense to go into detail. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I added that sentence to largely clarify that Bertha did not do much in Texas. I presume most people would believe that there would be damage in Texas since Bertha landfell nearby. Actually, a bit of Bertha's notability is derived from doing so little. Take that as you may. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I totally understand the rationale, and that same mentality is why we have so many articles that say so much without going into detail. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Does this mean the draft should emphasize avoiding details that mention what didn't happen? BlueForce87 (talk) 23:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Technically that also falls under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Putting "0" for statistical values (the storm did not cause damage/deaths) is excessive. For the same reason, we shouldn't just list random meteorological values if there's no further context. A 35 mph wind gust is borderline meaningless, since it's not even gale-force, unless the wind gusts also caused notable damage. Or including a storm's rainfall in a certain area without any follow up. Or routine preparations that happen for nearly every storm. There are many ways of adding content to an article without adding much information. I should know, I was guilty of it myself (which is why I've targeted so many of my own articles for merging). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how these policies and guidelines are made, but I'll take a look at the draft and see if anything feels out of place or contradicts other guidelines. Also, if this gets published, what will happen to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Style? BlueForce87 (talk) 23:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

MOS, policy, and guidelines trump essays. We cannot enforce WP:WPTC/Style or any other rules specific to this WikiProject, especially if they go against policy and local consensus. In my opinion, WP:NWEATHER and that essay are functionally useless because of that. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm asking what should be done with the essay when the draft gets published. Having two pages with the same scope may cause some problems. BlueForce87 (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

There are plenty of essays that are made obsolete but kept for historical record. See WP:HISPAGES. It is likely that if the draft is published as a full guideline, WPTC/S will be treated like that. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Restarting the Discussion on Notability of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes

I started a draft several days ago for Hurricane Genevieve, but when submitting it for AFC it became clear that there is still an issue in determining notability for Category 5 Pacific hurricanes. Back in 2024, it was established during the merger of Hurricane Kristy (2024) that a Pacific hurricane attaining Category 5 intensity isn’t in itself notable enough for an article but does help support one if there is some level of impact or record. During the same discussion it was noted that the impact or records do not have to be overly significant but just notable which is why Hurricane Celia (2010) was kept despite barely notable impact or records. However, it is obvious that it is still very unclear where the notability standards for Category 5 Pacific hurricanes lie.

By the standards given in these discussions, Genevieve should be notable enough for an article yet it’s not clear whether it is at all. Genevieve has well established news coverage given here —[] — that it is mentioned in an Inside Edition article which is not a news agency that typically covers weather stories, especially for Pacific hurricanes. This and the fact that articles outside of the “Genevieve has formed” type of media hype have been written by both national and local newspapers across the US shows that Genevieve should have established notability. Kristy, Elida (2002), and Hernan (2002) were merged because they either had no measureable impact on land or they had very little in the way of that in their article. Genevieve has a significantly larger impact on California than those of the storms that were merged to the point that storm warnings are being issued.

The question is, does Genevieve actually meet the notability standards? What has been established by previous discussions does not answer this very clearly and still leaves a lot of ambiguity. I think it would be helpful if another more in depth discussion was held on this subject and if more proper guidelines were set for these cases since we’re basically running off of comments in previous merge discussions.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

All tropical cyclones are generally notable enough to be on Wikipedia. What’s often a matter of debate is whether there’s enough content for a subarticle that doesn’t overlap with the season article. For an ongoing season article, that determination can be tricky. Genevieve feels borderline, because its effects were wave-based, and the wave impacts were also from Fausto/Elida. Genevieve’s met history is pretty routine, like Kristy. As for Celia 10, I might vote differently if that was proposed for merger today, given how short that season article is, although the Celia MH would have to be condensed a bit. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

What is the actual policy for merging articles? After Bertha's AFD, I am kinda realizing I do not really know what the actual guidelines and policy are.

As for Genevieve, I am neutral as it meets a lot of my standards. To merge Genevieve's draft would be somewhat of a challenge without losing any information. However, quite a few pieces of information is minor like "records" (which honestly gives off trivia section) and the three paragraphs of everyday severe weather. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I am going to ping @Sulfurboy to see why he treated Genevieve different from Bertha. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem with storms like Genevieve/Kristy are that they are pretty routine, both impacts and the met history. They usually form from a tropical wave, strength into peak intensity, cause some high waves while at peak intensity, then weekend. I feel like the entire narrative could be summarized in three paragraphs. That’s fundamentally different than a storm forming near land and affecting land its whole duration. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

There’s more than just those two. Hurricane Jova (2023) is also very questionable as an article. Yes, it technically does have some damage but it’s basically nothing, merge proposals have been started for storms with much higher damage totals. In fact, its section on the season article does not even mention ANY impacts. Jova’s TCR also says the storm had no impact, all damage totals on the article seem to come from thunderstorms related to Jova and not the storm itself. Comparing Genevieve and Jova’s impact section, they’re within the same range of size and both could easily be summarized in the seasonal article and yet one of those storms has an article. Also seems there is basically zero significant news coverage of Jova outside of a few local news articles talking about surf, majority of the sources for the US section are just the NHC or NCDC. The reason given for Hurricane Jova (2023) is that it is notable for its record rapid intensification, yet I find little mention of that I any other significant sources outside of the TCR and a singular source, and that the seasonal article would be too bloated with Jova’s information which looking at how the Pacific hurricane season is expected to perform this year MAY end up an issue later this year. There’s major inconsistencies in what the guidelines are supposed to be for these storms and the articles that have been made so far.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Do want to note that a record for one of the (not the, just one of the) fastest rapid intensifications in the Pacific is a very, very trivial record. Seems it was only noted outside the TCR because it happened at roughly the same time as Hurricane Lee (2023), Genevieve seems to have a near-equal rate of rapid intensification to Jova yet it’s just by chance that it hasn’t been mentioned for Genevieve yet (may be in the TCR). It doesn’t seem like a very memorable record at all and feels like it isn’t a sufficient reason to keep an article on Jova. The point I’m trying to make here is that we may need to look more into some of the articles that are currently in the platform if we choose to decline Genevieve because there are articles for similarly routine Category 5 Pacific hurricanes when it may be better to merge them into the season article.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

You bring up a good point comparing Genevieve to Jova, and although I opposed the merger back in 2025, I probably would change my stance today. Consensus can change, especially as season articles change. If a season article is close to 8,000 words, then there is more rationale to keep an article separate. Seeing that the 2023 Pacific hurricane season is only 6,200 words, I think it could easily accommodate Jova. Similar with Genevieve. At this point, I think the season article could easily accommodate the information. And TBH similar for Celia. Seeing that the 2010 Pacific hurricane season is only around 4,000 words, it could easily have a four-paragraph section on Celia, without the article feeling too weighted toward Celia. Strong hurricanes are fairly routine, and a lot of them have been the target of merging in recent months. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure how much this has been considered but WP:NEVENT does put weight on long-lasting impacts and geographical scope. Fish storms whose only impact is causing some rough surf on land in one or two countries are far less notable than a storm that impacted several nations, inflicted millions-to-billions in damage, and caused the implementation of several laws. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It’s not so much how notable a storm is but whether what is the most professional way to present it on Wikipedia. Some storms affected only a few islands with minor damage yet are extremely notable for longevity or intensity like Hurricane John (1994), Hurricane Hector (2018), or Hurricane Sam (2021). With a storm like Genevieve or Jova it becomes more muddled and the question is whether it is more encyclopedic to break them off into their own articles or give it a very strong section on the seasonal page.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Now that I mention it, Hurricane Sam may be falling into the same territory as Hector where it was deemed notable at the time and the article is decently written, but it may not be notable other than being the strongest storm of the season. I don’t know whether it’s work adding Sam to that merge discussion list? IrishSurfer21 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The 2023 Atlantic hurricane season is over 8,000 words. Always check the prose size first. The season article would have to be cut down such that merging Sam wouldn't bring it over 8,000 words. But, for instance, the 2023 AHS season summary is over 1,000 words (as seen on the talk page under "section sizes"), and some storms with articles probably have a longer section than they need (like Lee). That's why it's not so automatic for what storms get articles or not. Sometimes storms that have had articles for a while just stick around for a while because no one has bothered to check them out. If you only keep the essentials of the article (and not overdo other storm sections), then sometimes it's good/doable for the strongest storm of the season to be merged. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe you meant to search 2021? The ‘S’ named storm for 2023 was Sean, a nothingburger tropical storm. 2021 does look rather lengthy though especially considering it’s covering 21 named storms. Sam may be able to fit but you’d still be correct in saying some trimming needs to be done especially on storms like Elsa, Mindy, and Nicholas.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Oops I should've checked 2021, that's over 8,500 words. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I was going off the basis of WP:NWXTC, particularly "Documentation of damage in news reports and official reports from relevant agencies/entities". The only real impact I see documented is the water rescues, but this was attributed to multiple storms not just one. Y'all are obviously the SMEs in terms of weather and will always want to defer to the project's opinion on notability, particularly since y'all do such a good job of maintaining your articles. That being said, I shouldn't have to dig up 2024 discussions about whether a certain type of cyclone is notable enough. It should be readily apparent from the project's recommendations what the guidelines should be.

If you all want to ping me again once a new or refined consensus has been reached, that would be great, I can pass along the message to other AfC reviewers as well. Cheers. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

You can also help refine the consensus by joining this discussion higher up in this project talk page. The problem is that changing consensus can take quite a lot of time. I am trying to do my part by merging many of these questionable articles (including some that I wrote in the past) - see Merge-a-thon. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate the invite, however I feel like members of this project are best informed on what's best. I am happy to chime in when needed in what would help us have more consistent reviews in the AfC process which is the ping that brought me here. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that "the project" is only based of the members at any given time. So if there aren't many people, and you're one of the people who is affected by it, then we could use your perspective to make it easier for other people in the future. Having more people involved with developing the new consensus will solidify rules and standards, especially when there won't be storms like Celia/Jova that you can point to. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that we are somewhat ineffective at creating rules. I partially disagree with it but I do not feel like doing the Wikipedia equivalent of the Battle of the Somme to give WikiProjects a bit more power. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 13:33, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink:, @Quxyz:, I’m currently beginning the process of merging Genevieve’s draft but I am having trouble deciding where to note the rough surf impacts. The article cites Elida, Fausto, and Genevieve though another article cites Elida while others cite Fausto only. Which storms should I put these impacts under without violating WP:OR?IrishSurfer21 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

IMO Elida, since that was the start of the event. Something like, "Beginning on X day, southern California experienced rough surf, first from Elida, and later from Fausto and Genevieve." Assuming the sourcing supports that. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@IrishSurfer21: just a note for the case of this discussion. The 2023 Pacific hurricane season is now 5,819 words, so there would be a stronger argument for merging Jova now. It's a balancing act between season articles and sub-articles, and giving the right amount of info without being too detailed to be useful. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Typhoon Dolphin (2026)

Hi. Just linking it here as this is an ongoing event starting to making headlines since e.g., yesterday. (I'm very bad at writing weather-related articles and want some helps.) There are some press coverages / citable materials in the talk page. Thanks!
(Note: copy-pasted my message from Teahouse after being redirect to here). 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk} 07:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Helping Establish Tornado Section Criteria

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Maths, science, and technology When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

For a while now, criteria has been absent for tornado sections in tornado outbreak articles, which makes determining what needs a section and what doesn't much more difficult, so I have gone ahead and created some criteria, which is listed below. I am requesting feedback in order to reach a consensus and establish a set of criteria for all tornado sections that can be widely used. Another reason for this proposal is to allow pages such as List of notable United States tornadoes in 2026 to exist, which would allow for tornadoes that are notable but do not have a parent outbreak article with a dedication section to receive a proper section of their own, such as the Garden City, MS EF3 earlier this year. Despite causing over 20 injuries, damaging numerous homes and structures, tracking for 80 miles, and impacting several communities (including a mobile home park that was basically demolished), it has only has a summary that's a few sentences long in Tornadoes of 2026 and List of United States tornadoes from May to June 2026. Because of this, my proposed criteria will also be for List of notable United States tornadoes in 2026, so that it is much clearer on what can actually go on the page. @ChessEric we talked about this back in April, so I figured you might be interested in this discussion.

The criteria is below:

Tornado Section Criteria:

• At least 2 to 3 well-developed paragraphs
  • It should not include information on the aftermath.
• It has received significant coverage from news sources
• It caused fatalities and/or Injuries
  • This is different for each case; if a tornado was destructive and/or has scientific, historical, or other significance but had no casualties, it will still be able to receive a section.
• It inflicted significant damage
  • This is different for each case; if an EF2 tornado was long-tracked but only significantly damaged a couple homes (similar to the Lena, IL EF2), it shouldn't get a subsection. However, a damaging tornado like the Merrillville, IN EF2 should receive a section.
• Historical/Meteorological significance
  • This is part of the reason I gave the Ringle, WI EF3 tornado a subsection, as intense and destructive tornadoes for that area are quite rare.

Example: Aroma Park, Illinois EF3 section:

• At least 2 to 3 well-developed paragraphs Y
  • Has three very long, very well developed paragraphs, and one more additional paragraph at the end.
• It has received significant coverage from news sourcesY
  • Received widespread news coverage
• It caused fatalities and/or InjuriesY
  • Three deaths, 19 injuries
• It inflicted significant damage Y
  • Over 600 buildings damaged or destroyed across two states.
• Historical/Meteorological significance N
  • Not really, pretty much a typical EF3 in this regard. An example of a tornado passing this would be the Union City, MI EF3 from a few days prior.

Result: The section gets to stay, 4/5 of the criteria were fully met. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I would say change the first criteria to "There is enough relevant and substantial content to wrap around the infobox". This allows for more freedom with the formatting of paragraphs while also eliminating unneeded whitespace. It also disallows obvious padding just so a tornado can get a section. Tetradisulfate (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Hm, yea that's a fair change. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Support – This criteria has been needed for years and years, but a thing I would change is how many news sources must report on it, like 10, 20, well, 30 seems extreme, but that’s just a concern I have. HurricaneMelissa 00:26, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure how to define "significant coverage" with a number. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:59, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it could require National News Coverage? HurricaneMelissa 01:24, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. WP:NTORNADO for instance doesn't really specify what "significant coverage" means, so I'm unsure. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't believe a List of notable United States tornadoes in 2026 would pass article guidelines, having seen the long journey of List of notable tropical cyclones evolving into List of tropical cyclone records. Any attempts to define "notable" are subjective. For events like the Garden City, MS EF3, I would instead suggest that the info should appear in List of United States tornadoes from May to June 2026, just like it's been handled for years. I don't think it makes sense to make an entirely new article to yet again cover the same bunch of tornadoes. And if the May and June list is too long, then the months could be split. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

You're opposing the tornado section criteria as well? Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I thought the criteria was only for a proposed "List of notable United States tornadoes in 2026". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

"Because of this, my proposed criteria will also be for"

It's for all tornado sections, not just for List of notable United States tornadoes in 2026. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 01:07, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this criteria could be used to append sections (like the ones in outbreak articles) on list articles, like this. My problem with just writing the summaries for tornadoes like the Garden City EF3 into the list articles as they are (that would be substansial enough to adequately cover all notable aspects of the tornado, including tornado summary and aftermath) would likely create a very large and frankly ugly block of text with no paragraph breaks and no images. Appending sections to the list articles could fix that. Though, like you said, we may need to split the articles if they get too long. Tetradisulfate (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the Garden City EF3, I guess I'm just not seeing what would be in such a summary that wouldn't be in the list article. The EF2 on the same day has a longer section (106 words versus 40), and also mentions the formation/track/damage description. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:04, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Because the list summary for the Garden City EF3 is severely underdeveloped. The tornado tracked over 80 miles, impacted numerous communities, and I honestly think I could write a 1000+ word summary with the amount of information on it. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

So it sounds like the outbreak can support an article, it doesn't demonstrate the need for a "notable US tornadoes" list. Or, on the other hand, figure out a way to streamline information. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The "outbreak" was nine tornadoes. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

And, even if you want to justify an article for the Garden City outbreak, other tornadoes such as the St. Libory EF3 and Menasha EF3 were literally the sole EF2+ tornado of the day, making an outbreak article pretty pointless if its just to cover a single tornado. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

An outbreak article could still be justified; See this one HurricaneMelissa 01:27, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah that's just kinda silly in my opinion. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't know why that article exists honestly, that could easily be an "other tornadoes" section for the 2015 Rochelle–Fairdale tornado Tetradisulfate (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like we need some kind of criteria... just for individual tornado articles vs outbreaks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Figuring out this criteria has already proven to be painful enough. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The Enid, OK EF4 from this year initially had a section in the list article before it was moved to the outbreak article as a section, like it is now. Here's what that looked like. You may disagree, but I don't think that looks very good. given the Garden City tornado was very long tracked, I'd expect it would be a similar length or even longer. Tetradisulfate (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I would expect a significant tornado to be part of an outbreak, not a list of notable US tornadoes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I suppose, but there were only 11 tornadoes during that event. The closest I can think of a (U.S.) outbreak article being made for an event with that few tornadoes was the March 2–3, 2020 outbreak, but that was far more impactful of an event and there were 2 deadly EF3+ tornadoes.

I think the Menasha, WI EF3 on July 27 of this year is a much better example for something like this being necessary. Tetradisulfate (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020 has two sub-articles, so I don't think that's a good example, unless the two sub-articles were merged. As for the Menasha event, that is currently 37 words, two of which are "Preliminary information". I think that article could handle there being more info on that tornado. And if it got too big that it needed to be split, then split July and August US tornadoes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

It's 37 words, but could easily be expanded to be much larger than the list template really allows for. Are you supporting this idea, or... Lightbulb Noob (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I just rather it'd look like this and not like this. Tetradisulfate (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Yea, the latter is frankly very ugly and you can't add images or an infobox. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak of February 7, 2017 is a much better example (actually that's a good example for giving the Garden City outbreak an article lol. I guess there is already a draft for it if that's the best way. Funny, because I started it) Tetradisulfate (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Supporting to the highest degree: There are plenty of notable tornadoes that just are not part of a larger tornado outbreak that lack their own detailed sections/summaries because they just barely aren't notable enough, this would allow for such tornadoes to get the detailed summaries they deserve.

I will say for this concept that at the moment it should only include tornadoes during the EF scale era, and if this proves good enough then it can expand to include earlier years. Quincy Gordon (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the example Tetra gave, a lot of the prose issues would be fixed if it wasn't so detailed down to the street or mentioning the tornado intensity at each location (other than peak strength/damage). Here's an example (and I'm sorry to nitpick):

"A survey found that around 1,548 structures received some level of damage, primarily single family residences. Of those structures, 727 were labeled "affected", 554 were labeled "minor", 238 were labeled "major", and 29 were labeled "destroyed". Additionally, 388 structures were surveyed but received no visible damage and 2 structures were unable to be accessed."

This could be rewritten as:

"The tornado damaged 1,548 structures to some degree, of which 29 were destroyed. Most of the damaged structures were single family residences."

54 words down to 22, and that's just one small example. As William Shakespeare said, brevity is the soul of wit. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

This feels like unnecessary removal of good information to me. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 02:21, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, it is a CFORK of a draft we're working on. I used that just as a proof of concept, it would definitely have to be reworked to fit better in a section. Tetradisulfate (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

If more detail can be provided, then it should be provided. Quincy Gordon (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

What “good information” in my example was missing? Why mention the structures surveyed that had no damage, or the 2 that were unable to be assessed? Why clarify the minor and major damage, when that’s included in the overall number of houses? By streamlining info, you can cover the important info, not every known piece of info down to the street name. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 06:18, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Why not? Why can’t the readers know what exactly was surveyed and assessed? And details down to the street name is fine, though that should be somewhat limited in tornado sections, but it’s free game in tornado articles. And you still haven’t clarified whether you oppose the criteria for normal tornado sections yet. This isn’t just about the “List of notable US tornadoes”

I see no reason to use “streamlining” information just as an excuse not to give these sections a proper place. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Do tornado articles typically mention the number of buildings surveyed, or not damaged? The criteria should be based on existing Wikipedia policy. Namely, not to include routine info, or the sort of stuff you’d only see in a newspaper (Wikipedia isn’t a newspaper). As I said before, perhaps the criteria should more be about which individual tornadoes get articles (as opposed to outbreaks). I think having a long summary for some of these tornadoes is fine, with no need for a new article. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

What...? Yes, I'm fairly sure some articles in fact do mention that in the aftermath section, or something close to it. And they definitely mention the number of homes with minor, moderate, severe damage, etc. I really don't see how this is anything like "routine" info or a newspaper. Also, we already have criteria for individual tornado articles, at WP:NTORNADO, which I swear I have seen you cite before. And no, it's really not fine, because if a tornado that would 100% get a section in an outbreak article just wasn't part of an outbreak notable enough for said outbreak article, then it shouldn't just get stuck with some summary in the list, as this violates WP:UNDUE. There needs to be fair coverage of tornadoes, regardless if it has a parent outbreak article or not, and the list summaries just don't cut it. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I asked, do tornado articles typically mention the number of structures that were surveyed but had no damage? Also, if the article doesn't specify what minor/moderate/severe damage is, then my proposed sentence still works: "The tornado damaged 1,548 structures to some degree, of which 29 were destroyed." That covers all of the damaged homes adequately. And if homes were surveyed but had no damage, that's just adding information about what a tornado didn't do, which doesn't add anything. That's what I mean by routine, like the kind of information you'd see in a press bulletin, but not in an encyclopedia summary. I believe the list summaries do in fact "cut it". Also, you misunderstood my other point, regarding WP:NTORNADO, in that there isn't enough distinction whether there should be an article for a specific tornado as opposed to an outbreak. This is in regard to the earlier mention of Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020 and its two subarticles. I don't believe this sentence covers that distinction enough:

"Content forks, also known as "CFORKS",[3] have historically been used to merge small tornado articles into sections on their respective tornado outbreak page."

That is the area that I think these criteria could be useful toward. There's no reason there are three articles covering the tornado outbreak of March 2-3, 2020, not when Tornado outbreak of February 7, 2017 shows a more ideal standard for a small outbreak with one notable tornado. I still think the monthly US tornado list is working fine. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• "Do tornado articles typically mention the number of structures that were surveyed but had no damage?" - Maybe not the ones that don't have damage, but I don't really see why it couldn't be added, as the surveying is just a part of the aftermath and recovery.
• "if the article doesn't specify what minor/moderate/severe damage is, then my proposed sentence still works: "The tornado damaged 1,548 structures to some degree, of which 29 were destroyed." That covers all of the damaged homes adequately." - I mean sure if you want something really simple, but I see no reason why we couldn't add the number homes that sustained different levels of damage.
• "That's what I mean by routine, like the kind of information you'd see in a press bulletin, but not in an encyclopedia summary."' - I don't see why statisics like that wouldn't be something an encyclopedia summary has, but okay.
• "I believe the list summaries do in fact "cut it"."' - I don't believe we will ever agree here. The list summaries are very limiting and don't allow for even images, so I still believe that it violates WP:UNDUE.
• "Also, you misunderstood my other point, regarding WP:NTORNADO, in that there isn't enough distinction whether there should be an article for a specific tornado as opposed to an outbreak." - I suppose this is true.
• "That is the area that I think these criteria could be useful toward. There's no reason there are three articles covering the tornado outbreak of March 2-3, 2020, not when Tornado outbreak of February 7, 2017 shows a more ideal standard for a small outbreak with one notable tornado." - I really hope you aren't implying that 2020 Cookeville tornado (50k+ bytes) and 2020 Nashville tornado (30k+ bytes) should be merged. I can tell you it will end up like the attempt to merge the Hurricane Milton tornado outbreak. Ignoring that, though, I can see the need for criteria on whether a tornado outbreak article or a standalone tornado article should be made in regards to events like the Garden City, MS EF3 or the Tornado outbreak of February 7, 2017. Regardless, this is not what I made this criteria for, not even close. This criteria is for any tornado section, outbreak article or wherever else, and the List of notable United States tornadoes in 2026 was just a second thing.

Lightbulb Noob (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Merging the 2020 outbreak back in would be one of the worst merge attempts I've seen in a decent while, haha. 50,000 bytes is a "content fork"? Give me a break. I think back to the Jarrell tornado discussion where a few people argued it was a fork and it ended up basically being SNOW kept. Eoline 15:17, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The Cookeville tornado has 3,826 words in the body of the article, and the Nashville tornado has 1,837 words. The Tornado outbreak of March 2–3, 2020 has 2,817 words in the body of the article, excluding the sections on the Cookeville and Nashville tornadoes. Added up, that gets to 8,480, a reasonable word total for a single article. And even that could be less since the "Meteorological synopsis" takes 651 words to talk about the Nashville supercell. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Are you aware of what an actual WP:CFORK is? Word count has nothing to do with it, it's based off the text prose itself where you "paste" content into another article without any significant changes. I'd hope you would be aware that neither of those articles are content forks, and if you think they are then re-evaluate based off what the info page actually says. I apologize for the "give me a break" comment; that was an in-the-moment personal attack on my part and shouldn't have been said. Eoline 19:57, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Your first edit to the 2020 Nashville article said "actually, why don't we combine Nashville and Cookeville to make a mega-article? forked from 2020 Cookeville tornado." Yes, I'm aware of what a fork is, and I notice that there was opposition to splitting, without any approved discussion about splitting these articles. That's why I referred to it as a content fork, and it was also in response to this comment you said - "Merging the 2020 outbreak back in would be one of the worst merge attempts I've seen in a decent while." Just wanted you to be aware of my thought process. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Your first edit to the 2020 Nashville article said "actually, why don't we combine Nashville and Cookeville to make a mega-article? forked from 2020 Cookeville tornado." - This edit was made in February 2025. I only completed the new 2020 Cookeville tornado article in late January 2026.

The splitting discussion you mentioned also took place nearly 3 years ago, and things on the tornado side of Wikipedia has changed a lot since then, mostly an increased appeal for standalone tornado articles. In my opinion, if we are supposed to merge an article that's over 50,000 bytes and nearly 4,000 words about a tornado that killed 19 people, injured nearly 100 more, and got loads of coverage, including national and international attention, then we might as well never make another standalone tornado article. A very small percentage of tornado articles ever reach 50k bytes, and only a portion of them even reach 30k bytes. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

"an increased appeal for standalone tornado articles" - is there a discussion I missed? I wasn't aware of this change, hence my earlier comment, "sounds like we need some kind of criteria... just for individual tornado articles vs outbreaks." Also, you keep referring to the size in bytes, but the size rule has to do with word count. As for "we might as well never make another standalone tornado article", I largely agree with that but for exceptional circumstances, like when a single tornado would be too much for the tornado outbreak. The 2013 El Reno tornado came to mind, but I was quite disappointed that the tornado outbreak article is only 2,832 words. Not because I think the El Reno tornado should be merged, but because there is a dedicated List of tornadoes in the outbreak of May 26–31, 2013 that's only 5,469 words long. To take a different example, why does the 2017 Albany tornado exist, at only 2,132 words, as a separate article from the Tornado outbreak of January 21–23, 2017, which is only 2,977 words? That's the sort of overlap that could be avoided if there were better guidelines for tornado articles/outbreaks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

is there a discussion I missed? I wasn't aware of this change - As far as I know, there wasn't just one sole discussion. It was just a gradual change as newer editors came into the scene and older ones adapted, I suppose.

As for "we might as well never make another standalone tornado article", I largely agree with that but for exceptional circumstances, like when a single tornado would be too much for the tornado outbreak. - I believe you are one of the few people to think this. In fact, even when I nominated the Union City, MI EF3 article for deletion as it was made too early, the pushback from other editors was extreme.

To take a different example, why does the 2017 Albany tornado exist, at only 2,132 words, as a separate article from the Tornado outbreak of January 21–23, 2017, which is only 2,977 words? That's the sort of overlap that could be avoided if there were better guidelines for tornado articles/outbreaks. - I don't see why word count should be the #1 decider when it comes to splitting off pages. If a tornado has significant individual coverage and standalone notability, I don't see why it can't have it's own separate article. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

If your main goal is to shorten articles as much as possible then I really don't think you're in the right mindset regarding this. Nobody wants an incredible amount of nitpicky-ness on a very new article, let alone one to FA standards. If something is covered I don't know why it wouldn't be included on a page, especially if Wikipedia is meant to be a hub of information. I'm assuming there's nothing policy-based (I can't think of anything) that would directly support this? Eoline 13:36, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The goal is to include as much relevant information as possible, and to use as few words as necessary to say it. You said, "If something is covered I don't know why it wouldn't be included on a page" - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, specifically, it should not be "excessive listings of unexplained statistics". I'd say specifying minor/moderate/major damage is an unexplained statistic. Also, per WP:NOTNEWS, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". I think if we keep these goals in mind, it will be even easier writing about such common (but destructive) events. But I don't think the criteria here achieve those goals. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The goal is to include as much relevant information as possible doesn't seem like what you are achieving here at all. To me you're just shaving off as much as possible in these articles so they can be merged back into a main outbreak page, to the point where the shaving is completely unncessesary and excessively nitpicky. Specifying major/minor damage is absolutely not a "minor statistic" if it's been mentioned in academic studies, which is the case for many tornadoes with standalone articles. Here maybe yes but elsewhere that is an unnecessarily high content inclusion bar that I do not want to see normalized. Eoline 15:21, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Support for outbreaks, oppose a "notable" page - these are two separate concepts lumped in as one; I support the outbreak pages having this criteria but I've said multiple times why a "list of notable tornadoes" should not exist, defined-ness aside. Eoline 13:40, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Alright yea that's my bad, I should have listed them separately. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Lightbulb Noob: you said - "I don't see why word count should be the #1 decider when it comes to splitting off pages." Check out WP:SPLIT and WP:SIZERULE. The latter says "These rules of thumb are intended to be approximate and apply only to readable prose – not to wiki markup size (as found via the page history or other means)." The only factor for page splitting should be the word count, not the number of bytes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:SIZERULE only gives approximate rule of thumbs, and they are not absolute. While you are right about the word count, WP:SPLIT also says "Consideration must be given to size, notability, and potential neutrality issues before proposing or carrying out a split." This means word count is not the #1 decider, and that notability should also be considered. This goes back to my point: if a tornado establishes enough individual notability, like the 2017 Albany tornado, then I don't see why a smaller word count by itself should prevent it from having a standalone article and warranting a split from the outbreak article. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

As I said before, "perhaps the criteria should more be about which individual tornadoes get articles (as opposed to outbreaks)". How can notability be determined between an outbreak and an individual tornado, if the most notable part of an outbreak was one of those individual tornadoes? Regarding the 2017 Albany tornado and the Tornado outbreak of January 21–23, 2017: the Albany tornado wasn't even the deadliest event of the outbreak, and it wasn't the only EF3. So how does that tornado establish individual notability, independent from the outbreak? Either by any of Wikipedia's notability criteria, or anything project-specific? That's where the tornado project could use some clarity. I'll give a different example that seems to work well: the 2020 Jonesboro tornado was the most notable tornado in its outbreak, and the rest of the outbreak is included in that article, which makes sense. 2019 Columbus, Mississippi, tornado does something similar. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

"As I said before, "perhaps the criteria should more be about which individual tornadoes get articles (as opposed to outbreaks)". How can notability be determined between an outbreak and an individual tornado, if the most notable part of an outbreak was one of those individual tornadoes?" - Well, that would require a discussion to change or replace WP:NTORNADO, which I honestly don't see happening anytime soon.

"Regarding the 2017 Albany tornado and the Tornado outbreak of January 21–23, 2017: the Albany tornado wasn't even the deadliest event of the outbreak, and it wasn't the only EF3. So how does that tornado establish individual notability, independent from the outbreak? Either by any of Wikipedia's notability criteria, or anything project-specific?" - While it wasn't the deadliest or the only EF3, number of fatalities and rating aren't the only determiners for a split, and the rating only plays a marginal factor. The 2017 Albany tornado established individual notability because it has a good number of sources only on that tornado, separate from the outbreak and other EF3s.

"I'll give a different example that seems to work well: the 2020 Jonesboro tornado was the most notable tornado in its outbreak, and the rest of the outbreak is included in that article, which makes sense. 2019 Columbus, Mississippi, tornado does something similar." - It would be weird for these EF3s to have standalone articles and something like the 2020 Cookeville tornado, which was way more impactful and has more coverage, instead being merged, even if it has a parent outbreak article. The Cookevile article is double the size of the 2020 Jonesboro one and nearly 4x the size of the 2019 Columbus Mississppi article, when using word count and excluding the tables. I just don't see how anyone on the tornado side of Wikipedia would agree with it. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

"That would require a discussion to change or replace WP:NTORNADO" - yes, I think that's very much needed given all of this discussion.

"The 2017 Albany tornado established individual notability because it has a good number of sources only on that tornado, separate from the outbreak and other EF3s." - again, this is where prose should be the main factor. Not the number of sources, and not the size in bytes. The section in the outbreak article is 595 words, compared to the Albany article having only 1,740 words when excluding the met synopsis (which appears in the outbreak article). And part of that is on the names of the deceased, which doesn't usually happen in natural disaster articles, and the memorial. It sounds like you're saying that the number of sources about a specific tornado is a factor in notability, more so than prose length, if I'm following right.

• "It would be weird for these EF3s to have standalone articles and something like the 2020 Cookeville tornado, which was way more impactful and has more coverage, instead being merged, even if it has a parent outbreak article." - I don't think it would be weird at all, not if you focus on the outbreak first instead of the individual tornado. The Jonesboro and Columbus tornadoes were the most important tornado as part of their outbreak, so that makes sense to format it that way, but I could also see them being titled "2020 Jonesboro tornado outbreak" or "2019 Columbus, Mississippi, tornado outbreak".

Going back to the Tornado outbreak of April 17–18, 2026 mentioned at the beginning of the section, your instincts were right to split out the Ringle, Wisconsin, but that's largely because of the prose length. Usually when a tornado is notable, there will either be an outbreak, or an individual tornado article. So in the Tornadoes of 2026 article, for example, there would be a place to direct readers for more information.

Therefore, the criteria at the top of the article aren't really needed. To use the second example, it made sense to have a dedicated section for the Aroma Park, Illinois EF3 tornado. However, the tornado outbreak article is only 1,551 words long, and the List of tornadoes in the outbreak of March 10–12, 2026 is only 7,004 words, and that includes all of the coding. That's the mismatch that I think needs to be addressed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

I really don't know why you alone is trying to revamp the entire tornado side of wikipedia, like the rest of the tornado editors don't know what they are doing? While some changes could be made, the fundamentals have been working fine.

This will be my last reply, as it's clear nothing is going to come from this. It's just been back and forth for days now. You can start your own discussion regarding these things, but I'm personally done here. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

New draft for the 1991 Springfield F4 tornado

I have created a draft for the F4 tornado that hit and caused extensive damage to parts of Nixa and Springfield, Missouri, as I assume it was pretty notable (Caused 64 injuries, two deaths, and has fairly long-lasting coverage by major newspapers, some local and some national.)

Here's the link: Draft:1991 Springfield tornado Pizza smartguy (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I do have to admit, I need some help on the meteorological synopsis. I can easily do the tornado summary and aftermath myself, but the meteorological synopsis is a bit tricky on my end, especially given the fact that it occured in 1991, well before the SPC began doing graphical online outlooks. Any help is appreciated! Pizza smartguy (talk) 06:26, 18 August 2026 (UTC)

Updating Wikipedia:Notability of individual tornadoes and Wikipedia:Notability (weather)

First off, I want to apologize to any editors who might feel I've disrespected the tornado project (due to the above discussion). I also want to emphasize that I think the severe weather project has done a great job covering so many weather events. Particularly so with historic events (I love that there are yearly articles going back to Tornadoes of 1945) and with coverage around the world (I also love seeing each new entry in the Global tornado template). My comments in the above section reflect my wish for the project to be as good as it can be, and in line with Wikipedia's standards.

We have Wikipedia:Notability (weather), which has some useful examples about individual tornado articles:

• A tornado that is considered “rare” by meteorologists can be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, but not always. An example of this is the 2021 South Moravia tornado.
• A “rare” tornado does not have to kill or injure people as notability can be established based on rarity. An example of this is the 2018 Port Orchard tornado.
• If a tornado breaks a state/country/world record, it can be notable enough for Wikipedia, regardless of rating or casualties. An example of this is the 2013 El Reno tornado.
• The vast majority of tornadoes do not qualify for a stand-alone article, however, tornadoes that some might consider "notable" tornadoes of an outbreak can be given a subsection in an outbreak's article.

But then the section about tornado outbreaks:

• All tornado outbreak sequences are considered notable for an article.

That seems very lacking, and I'm not sure is the most accurate. Here are two additions that I propose:

1. Article length is largely determined by word count, excluding tables, per Wikipedia:Article size
2. Tables/lists should be kept in the overall outbreak page, per Wikipedia:Content_forks#List_formats

I'm sure more changes could be made, but these were my biggest takeaways from the above discussion. And once again, I'd like to apologize if I suggested that tornado editors don't know what they're doing. Clearly with how many good (and well-written) articles, some things are going right. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

Typhoon Pongsona taken to Featured Article Review

I have nominated Typhoon Pongsona for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria, or help improve the article. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regard to the article's featured status (see review instructions). George Ho (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Query

Is it just my device or did DAT just reverse-update? Everything on the site looks straight out of 2015. Eoline 18:14, 26 August 2026 (UTC)