Talk:1974 Super Outbreak

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

Other links from merged article[edit]

These were also linked in the merged article April 3 1974 tornado, but this many seemed excessive. I can't access the files from here, so I also didn't want to add them without seeing them. If someone else wants to add these in, feel free. Joyous 01:02, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]



Redundancy[edit]

"The Xenia tornado was recorded on film by one resident, and its sound was recorded on tape by a Mr. Brokeshoulder from inside an apartment complex. Before the tornado hit the building, the resident left the tape recorder on, and it was found after the storm. At the same time a few blocks away, 16-year-old Xenia resident Bruce Boyd captured 3 minutes and 21 seconds of footage with a "Super-8" 8mm movie camera, a pre-1973 model without sound recording capability. The footage was later paired with the nearby tape recording."

Or you could say this:

Bruce Boyd, a 16-year-old Xenia resident, captured 3 minutes and 21 seconds of tornado footage with his "Super-8" movie camera, which lacked sound recording capability. This film was later paired with another resident's audio recording of the tornado strike, made from inside his apartment building a few blocks away.

2603:6080:EF05:973B:15D6:75B1:6647:97F2 (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado myths[edit]

As far as the listing that talks about opening windows being a waste of time - shouldn't the focus on this myth be on the fact that buildings don't actually explode during a tornado, but rather implode? --Cholmes75 14:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These myths should be merged with Tornado myths. -Charlie

Agreed. Also, the inferred linkage between this outbreak and La Niña is itself a myth. Evolauxia 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree--I was in the heart of the Xenia tornado, so I don't cotton to myth-making about it--but if the La Nina connection is a myth, and you can back that up (or if you want to wiki-challenge it for lack of sources) why don't you delete it?--Buckboard 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Windspeed in infobox[edit]

All tornado infoboxes should have maximum windspeed removed; it is pseudoscientific and unencyclopedic.

It's totally unjustified and not something that should be perpetuated by Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. Ask a NWS meteorologist if they really can say that those exact speeds are known and they would say no. NSSL, SPC, researchers, Fujita, Grazulis, etc. would tell you the same and it is very well reflected in the literature. Given that *some* NWS offices do unfortunately post this information, here a couple of authoritative online sources in support of my position:

http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/mesoscale/tornado.htm "The F-scale is to be used with great caution. Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors."

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#f-scale1 "Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the original F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors. Also, the process of rating the damage itself is largely a judgment call -- quite inconsistent and arbitrary (Doswell and Burgess, 1988). Even meteorologists and engineers highly experienced in damage survey techniques often came up with different F-scale ratings for the same damage."

"So if the original F-scale winds are just guesses, why are they so specific? Excellent question. Those winds were arbitrarily attached to the damage scale based on 12-step mathematical interpolation between the hurricane criteria of the Beaufort wind scale, and the threshold for Mach 1 (738 mph). Though the F-scale actually peaks at F12 (Mach 1), only F1 through F5 are used in practice, with F0 attached for tornadoes of winds weaker than hurricane force. Again, F-scale wind-to-damage relationships are untested, unknown and purely hypothetical. They have never been proven and may not represent real tornadoes. F-scale winds should not be taken literally."

No doubt wonderful sources. However, there was nothing hypothetical or debatable about the extent and size of the destruction in Xenia. It was F-5 (or EF-5), one mile wide through the heart of a city, any way you look at it. It took a diesel locomotive--one quarter of a million pounds--lifted it up and turned it over. That is no myth--I saw it with my own eyes.--Buckboard 22:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tornado list[edit]

I'm currently starting the list of the tornadoes (at least the main ones) for this event. Of, course I will need a bit of help to get some of the details. --JForget 20:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an individual page for the list so to avoid making a very lengthy page, but I will wait a few days before removing what it has done, so to be sure if the other page won't be slated for deletion - i doubt.--JForget 18:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To put the sections of individual tornadoes in the parent article? (SURVEY)[edit]

Let's do a little survey here to see whether or not we can put the sections on individual tornadoes that are currently under the Super Outbreak tornadoes article to the main Super Outbreak article as to improve that one and possibly putting as a featured article in the future as it would probably make sense to have the parent article be a featured article rather then the one with a long list of tornadoes. That would also eliminate the factor of conflicted/disputed data between the NOAA and other individual websites on the Outbreak if we put the tornado description sections into the Super Outbreak article.

So do you agree or disagree as to put the sections on some of the individual tornadoes (Xenia, Tanner, Lousiville, Brandenburg, etc) to the Super Outbreak page. --JForget 23:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll[edit]

I know this is quite long - but I've made a table representing the death tolls per county. I've put in the tornado descriptions portion so it will no not interfere with any other boxes.--JForget 00:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8 mm video in 1974?[edit]

"...this tornado was caught on film. A sixteen year-old boy captured 1 minute and 42 seconds of the infamous twister, and up close with an 8 mm 'super 8' video recorder, as it roared through the city..."

This should probably be a Super 8 film camera, as 8mm video did not exist as a format until 1985. 1/2" home video has existed since 1965, however. Any clarification?

Mickeymephistopheles 06:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Im the one who wrote it, Ill clarify. The "Super 8" film camara was released in 1965, and it did feature, you guessed it...8mm film! That might be why it was called the "Super 8"! :-o If it was 93mm, it probebly would be called the "Super 93".

And Xenia was by far the hardest hit that day and was the "big one" of the super-outbreak (even Nixon visited!), but that fact is not really highlighted like it used to be. I also added a few other things, including this:

And this fact:

It was so strong and the damage so severe, that Dr. Fujita considered rating it an F-6, although the scale only went to F-5. He decided not to since some of the damage that would indicate that it could be the mythical F-6, might of been due to the structure not being as strong as it should in the first place.


I posted some pics of the tornado too.



Maximus 100 (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Maximus_100Maximus 100 (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing[edit]

Can someone check the article for the tornado counts? There's mismatched F5 counts, and I suspect there might be others I've overlooked. Cwolfsheep 14:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding the interpolated references to the 2011 tornadoes confusing. Would be nice if an expert could clean up the page so that the closeness of the two outbreaks in scale is integrated rather than seeing the joins. I don't know enough to do this, I'm afraid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdventurousMe (talk • contribs) 06:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McCreary County, KY[edit]

In the spring of 1980 I worked on a subcontracting crew in one of the National Forests replanting the area devastated by the tornado swarm of April 3 and April 4, 1974, called the Super Outbreak. We were reforesting with the lumber producing shortleaf pine, for $.10 per tree, a real deal back then, as most sites only paid $.05 per tree. I'd like to add a small paragraph about the impact of the tornado in that area, particularly on the ruggedness of the terrain (the reason for the great pay!), and the way the Old Growth trees that remained on those slopes (which could only be timbered by heicopter) were snapped off ten feet up, with their crowns deposited sometimes 50 feet away. Thing is, I don't see McCreary County on the wiki Super OUtbreak list. I know it hit that county, so should I go ahead and add the paragraph? I'm also adding this to the McCreary County discussion page. Just looking for experienced wiki advice. Thanks. Soltera 14:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot about the damage you claim can be corroborated with local newspaper accounts, and other local history. Since Wikipedia:Veritability is important part of any contribution, I would suggest citing as much of that information as possible. If you're unsure about how to do that, just try to leave as much info about your sources so that the other editors can fix the citations. MMetro 17:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake[edit]

It's also interesting to note that coincidentally around 6pm on the first day of the super outbreak, a 4.5 scale earthquake occurred just east of St. Louis, MO and was felt throughout several surrounding states, including Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky. Many of those in the tornado-afflicted areas felt tremors during and after the tornado strikes. This is documented on the second part of the live WHAS radio coverage of the storms linked in the External Links section. 74.73.86.222 04:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was actcully farther east, near where I live, in Mount Carmel, IL. I find this a bit interesting and scary myself. Southern Illinois SKYWARN 21:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video of Tornado with twin vortices[edit]

the link to Fujita's own research cites the Xenia tornado video taken by Bruce Boyd http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0469/38/8/pdf/i1520-0469-38-8-1511.pdf (bottom of page 1524) so this can now be added to the text rather than "and maybe a video" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.76.4.55 (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not "twin' but "multiple" vortices. However, when the tornado was forming, it was actually twin weak tornados, and they merged into one powerful tornado. Probebly it was F-3 or so at that point. I posted a picture of it before it entered the city. Clearly, the tornado was an F-5 wedge inside the city, which is illustrated not only by hte damage path, but because you can see the second picture I posted of it when it was inside the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximus 100 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2 activity?[edit]

Since most systems usually take several days to cross the continent and this one was a monster, I am wondering if there was any tornado or severe weather activity farther west (i.e. in the Plains states) on April 2? I can't seem to tell if there was any. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were 4 tornadoes listed, all in the SE though. Gopher backer (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an outbreak of some significance on April 1-2, with 23 tornadoes across the SE and Ohio Valley. This was caused by a seperate storm system however. Two areas affected by F3 tornadoes in that outbreak (Campbellsburg KY and Huntsville AL) were affected again during the Super Outbreak.Davidals (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link with the Eastern Air Lines Flight 66 crash[edit]

I've found this video of a documentary related to the Super Outbreak tornado and which there is a link from a study of Ted Fujita in regards to the length of the Monticello tornado (which he believe that downdrafts and microbursts were the cause of the entreme length of that tornado) and this accident which was later found to caused by downdrafts and microbursts. Wondering if this info can be interested, although I would have to check to documented source outside of this video--JForget 02:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Grazulis' Significant Tornadoes 1880-1989 mentions this as well - there's a re-analysis of a few Super Outbreak storms, and Grazulis theorized that the Monticello storm was probably a family of 2 or 3 tornadoes, while noting that (in his opinion) the official record should not be changed, due to (among other reasons) historical significance and the fame of the storm. Davidals (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia section[edit]

The section on the Xenia F5 needs some work on its tone. As written, it's not very encyclopedic, with too much language like "amazing" and "turned into an F-5 monster." It also lacks citations for many of the assertions about the filming of the tornado, and the tornado's impact on meteorology. The assertions may be true, but they need citations to support them. Sacxpert (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added "amazing" and "monster' for color. What, you want it to read like a data chart? And moreover, we dont need a citation for everything. The sky is blue...do I need a citation for that?

Maximus_100

The article doesn't need color. As an encyclopedia, the content should be sober and neutral. Words like "amazing" and "monster" don't belong, unless they're the descriptions of witnesses, and recorded as such with valid sourcing. This article should not not read in the florid prose style that is appropriate for news magazines and other storytellers; it is simply an account of what happened. Take, for example, the article RMS Empress of Ireland which tells of the ship's sinking in a way that draws attention to the human suffering while remaining matter-of-fact. That's the goal. The article on the Tenerife disaster is similar. Sacxpert (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to your assertion that things don't need citations, that's not correct. Statements like "The Super Outbreak is considered to be the 'holy grail' of storm systems by many meteorologists and storm chasers" demand explicit references. You are stating an opinion as a widely-held fact, and that, unlike the colour of the sky, demands citations. Find a book or published article on weather phenomena that says what you assert, and the problem is solved.
I understand that you were there at the time, and I'm sure have a vivid recollection of the event, making this very personal to you. I appreciate that, and I'd probably feel the same way if it were me. However, the goal here is still to have a neutral, unbiased article that accurately cites both the chain of events and the opinions and interpretations associated with those events. That's how it works on all articles, and this one is no different. Please don't remove the citation tags again, and don't delete the tone header. As an editor who has no particular emotional investment in this article, I just want to see it improved to the standards used on Wikipedia, and sensationalism is discouraged throughout. I'm not saying that all the work you put into the Xenia section should be thrown away, and a lot of it is very good. I just think that its tone can be improved. Sacxpert (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS -- you can sign your comments with 4 ~ in a row; that stamps your comment automatically with the time and date. Cheers. Sacxpert (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Ok, ok Sacxpert. Firstly, I was not in Xenia, (several counties away) but remember the day well nonetheless. Second, your points are understood and well taken. Perhaps I could be less colorful and just stick with the facts. Facts are strange things that seem to get in my way :p

Alright, I'm going to add a very telling picture of the tornado as it is reaching downtown and I may ad a few comments. Lets see if I can do it right this time  :-p (I'll try to keep in mind your not a big fan of adjectives)

Maximus_100 (talk)

Excellent, I am glad to see this section starting to shape up. I grew up very near Xenia and well remember this event. I think that a factual, neutral thoroughly documented article is the best way to do it justice. I will try to help out by finding more references as I am able. P.s. Maximus, you can indent a reply to a previous comment by prefacing with a double colon, like I did here. Easier to follow a conversation than a long horizontal line. EHelmuth (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Great EHelmuth, well I posted the new piccy of it hitting downtown and added a comment at the end of the artical...now dont get on me Sacxpert, I say it is "notorious"...but it is! I backed it up with a few short, factual reasons why. A little color? just a very damn little (Notorious is only a little color)  :) In the picture caption I was going to write "Zowie!", but I knew Sacxpert would of deleted it lol :p I bet he hates inerjections even worse than adjactives!

Ok, I cleaned it up. I got rid of words like monster and fixed many sentences and shortend sentences. It's really starting to shape up now thanks to Sacxpert's advice. It is really looking clean, so his advice is appreciated. I think I'm learning. Maximus 100 (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I added some stuff that Nixon said and added the fact that it was the cataylist for the federal disaster relief act of 1974. Maximus 100 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)Maximus_100Maximus 100 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you're adding stuff, Maximus. The Nixon quote is especially useful for demonstrating the severity of the destruction. Just remember that we need sources. If you don't know how to cite things on Wikipedia, here's a link to help. The stuff about the DRA of 1974 needs a source, and any and all direct quotations must have valid sources referenced, to prove that they're real. Where did you find it? Thanks, and it looks much better! Sacxpert (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks. I got some Nixon stuff...let me see...here:http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=582

I know I got to do it right. Ill learn about it, but right now Im trying to shape up the picture section a little. Now I have added a picture of President Nixon visiting. I researched papers about the Nixon visit, and it seems theat Nixon took a real personal interest in Xenia for some unknown reason. Even weeks and months later the president talked about Xenia, and worried about it all the time. In private conversations with his aides, he kept talking about how Xenia needs jobs, and how buisness needs to stay there and not leave. I'll think about how much of that I might add without going overboard...after all, the artical cannot be too large, since it is only one of many tornado articals in the overall larger "super outbreak" artical. Maximus 100 (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I deleted the middle two sentences in this paragraph: "Before the 1974 storm, the city had no tornado sirens. This in itself is amazing, since Xenia had seemed to always be plagued with severe storms and tornadoes. In fact, the Shawnee Indians used to call the area "land of the crazy winds". However, after the F5 hit on April 3, 1974, ten sirens were installed across the area." This is clearly a personal opinion that doesn't belong here. Additionally, no source is given for the scientifically dubious claim of a special historical propensity to tornadoes in Xenia. WikkiTikkiTavi (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It was one of the most intense storms then recorded, stripping some trees bare of their branches, snapping large trees in half and depositing their crowns 50 yards away[citation needed],"

Regarding the above quote, I am wondering how it came to be in the Xenia section since it seems to reference the eyewitness account given above in the section of this talk page on McCreary County, KY. What's the story here? --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia Section II[edit]

I've added a few needed citations to the Xenia section, and rewritten some of the language (it appears there has been additional cleanup since the above discussion). We do need a citation for the claim of Dr. Fujita stating Xenia was as close to an F-6 tornado as he'd ever seen. I actually did find an online source stating as much, but it was an Examiner.com article, which is blocked by WP. If anyone can find an additional source of this statement, please add...otherwise, it may have to be removed.--Chimino (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your link that cites Fujita's claim that Xenia was a potential F6

https://www.weather.gov/media/ohx/PDF/fujita_april31974.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.49.2.96 (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Outbreak[edit]

The outbreak of April 27-28, 2011 could surpass the '74 outbreak in terms of the number of tornadoes reported in a 24 period. Early estimates indicate 150+ unconfirmed tornado reports from this storm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.119.205 (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until the final confirmed tornado count for April 2011 is known, however, I suggest that the current second-place listing for the 1974 outbreak is changed back to first place. (74.242.203.82 (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]
See http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/april_2011_tornado_information.html The National Weather Service has effectively demoted the Super Outbreak to number two for a 24 hour period. See these two facts:
During the 24-hour period from 8:00 a.m. EDT April 27 to 8:00 a.m. EDT April 28, The National Weather Service (NWS) estimates there were a total of 312 tornadoes.
and
The largest previous number of tornadoes on record in one event occurred from April 3-4, 1974, with 148 tornadoes.
So it is well-worth discussing how to list these two outbreaks in WP. Angiest (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 outbreak has officially surpassed 1974, with 178 tornadoes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.164.181.48 (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to 1925 Tri-State Tornado[edit]

The opening paragraphs claimed this was the deadliest outbreak since the 1925 Tri-State Tornado outbreak, a claim I've seen repeated several places, but it appears the 1936 Tupelo–Gainesville tornado outbreak killed about 100 more people. The 1936 article has specific death tolls from specific cities, so it seems solid enough. I've changed the statistic, and also changed some wording that might be misleading. --MillingMachine (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third largest now?[edit]

I'd like to see an official source verification that any 24-hour period during the May 21-26 outbreak surpassed the 1974 Super Outbreak's count of 148.

174.102.209.228 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was not continuous tornado activity during that period and it was not produced by a single synoptic-scale system so it does not satisfy the definition of an outbreak and thus the edit was reverted. This is becoming a common problem in other outbreak and outbreak sequence articles. It may be convenient to lump periods of tornado activity under those monikers for purposes of Wikipedia articles, but it is grossly inaccurate and not consistent with the definitions of severe storms meteorology. Such sources do not define or categorize the events in such a manner, making the Wikipedia articles that do so a form of original research. Evolauxia (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Storm counts by Fx[edit]

Risk Assessment Models. "Analysis and reconstruction of the 1974 Tornado Super Outbreak" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-03-03. gives different numbers of tornadoes of F0 and F1 than we have in our table. Are we missing several tornadoes and have some miscategorized as F1 that were really F0? -- ke4roh (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Superoutbreak[edit]

No respect to the 2011 Pretty Darn Big Outbreak, but nothing, at least to this point has surpassed the 1974 Super Outbreak. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.49.55 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about "no respect" at least. the 2011 superoutbreak surpassed the 1974 superoutbreak in all meaningful parameters, and only fell short in one (EF4+/F4+ tornado count). Material damages, tornado counts, injuries, deaths, and spacial coverage records are all downright OWNED by the 2011 superoutbreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bowser423 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Why was this page unmoved. The current name violates all common name conventions on Wikipedia. For tornado outbreaks, the year always comes first. Also, most reliable sources qualify the name "Super Outbreak" with the year. Therefore, the name of this article should be 1974 Super Outbreak or similar. The only reason this was allowed to slide for so long was because the "Super Outbreak" term was so unique. With the April 27 outbreak last year (see the talk page for that gratuitous pissing match), this is no longer the case. This move should've been done years ago. The move to "1974 Super Outbreak" was discussed at length on the 2011 outbreak's talk page. This move however, was reverted and the page move protected without any discussion whatsoever, a clear violation of policy. -- Watch For Storm Surge!§eb 16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you for assuming that I don't know policy, I will point out, as I did at the move discussion, that I move protected this article until such time as the move discussion has been closed. After the move discussion has been closed I will be more than happy to remove move protection, or better yet the closing administrator can move it themselves. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, scratch that. The move discussion there was closed as "not moved". If you want this one moved you will need to start a move discussion here. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Super Outbreak[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Super Outbreak's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Grazulis1":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name change[edit]

I think we should change this article's name for these reasons:

  • This name isn't meteorological, it's a media only and sensacionalist term.
  • WP: COMMONNAME doesn't apply here since "Super Outbreak" isn't the most used term for this outbreak, being "1974 Outbreak" more used.
  • "Super Outbreak" is also used for the April 2011 Outbreak.
  • For the sake of padronization, we should adopt the naming convention for outbreaks used nowadays ("month day start - month (if necessary) day end (if necessary)" tornado outbreak) .

    • ABC paulista (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, but a name change has been defeated numerous times. The article will keep its current name because it is in fact the most common name to refer to the outbreak. United States Man (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true. A little look in Google Search (the best way we have to measure WP: COMMONNAME now) shows that 1974 Super Outbreak has 34,700 results, while 2011 Super Outbreak has 32,400 results and 1974 Tornado Outbreak has 78,600, the double of results compared to super outbreak. So, absolutely WP: COMMONNAME doesn't apply here. I can only think of two options: Change this article's name to retrieve the "Super" from the name or add the year in this one, add the "Super" on 2011 Tornado Outbreak's article and transform the "Super Outbreak" article in a disambiguation page. ABC paulista (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the many discussions at Talk:April 25–28, 2011 tornado outbreak, Google Search is not a reliable source to be used here. Since you haven't brought any new evidence to light since the last time this was defeated, the answer is no. United States Man (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Super Outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

    checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Xenia F5 tornado death toll[edit]

    In 1974 Super Outbreak#Events and aftermath it says it killed 34 people. In 1974 Super Outbreak#Xenia, Ohio it says it killed 32. Finally in the "outbreak death toll" in seen in the 1974 Super Outbreak#Brandenburg, Kentucky section, it says the death toll in Greene County, Ohio (which is where Xenia, Ohio is located) was 36. I don't know which one is the most accurate. If someone could find a reliable source with the most accurate number, maybe I'll make that change and use it as a reference.--Kevjgav (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to one external link on 1974 Super Outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

    ☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified one external link on 1974 Super Outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 6 external links on 1974 Super Outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 4 external links on 1974 Super Outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Notable tornadoes[edit]

    I would like to know if it is all right to the ratings of each tornado in the section title? I've seen this was done in a few articles for tornado outbreaks (i.e. 1998 Comfrey–St. Peter tornado outbreak, Tornado outbreak of April 6–9, 1998, etc.). In this case I was thinking of it looking like this ("Xenia, Ohio (F5)" or "Louisville, Kentucky (F4)"). I won't do anything until I get a consensus, but please let me know when possible. Thank You. --Halls4521 (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nah, the ratings shouldn't be in the headers. Those ones you mentioned should probably be removed actually. United States Man (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

    The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

    Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

    The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

    Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    User is falsely claiming misattributed photos are his own work[edit]

    The purported Brandenburg photo is from Xenia, OH. The purported Louisville photo is from Kennard, IN. The purported Monticello photo is from Parker City, IN. Somebody is falsely claiming these photos are their own work, and is publishing misattributed photos and false info. Make sure this doesn't happen anymore. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

    I am aware of false claims of ownership, and filed deletion requests on the Commons on those grounds back in October, but nothing has been done. I did not know about them being attributed to the wrong tornadoes. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All good. I fixed it myself. The sources of these can all be found with a little digging, and they are not the photos of the tornadoes that the user purported them to be.

    TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

    Xenia tornado page[edit]

    Should we have a page for the F5 in Xenia? Looks notable enough for a spilt and long enough. 108.170.65.170 (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm.... It was an F5 tornado and flattened lots of houses + it got a preliminary rating of F6, but I'm not sure many other people would agree. I'll ping the following editors to see what they say.
    @United States Man, Elijahandskip, TornadoLGS, Sarrail, TornadoInformation12, Nicholas Krasznavolgyi, ChessEric, Penitentes, Wxtrackercody, Mjeims, and Supportstorm: Poodle23 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Go for it. I think every (E)F5 tornado could and probably should have its own article eventually, this one's certainly a good place to start. Penitentes (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply no logical reason to have articles for every F5. In most cases, a section within the outbreak article is more than enough. United States Man (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are plenty of violent tornadoes, particularly older ones, that could use articles instead of subsections. They're more than notable. It would be a more difficult task for editors who are newer or don't have experience writing older articles, since the primary sources would probably be newspapers (which requires a subscription). wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 00:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotta agree with Cody. Its not like most of us are inexperienced or unwilling to create the articles, but the methods and needs of citation in this type of articles are different to what one is usually used to, and maybe we don't have the accesses to get the information we need, or have to pay for them. But if we get serious about it, don't doubt about our help. Mjeims (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Highly disagree with an article here as it will be doomed to be a stub or repeat of what it already on this page. How about you focus on improving the section on this page instead of creating junk in two places. United States Man (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm kinda with USM on this. Unless it can be expanded, it should stay as a section (though it is longer than a stub). Creating an article from the text we currently have would mean cutting down the content on this page (why have the exact same content in two places?) At that point it just seems like a waste of time and energy. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Poodle23: By the way, that IP that started this is a sockpuppet. It would be in your best interest not to pay attention to socks. United States Man (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, geez, I didn't even notice this thread was started over a year ago. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! Not gonna lie though; a page for Xenia is not totally a bad idea, although I doubt there will be enough information for it. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the section below this, I started a formal split proposal for community consensus. Elijahandskip (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Splitting proposal (Xenia)[edit]

    I propose the section about the Xenia F5 tornado be split into its own article called 1974 Xenia tornado. Extremely notable and well-known tornado & its section is about the same size as the 2011 Smithville, Mississippi tornado, which is a stand-alone article. Elijahandskip (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Oppose – This would create an unnecessary content fork for an article that would not end up expanding on the subject outside of what we already have here. United States Man (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1974 Xenia tornado‎[edit]

    An AfD is taking place with concerns this may be a WP:CONTENTFORK. United States Man (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Jasper Tornado: Destroyed Church in Alabama[edit]

    I vividly remember this tornado. The church destroyed was Alta Hill Baptist Church in Fayette County. Should I insert the name of the church? Johnalex1 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1974_Super_Outbreak&oldid=1196082885"