Talk:Tornadoes of 2026

Kankakee Tornado

Most recent PNS from the Kankakee tornado has death toll at 2 as opposed to 3. I know other sources say a death did occur in Aroma Park, but I feel like we should go with the official numbers from the NWS. Source: https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=PNSLOT&e=202603120126 AutisticYapper (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

never mind I'm blind, that's the old source. Ignore AutisticYapper (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

India tornado

@Lightbulb Noob, there is a part in the article I added that literally says "A powerful tornado ripped through a town in eastern India on Sunday, leaving at least one person dead and causing widespread destruction in the state of Odisha, News.Az reports.". Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

News stations say that about nearly any tornado, intensity of tornadoes can really only be confirmed by meteorological organizations and such. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright. I won't add it back I guess. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You can add other descriptors, like destructive. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright. I don't want to edit war lol. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Yea, sorry about that. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Not related to edit-warring, but do you think it could get an article? Bloxzge 025 (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

It would need to meet WP:NTORNADO. ^EF₅ 17:42, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Probably not Lightbulb Noob (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Missing tornado on the map of the location of all the US tornadoes in 2026

@Tetradisulfate there was a landspout tornado in Pima County AZ on January 1st that is missing from the map you made. Reason I noticed is because it says the dates are January 8-March 12, and this one occurred before January 8 lol. Source is following- https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=LSRTWC&e=202601021808 AutisticYapper (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

All tornadoes on that map are from the Damage Assessment Toolkit only, and the landspout isn't on there. If it is ever added in the future then it will be included in updates. The reason I am only using the DAT is because I am unfamiliar with copyright regarding map data on Wikipedia and I only know for certain that DAT data is public domain.

The full map with the source is here: c:Data:Tornadoes of 2026.map Tetradisulfate (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

fair, although I would think PNS information from IEMbot is public domain, but I guess better safe than sorry. AutisticYapper (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean I probably could add it, but then I would have to add a source for every tornado the DAT missed which could get pretty cluttered Tetradisulfate (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

fair yeah. prob better to wait then AutisticYapper (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

maybe add a note saying that it's only tornadoes officially included in the DAT? AutisticYapper (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Done Tetradisulfate (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

thank you. tweaked the wording on the caption below the map, I think that wording works better AutisticYapper (talk) 04:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 1–7, 2026

Ensembles are pointing to a particularly active stretch in early April so I've started this; feel free to contribute. ^EF₅ 13:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

one EF0 incoming Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

In PDS soundings? Sure. ^EF₅ 14:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

for the whole outbreak Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

More than a whole week out is crazy Tetradisulfate (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Better to snipe it earlier lol; could very well end up being a significant outbreak. ^EF₅ 16:46, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Im calling at least one tornado in April Tetradisulfate (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Now that's a controversial statement. :) ^EF₅ 16:50, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

No tornadoes in May this year, I'm calling it Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:52, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Aw man Tetradisulfate (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Reminder that this exists since the sequence is officially underway. ^EF₅ 19:35, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh yea! Lightbulb Noob (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Images in infobox?

I know that for previous years, it seems people usually wait until near the end of the season to add photos to the infobox collage, but I believe we should start early this year. If things change (like more notable events) we can always tweak it, and I just don't see a reason to keep that chart in the infobox for the entire season. I'd like to know people's thoughts. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I mean we could but the problem is that there's been barely any events as of now that would actually warrant to be in a collage like that (maybe two if you count Union City and Kankakee). Also, infobox collages in year articles are meant to be a sort of "year in review", and it just seems a little too soon to be making calls for the most notable events of the year when we're not even in peak tornado season yet. For example, it would be kind of weird if the 2026 article already had a collage when the year is barely even a quarter through. Tetradisulfate (talk) 02:53, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Fair points Lightbulb Noob (talk) 02:58, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually now that you bring up collages, I think a more important thing to talk about is that, aside from the last two years, these collages have been pretty inconsistent. For example, the 2023 collage has an F0 in Germany for some reason? It's not like Germany never gets tornadoes. Also it seems like nobody can decide what the 2011 collage should feature, it's like ninety percent of time anybody ever edits that article is to shuffle around or add pictures to the collage.

The thing is these year-in-review collages didn't exist before early 2025, it was always just an image of the LSR graph in the infobox. From what I can tell, the only collages that actually had any sort of real discussion behind them were the 2024 and 2025 collages. All the other collages were just made to be consistent with the 2024 article and had no real consensus reached on what they should be, hence why the images get switched out so often. I feel like there should be some sort of guideline that will help make these collages more consistent. Tetradisulfate (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh dang, I didn’t know that. Yea, a larger discussion likely needs to be had. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 03:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I assume the photo of the F0 was just added because it’s a “good photo” rather than notability, which seems to go against the point of these pages. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I honestly don't think there is anything wrong with that. I feel like every collage should have 6 total images so that there are two large ones on the top and bottom, the top can be an image of a highly notable tornado/featured photo and the bottom can be a more "pretty" photo, however the editors decide to classify that. Just like the Gary tornado in the 2025 collage, not particularly notable in and of itself but it gained a lot of notability due to how much media of it got shared around the internet. My issue with the F0 photo is that there are probably also good photos of more notable tornadoes from that year out there. Tetradisulfate (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Or vice versa. I actually really wanted the top image of the 2025 article to be Gary because the image was unique to that article and there were already a couple of articles with the Enderlin tornado as the thumbnail image, but it was decided that Enderlin should be top (which is fair) Tetradisulfate (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I just feel like those types of images don’t really represent the article well, for example, why does Gary get a place in the collage but not St. Louis? Lightbulb Noob (talk) 04:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Gary was a featured picture nominee Tetradisulfate (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

I feel like this can be more of an issue of clarity though. A lot of the more impactful tornadoes have almost no clear images. Like the Joplin tornado, it was the most impactful tornado of 2011 but the average reader is probably not going to know that that photo is of the tornado itself without reading the caption. Its just kind of a trade-off if you want to have actual clear images of tornadoes in the collage. Tetradisulfate (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

That’s a fair point. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 11–13, 2026

Last severe weather event didn't pan out so well, but this next stretch is totally gonna work out guys trust

Seriously though, even this far out confidence is pretty high regarding at least a semi-significant stretch of severe weather starting around the 11th and continuing at the very least to the morning on the 13th. SPC already issued day 6 and day 7 15% probabilities for severe weather (with some mentions of day 8 severe probabilities). Ensembles are pointing to some pretty stubborn moisture return, along with agreement on persistent western troughing that would provide forcing for repeated severe weather events, possibly hinting at some form of outbreak sequence. But it will probably still bust because that's how things have been going lately

Draft already has meteorological synopsis so feel free to expand/update Tetradisulfate (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@Tetradisulfate: a draft has existed for several days at Draft:Severe weather sequence of April 12–15, 2026; it should be merged into that one to centralize work. ^EF₅

I thought that was for the last severe weather event Tetradisulfate (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Since the last one didn't pan out as expected, it was moved to cover the upcoming event a few days ago. ^EF₅ 13:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why we need to merge anything though? Its not like that draft had anything more to say than my draft. Tetradisulfate (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see why we need two separate drafts for one singular event; precedence is that the oldest-made draft for an event is usually the one that all newer drafts are merged into if there is an overlap (see this). ^EF₅ 13:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I mean that draft didn't have that title when I wrote the draft I worked on, but eh I guess you can merge it if you really want Tetradisulfate (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

It was "Tornado outbreak [of] mid-April 2026" from April 4 until this morning, when I moved it because the dates are becoming clearer. ^EF₅ 14:29, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

So... which one do we use lol Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

We should use Draft:Severe weather sequence of April 12–15, 2026 per reasons I've already explained but at this point either could work. Models are significantly downtrending regardless so it likely won't be notable. ^EF₅ 18:05, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, alright. And of course its downtrending. I suppose thats a good thing, though. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think nothing's going to happen but yeah, i'm going to be honest we probably shouldn't be making drafts this early anyway. Maybe like a day out at most. Tetradisulfate (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Im more confident this will be notable now, but Im not sure what dates should be included in the title. Any ideas? Lightbulb Noob (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I moved the draft I started to April 12–13, I don't see much of a reason to assume what days are going to have tornadoes, so as soon as there are any tornadoes on the 14–15–16 or so on (as long as it's an unbroken streak), we can move the draft to reflect that Tetradisulfate (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Why do we still have two drafts? Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

They're drafts so it doesn't really matter Tetradisulfate (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but we only need one lol Lightbulb Noob (talk) 12:15, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Was the California tornado from April 12 actually a part of this current system? ChessEric 00:20, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the storm that produced the California tornado rode in on the same trough that is causing severe weather today. Looking back on the April 12 0Z GFS run you can see the trough positioned over California, but I could be mistaken Tetradisulfate (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Its the Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 discussion all over again Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I know. I HATED that March 17 got removed from it even though it was CLEARLY a part of the same system. I legitimately didn't know if the California tornado was produced by the same system here though. ChessEric 02:32, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Yea, I've heard some other people who disagreed with removing March 17th as well. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Lighting in Wisconsin

Should we include this [strike] that occurred in Wisconsin in the article under the April 12-15th section. We have previously included non-tornadic events under articles before, especially if they involve a fatality.IrishSurfer21AltDevice (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Today's outbreak

is today's outbreak going to be separate to the 12th - 15th sequence or not? 001Firestorm (talk) 20:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

We're keeping it separate for now because nothing particularly notable occurred from the 12th–15th, also they are two separate systems. They happened close enough that we could technically combine them into an outbreak sequence but we would need a discussion for that Tetradisulfate (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

yeah. I also wouldn't be surprised if there is an article further down the line about the Lena tornado that's still ongoing. 001Firestorm (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

A draft for the event today does exist, you can edit and add to it here. It's barely been started as of now, depending on how much damage was done today from tornadoes, and especially if there were any fatalities, could end up being notable enough for an article. AutisticYapper (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2026

I would like help and assist with tornadoes 2026 info and assesments. Potatofillips (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. LizardJr8 (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

tornadoes on april 17th

How many tornadoes happened on the 17th so we can add them Ari 1600 out (talk) 20:58, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

So far 16 but there is likely more going to be confirmed in the next few days. TornadoEF4 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you Ari 1600 out (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

April 17th image

Ari 1600 out may I ask why did you remove the radar loop? Kingbob2011 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't know that was the radar loop, i removed something called a nowiki and i don't know what that is Ari 1600 out (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Map update?

Just wondering when the tornados in Wisconsin will be added. ~2026-24153-23 (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

New tornado.

on 19th April, an small and weak tornado touch3d down in Czechia near Jičín. ~2026-24413-05 (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

okay Ari 1600 out (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

well, what's notable about it? i can't look into it right now. 2011SuperOutbreak (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

are you talking to me or the other user Ari 1600 out (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

other user 2011SuperOutbreak (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

ok Ari 1600 out (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

That tornado does not pass the WP:TORNADOCRITERIA for inclusion in this article (weak, minor damage, no injuries or fatalities) and also isn't high-impact or a rare oddity. It already in the List of European tornadoes in 2026 article, however. AutisticYapper (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Criteria for tornado sections in articles

This has been bothering me for awhile, but there now appears to be the tendency for sections for tornadoes that are high-impact, regardless of whether the section is long or short. When I 1st came on to the project, I was always under the impression that tornadoes with longer summaries got sections. Not every high-impact tornado got a section just because it was high-impact. However, I've now seen a shift of more individual tornado articles being made and more sections being added seemingly out of necessity. While I have become more agreeable to the individual tornado articles (I've actually pushed for some of the tornadoes to have them), these short sections have been annoying the heck out of me. Can we please come to a consensus of what criteria is needed for a tornado section to be made? Its going to keep bugging me until we do. ChessEric 20:08, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

What are some examples of recent subsections that you believe shouldn't have been added? Lightbulb Noob (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The article for the outbreak at the beginning of March needed only 1 section, which was Union City and even that was pushing it because the 2nd paragraph of the section was stuff that should've gone in the aftermath (it didn'tneed an article as well, but that's a different story). The other 2 sections fit in the table just fine. I was barely able to expand the Three Rivers section to a length that I deemed was good enough for a section, but Beggs DEFINITELY didn't need one. I haven't said anything before because I didn't want to create a big stink about this, but I've run out of patience. We need an actual concrete criteria for this before we get flooded with tornado sections that are only one paragraph with 5-6 sentences. ChessEric 00:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

As the person who added all three of those, I get where you are coming from. I couldn't find any criteria for the subsections so I went with what I thought was decent to add. It seems to me that a lot of editors from last year and years prior have seemed to pretty much quit this year or are at least fairly inactive, so there is an influx of newer editors who don't know about stuff seemingly based on precedent. I tried to get the subsections to be at least longer than the infobox, which I suppose is a really low bar.

I do agree that we should establish criteria for subsections. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry bro. I didn't mean to call you out there. I didn't know you made them. LOL! ChessEric 02:07, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

It's fine lol, I think you really do have a good point. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@ChessEric While I do agree with most of the consensus including the majority of your points, I HOPE you arent trying to imply that we should just per say delete like 2/3 of tornado subsections in the tornado outbreak of March 5-7, 2026 article. TornadoEF4 (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The only 1 that needs to go is Beggs. I was able to expand the Three Rivers section to an adequate length, but Beggs needs to go back into the table. ChessEric 07:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I'll move it to the table Lightbulb Noob (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@ChessEric I suppose some criteria could be:

At least 2 to 3 well-developed paragraphs (not including aftermath)

Fatalities/Injuries, though this should be different for each case; If an EF1 tracked for 30 miles and has a large summary but had no real impact, it shouldn't get a subsection.

Significant damage done, though as with injures, this is different for each case; if a EF2 tornado was long tracked but only significantly damaged like two homes (similar to the Lena, IL EF2), it shouldn't get a subsection.

Historical/Meteorological significance, this is part of the reason I gave the Ringle, WI EF3 tornado a subsection, as for that area destructive tornadoes are fairly rare. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

That's a good start and we can refine it as we go along. ChessEric 07:45, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

new outbreak today

Are we going to make a section about today's outbreak? Ari 1600 out 🇺🇲🇭🇳 (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Has anything particularly notable happened yet other than the current PDS warning in my state (Oklahoma)? I haven't really paid much attention to it yet, so I legit don't know. ChessEric 00:12, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Here's a draft I'm working on if y'all want to help out. Nothing has happened yet to warrant anything but I'm working on it just in case something does happen.

Draft:Tornado outbreak of April 22–27, 2026 Tetradisulfate (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Why? I find that VERY premature and unnecessary. ChessEric 00:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I do get that, but almost all outbreak drafts are created days before or the day of the event. Because it is just a draft it doesn't really matter that much. The date is just the range that the SPC is outlining for severe weather, it can be changed Tetradisulfate (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I understand that (that's a differentthing entirely that needs to be addressed), but you did it out until April 27. Take it 1 day at a time; you don't need to make the article go out 4 more days just because it's forecasted to do so. ChessEric 01:01, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree, changed it Tetradisulfate (talk) 01:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Should we keep the draft or nah Ari 1600 out 🇺🇲🇭🇳 (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Isn't the Monday/Sunday stuff going to be a different system? Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

A lot of sources that I have seen are referring to this event as a 4 day stretch for severe weather. If there are tornadoes every day for a period it can be considered a sequence. Kind of like the last article for the 17–18 could have been considered a sequence with the 12–16 event but nothing happened with the first system that was particularly notable. This time is probably different Tetradisulfate (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't even look to me like its a different system. The trough kind of falls apart for a little bit but it comes back stronger around the 27th, and I do think its the same trough. Tetradisulfate (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Huh, alright. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Does it really need an outbreak article? Unless more stuff happens today I'm not sure it warrants one. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know either. Ari 1600 out 🇺🇲🇭🇳 (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't really know either, I've checked and seen a PDS tornado warning but nothing else. Ari 1600 out 🇺🇲🇭🇳 (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems like its going to be notable now. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 01:25, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I have started this section in this article, given the TORE near enid oklahoma. Obviously will need updated as more info comes out AutisticYapper (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

okay Ari 1600 out 🇺🇲🇭🇳 (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Tornado emergency issued near Enid, Oklahoma moments ago. Ari 1600 out 🇺🇲🇭🇳 (talk) 01:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

yeah, that's why I added the section for this article. AutisticYapper (talk) 01:56, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

ok, thank you Ari 1600 out 🇺🇲🇭🇳 (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Well that settles that debate. LOL! ChessEric 02:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

There's a debate? Ari 1600 out 🇺🇲🇭🇳 (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

It's a saying bro. ChessEric 03:09, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

okay Ari 1600 out 🇺🇲🇭🇳 (talk) 06:34, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2026

There has been two PDS Tornado Warnings on April 23, 2026. From what I know, >15 have touched down. One is currently hitting a military base. ~2026-15401-07 (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. See also WP:TORNADOCRITERIA. Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Enid EF4

we gonna do an article about the EF4 that hit Enid? 001Firestorm (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

A draft has been created Draft:2026 Enid tornado Kingbob2011 (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

No, it does not need an article. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

If it meets 6 month coverage MAYBE, but I doubt it will meet WP:NTORNADO.

The most I can realistically see for now is a section in a outbreak article if one is created.

@Lightbulb Noob what do you think? TornadoEF4 (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it only deserves a section to be honest. While the damage to the subdivision was horrible, it didn't really hit much else and it wasn't fatal. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I honestly agree. The only other way I can see this tornado getting a article is if it is upgraded to EF5 on April 27th when the survey ends, but I consider that to be extremely unlikely. TornadoEF4 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Yea, just because a tornado is violent doesn't mean it needs an article. Tetradisulfate (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The fact it skirted by and damaged an Air Force base and nearly missed coring the town is definitely satisfactory of NTORNADO, IMO. Just don’t publish it right away and wait like a week or so. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

What? The Air Force Base sustained almost no damage, and nearly missing the town just makes it way less notable. Waiting a week is way way way too short of a timespan as well, it will end up like the 2026 Union City tornado article. I don't see the Enid tornado draft ever entering mainspace. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The base barely sustained damage (EF1 max) and something isn’t notable because of what it could have been. Nowhere does NTORNADO make a mention of any of what you said. ^EF₅ 18:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Why are we even making drafts about this tornado to begin with? We literally know barely anything about it until surveys are done on the 27th. TornadoEF4 (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Lets just make a subsection about it in a outbreak article (if one is created), we can't make articles just because a tornado was violent or MAY be historic in the future. TornadoEF4 (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Yup, thats why the Union City was draftified. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Overall, I just think that unless something drastic occurs I think its unnecessary for this tornado to get an article for the foreseeable future. TornadoEF4 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Tornado outbreak sequence of April 22–25, 2026 oh, looks like we already got a draft for it. Alright then. TornadoEF4 (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Enid will need a section in the outbreak article and I wouldn't mind an article being written for it at this point. ChessEric 23:34, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Why would Enid need an article? I'd like to hear your reasoning. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying it NEEDS an article, especially not this early on; I'm saying I wouldn't mind one being started up for it in the future. ChessEric 23:47, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

How come? It didn't really do a whole lot to be honest, I don't see an article ever being warranted. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 23:51, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Currently, the outbreak as a whole doesn't need an article as the only notable tornado has been the Enid EF4 tornado. However, the NWS Norman has actually already added DAT points for this tornado (a lot of them to be exact), which is rare for them. I've been expanding its summary in the chart and it has already reached "section" length, but with no other notable tornadoes, no outbreak article is needed right now. That could change in the future if other notable tornadoes touch down, especially considering that this outbreak could continue into next week, but as of right now, the Enid EF4 tornado remains the only article-worthy thing about this outbreak. I know it seems like I'm going against what I said in the previous section I made, but I was just thinking about that since I'm not even done adding damage details into the summary in the chart for the Enid EF4 tornado. ChessEric 00:33, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I suppose we should see how the next few days play out, then. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Never the less, we definitely need to have this tornado in more areas than just the List of United States tornadoes in April 2026 article. TornadoEF4 (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

@ChessEric @Lightbulb Noob opinions on my thoughts? TornadoEF4 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

It aligns with what I said, although it should remain a "wait-and-see" as noted above. ChessEric 01:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I just hope we can come to a consensus by April 27th (when the survey ends) or at most by the end of April. TornadoEF4 (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe, if absolutely necessary we could make an article for the tornado but I would wait at LEAST few days first and then still, I'm unsure if this tornado still meets WP:NTORNADO.. TornadoEF4 (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2026

April 22-24 outbreak has concluded and yet it still says "have" instead of had. "Overall, 24 tornadoes have been observed.changed it to had. The specific outbreak has concluded. Blep567 (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

@Blep567 It hasn't concluded, the storm system is still ongoing on the 25th, if no tornadoes occur today then you will be right. TornadoEF4 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Probably not lol Blep567 (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Also one more thing, how does this relate to the semi-protected edit at all? TornadoEF4 (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Also in general that's not how grammar works because it would be were, not had. TornadoEF4 (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: It would appear as if subsequent editing has rendered this request moot, so I'm marking it closed. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2026

There was an EF6 in El Reno. We need to include this in the article ~2026-25625-81 (talk) 02:49, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: EF6 does not exist and please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made.. Realtent (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Article about today's outbreak

Are we going to make an article or at least a draft about this outbreak today? Ari 1600 out 🇺🇲🇭🇳 (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Tornado outbreak sequence of April 23–27, 2026 Tetradisulfate (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Tornadoes of YYYY articles "Events" section needs restructuring

There has been a pretty big issue with the Tornadoes of YYYY articles for a while now, and that being that the "Events" sections (specifically the United States subsections) often have a ton of whitespace and also just generally have weird formatting. This is mostly because of the large "Fatal United States tornadoes in YYYY" infobox which can be a pretty extensive list. An easy fix would be to make it a collapsible list, but that doesn't completely fix the issue.

I have made my own version of a new layout for this section, which can be seen at User:Tetradisulfate/sandbox. I have made versions for the 2011, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 tornado year articles.

2025: before, after

2024: before, after

2023: before, after

2022: before, after

2021: before, after

The main issue with this layout is that it isn't visible on mobile because large lists and navboxes do not function well on mobile. There really isn't much of a way around this because infoboxes are hardcoded to be on the right side (as far as I know), but feel free to respond if you think there is a better way. Tetradisulfate (talk) 00:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@Timcigar12, since you were the one who originally reverted my edits, how about we keep the horizontal navbox but exclude the list? All things considered it is not that big of a change, it eliminates a lot of unnecessary whitespace and does not change the editing process in any major way. Tetradisulfate (talk) 23:34, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - I know the whitespace obviously isn't attractive but that looks way too cluttered in my opinion. Others can jump in and give their thoughts but I think it's fine as it is. Timcigar12 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough, I think I'm just going to make all of the deadly tornado infoboxes collapsible lists for the time being to try and cut back on the whitespace. Tetradisulfate (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I would not be against that! Timcigar12 (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Enid, Oklahoma link is from "Tornado outbreak sequence of April 23-27"

The link should be changed to Tornado outbreak sequence of April 23-28 since it redirects you. Gemzilla (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing that out. ^EF₅ 14:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6th of May 2026(About The Turkey-Syria Outbreak on May Third)

"Although the current report is rated as IF-2.5, the ESWD report contains a high degree of uncertainty. The severe damage (total loss) of reinforced concrete structures and the collapse of walls in the area correspond to speeds above 220 km/h, i.e., level IF-3 / EF-3, according to the International Fujita Scale criteria. I recommend updating the report." ~2026-27654-85 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Source:https://www.sabah.com.tr/sanliurfa/2026/05/03/viransehirde-hortum-olustu ~2026-27654-85 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

And Also:https://eswd.eu/en?filter=%7B%22startCoordinates%22%3A%7B%7D%2C%22endCoordinates%22%3A%7B%7D%2C%22time%22%3A%7B%22amount%22%3A1%2C%22unit%22%3A%22w%22%7D%2C%22qualityLevels%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22eventTypes%22%3A%5B%22TORNADO%22%5D%2C%22countries%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22advancedFilters%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22includeDeleted%22%3Afalse%7D ~2026-27654-85 (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Also My Username is StormL00ver ~2026-27535-94 (talk) 16:19, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Satellite İmage Of The Supercells:https://zoom.earth/maps/satellite/#view=38.1644,39.02,7z/date=2026-05-03,18:00,+3/overlays=fires,temperatures

Air Pressure:https://zoom.earth/maps/pressure/#view=37.117073,38.855036,9z/model=icon/date=2026-05-03,18:00,+3/overlays=fires StormL00ver (talk) 14:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Second Source This Video shows the rope phase https://www.sondakika.com/video/56b56f281f/ StormL00ver (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

"Update with highly significant evidence:

I have found new professional footage from national news (Habertürk) showing the catastrophic aftermath in Viranşehir/Şanlıurfa:

Key Technical Points for EF-3 Upgrade:

Structural Damage: Two large wedding halls (6,500 m²) were completely leveled. This indicates severe structural failure of anchored buildings.

Infrastructure: Multiple high-voltage power line towers (transmission towers) were toppled. This is a clear indicator of wind speeds exceeding 200 km/h, consistent with EF-3 intensity.

Meteorological Data: Local pressure dropped to 999 mb during the event, and the storm exhibited a clear supercell structure with a mesocyclone.

Economic Impact: The damage is estimated at 100 million TL, reflecting the intensity of the destruction.

Given the combination of the home video showing the "house explosion" and this news footage showing toppled transmission towers, this event is a definitive EF-3." -StormL00ver

pls change IF2.5 Rating to EF3 —  StormL00ver~2026-27667-08 (talk) 08:08, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kweerk1223 ~2026-27787-05 (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

do you have any source for these changes? Cause unless you can find a source where the ESWD or a governmental weather service rated the tornado IF3 (not EF3), it would violate WP:OR. AutisticYapper (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

"Hi @AutisticYapper, thank you for the feedback. I completely understand the WP:OR policy. I am currently monitoring the ESWD (European Severe Weather Database) and local meteorological reports for the final official rating.

However, given the 100 million TL structural damage and the toppling of high-voltage transmission towers reported by national news (Habertürk), the current IF2.5 rating seems to be a placeholder. I will provide the official link as soon as the ESWD or MGM (Turkish State Meteorological Service) publishes the finalized assessment. In the meantime, should we keep the most severe damage indicators documented in the references?" StormL00ver (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

"I have reviewed the latest updates from the Turkish State Meteorological Service (MGM). While the formal post-event report is still being finalized, MGM has officially confirmed that the system was a 'Supercell' with a powerful mesocyclone.

Furthermore, national reports on infrastructure damage (toppled high-voltage transmission towers and 100M TL loss) are being used by local authorities to categorize the event's severity. I am keeping a close eye on the ESWD for the final IF3 verification.

My goal is not to perform original research, but to ensure the page reflects the confirmed structural failure of heavy infrastructure which, by the IF-scale manual, aligns with the higher intensity thresholds."StormL00ver (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

As soon as the professional analysts at ESWD or MGM update the public record, I will post the source here. The structural evidence from the ground is already public via national media."

StormL00ver (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

ok, well you're asking us to change the rating here while it's still officially rated IF2.5. If/when it is officially rated IF3, we will change it. Until then, it must remain IF2.5. AutisticYapper (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

"Fair enough, @AutisticYapper. I agree that we should adhere to the official ratings for accuracy. I will keep a close eye on the ESWD and MGM reports. As soon as the structural analysis of the toppled transmission towers is finalized and the rating is officially upgraded to IF3, I will provide the reference here for the update.

Thank you for maintaining the integrity of the page." StormL00ver (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi StormL00ver, are you using an AI language model to generate your responses? Please be upfront about it and refrain from doing so in the future. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 01:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, you're right. I'm a student and a huge weather enthusiast, and I’ve been researching these tornado ratings (like the Viranşehir and Syria border IF3 cases) very deeply on my own. However, I have social anxiety and I felt that my English grammar wasn't good enough to explain these technical details according to Wikipedia standards. My native language is Turkish, so I used an AI to help me turn my own research and findings into proper English sentences. I'm not using it to 'generate' info—the research is 100% mine—I just used it as a translator/editor because I was afraid of making mistakes. I’ll try to use my own words from now on. StormL00ver (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, my English is quite advanced (C1 level), but because of my social anxiety and the technical weight of these tornado ratings (like the IF3/EF3 discussions also it isnt my native language), I felt insecure about making even a tiny mistake in such a public space like Wikipedia. StormL00ver (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Also, thank you for not ignoring me and for reaching out.I hope to become a stormchaser in the future to study these powerful events in person and contribute to meteorology. That's why I'm so passionate about getting the data right on Wikipedia.I hope you have a good day.I like octopuses StormL00ver (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Your honesty is appreciated, and I'm glad you want to contribute your expertise to Wikipedia. I would recommend reading HELP:INTRO to get a good sense of how to keep making constructive edits. There is also a Turkish Wikipedia that you can edit if you feel more comfortable in that language. I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} 16:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Also How Can I Join This Article As An Editor? Or is it even possible? StormL00ver (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I like octopuses^{talk to me, talk to me} StormL00ver (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

5/6/26

still early but based on radar, and knowing people caught in the damage area, it would likely be justified to add a page for tonight's tornado outbreak in Southern MS, once again too early to say but we might've had the first multi ef5 outbreak since the super outbreak of 2011 (I know it is early but from knowing people down there it is extremely bad RN and don't be shocked, could probably be good ol Nws not rating it high because neither high end one did something psycho like throwing train cars aka enderlin but it's a possibility) just giving y'all the heads up ~2026-13190-72 (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

...What? Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

once again too early to say but we might've had the first multi ef5 outbreak since the super outbreak of 2011 - wayyyy too early to say and this is way into the realm of speculation (see WP:CRYSTAL). Also, it likely wasn't even an outbreak - the main cell produced ~4 tornadoes and the Purvis cell produced one. Everything I've seen so far points to an EF3-level tornado near Brookhaven, not an EF5. ^EF₅ 18:00, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Looking at radar and damage photo's I reckon that the Brookhaven tornado was likely like border-line EF3-EF4 (160-170 mph in my opinion), but making prediction's too early before the tornadoes have been surveyed is likely WP:CRYSTAL and they are CERTIANLY not EF5 intensity. TornadoEF4 (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@EF5 Seems you were right, both tornadoes were rated low-end EF3. TornadoEF4 (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

And now it's been identified as one-long tracked EF3 tornado. ChessEric 02:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Wasn't expecting that. Definitely a crazy tornado. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Truth TornadoEF4 (talk) 15:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2026

I would add that the outbreak in Bogue Chitto and Brookhaven had four confirmed tornado emergencies starting in Franklin County and the town of Bude all the way through to Brookhaven and Bogue Chitto and Lincoln County and expanded to Monticello and Rosella. The emergencies stopped around the western edge of Lawrence County near Silver Creek.

Sources: https://www.foxweather.com/weather-news/mississippi-tornado-emergency-may-2026 https://x.com/NWStornado/status/2052193069353550267 https://emnetwork.substack.com/p/mississippi-tornado-emergency-hits Marvelpromaniac (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Because you cited bare URLs, which are more likely to link rot. Hamimh2 (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh my bad, but I noticed that the data was already added onto the page. Marvelpromaniac (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

No bare URLs though, or it didn't get added! Where is it? Hamimh2 (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible killer tornado in Belgium 05/09/2026

A seven-year-old boy was killed when a bouncy castle was swept away by a possible tornado during a football tournament in Hamme, East Flanders. An investigation is underway to determine the circumstances of the tragedy and whether a tornado was indeed responsible, as there is still some uncertainty.

Sources: https://www.midilibre.fr/2026/05/10/une-tornade-emporte-un-chateau-gonflable-avec-des-enfants-a-linterieur-un-petit-garcon-de-7-meurt-apres-avoir-ete-projete-au-sol-13364830.php https://www.hln.be/hamme/jongetje-7-overleden-nadat-windhoos-springkasteel-de-lucht-in-blaast-jeanke-was-een-getalenteerde-voetballer-en-geweldige-vriend~a2346f63/?slug_rd=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-28247-87 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Tornado Outbreak Map Colors

@ChrisWx Thank you for creating the maps for this year's outbreak articles, but is it possible for you to adjust the colors? As they are currently, I feel that the slight risk color is too bright and the enhanced and moderate risk colors are too dull in comparison, it just looks a little awkward. This map from an outbreak last year could assist you in picking new colors. Again, thank you for your contributions, but I feel like the colors could be adjusted, and I invite others to this discussion as well. Lightbulb Noob (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Lightbulb Noob: I have uploaded a new version of File:Tornado outbreak sequence of April 23-28, 2026 map.png which contains some redone colors. Hope those work better, and if they do, I can adjust the other maps to display those colors. Thank you for letting me know. Chris ☁️^{(talk - contribs)} 22:42, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Not gonna lie, I didn't even notice a difference at first lol, but yea it does look better. To be honest, the colors are growing on me. Thanks again for making these! Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

One thing I could see being done is the enhanced being more orange, but other than that it looks good! Lightbulb Noob (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

New Tornado Outbreak İn Turkey 14 May 2026

I would like to report a new tornado outbreak (epidemic) covering Türkiye (Kilis, Gaziantep, Şanlıurfa line) as of May 14, 2024.So far, 3 tornadoes have formed..https://www.milliyet.com.tr/milliyet-tv/3-ilde-dev-hortumlar-olustu-goruntuler-pes-pese-paylasildi-video-7587985 StormL00ver (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

A 60-degree wind shear with a CAPE of 1100 J/kg is also present in the area, and the low-pressure center has dropped to a depth of 997 mb. I suggest a careful look at these criteria because they strongly resemble the anticipated event with IF3 registration in Viranşehir/Kayacık on May 3. StormL00ver (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The Source Of The CAPE,Air Pressure and Windshear:https://www.ventusky.com/patras StormL00ver (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Happy to provide updates as the system develops StormL00ver (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

we only add events *after* they have actually happened, and even then only if the event meets the criteria for inclusion. Hope this information helps in the future! AutisticYapper (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh...Okay Thanks for helping. :) StormL00ver (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Also I know it's out-off topic but for the May 3rd Viranşehir event, is the current TBD(To be determined) status due to insufficient evidence? I'm just curious if an upgrade to IF3 is still on the table StormL00ver (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hey! I'm not the other person but have some knowledge with European events, an upgrade isn't entirely impossible but if it does happen it might take a while, most path lengths and widths for most of the May 3rd tornadoes aren't available yet, let me know if you have anymore questions! ^^ ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

How Can I Join This Page As An Editor Or İs İt Even Possible? ELLEWEATHERRRR StormL00ver (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. meamemg (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello New Update. ESWD has started adding the tornadoes from the May 14 outbreak in Turkey to their database.

I Kindly request to update the table for the confirmed tornadoes using the new ESWD reports as reliable sources meamemg. StormL00ver (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

they are already added on List of European tornadoes in 2026. The event is not an outbreak as only around 4 tornadoes were reported with 3 of them possibly being the same tornado. ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

oh... sorry then StormL00ver (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The Strongest Tornado Of The Year

Hello. Considering the officially verified data by ESSL about Aşağıbeylerbeyi-Çangallı tornado (May 3), I would like to propose the addition of the following fact to the page description.

Having an official peak speed of 290 km/h (180 mph) and an impressive track length of 25.9 km (16.1 mi), the system became the most intense tornado ever officially recorded in the world so far this year based on wind speed and its path duration.

Although the EF4 tornado from Enid this year reached an impressive peak wind speed of 175 mph, even such an outbreak did not exceed the physical wind speed of the Aşağıbeylerbeyi system that reached the status of IF3 due to European construction requirements.

Considering the fact that the tornado has the highest verified wind speed among all tornadoes worldwide this year, it would be fair to highlight the tornado as the strongest one of the year considering the maximum wind speed.StormL00ver (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Source:List of F3, EF3, and IF3 tornadoes (2020–present)#2026 StormL00ver (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. You are autoconfirmed and can edit the article yourself. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

the IF scale is based off of 1 second winds while the EF scale is based on 3 second winds. Translating it to 3 second winds gives a low end ef4 rating, but still, not being done as its rated as a 3 on the scale, no matter what the wind speeds say. ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the inclusion of the Kilis/Aşağıbeylerbeyi IF3 tornado in the Infobox

Hi everyone. I noticed that the Aşağıbeylerbeyi, Turkey tornado (May 3) keeps getting removed from the "Maximum rated tornado" section in the infobox. While Enid is officially rated EF4, ESSL has officially confirmed the Aşağıbeylerbeyi tornado as an IF3 with an estimated intensity of 180–216 mph. Scientifically, its intensity peak matches or even exceeds the Enid event. Since the template lists the "maximum rated tornado worldwide in 2026", excluding an officially confirmed IF3 system while keeping a 175-mph EF4 feels meteorologically inconsistent, even if they belong to different scaling systems (IF vs EF). I propose we list both in a co-maximum format chronologically to maintain accuracy for global severe weather history. I would appreciate the input of other WikiProject Severe Weather members here before making further edits. Thanks!

StormL00ver (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

This was removed due to ESSL downgrading the tornado to IF2. Verified on the ESWD at 3:50 PM EDT. WeatherWriter (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hold on, WeatherWriter. I just checked the official "List of European tornadoes in 2026" main Wikipedia page, and the total verified count for IF3 tornadoes in Europe this year is still explicitly listed as "1". That "1" is the May 3 Turkey/Syria border outbreak (Akçamezra/Aşağıbeylerbeyi corridor).

If there was an official, finalized ESSL downgrade to IF2, that global European table would have been updated immediately. Making an unverified claim about a database update at 3:50 PM EDT without providing a direct event ID or link is a clear violation of Wikipedia's core policy on Verifiability (WP:V).

Please provide the exact ESWD report link right here, or refrain from using unverified claims to justify removing valid meteorological data from the global infobox.StormL00ver (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of verified sub-seasonal maximum intensity events (Aşağıbeylerbeyi IF3) in the main infobox

There is currently an edit war regarding the "Maximum rated tornado" field in the infobox. An editor continuously removes the May 3 Aşağıbeylerbeyi, Turkey tornado (rated IF3 by ESSL with a wind speed range of 180–216 mph), leaving only the April 23 Enid, Oklahoma tornado (rated EF4, 175 mph).

The infobox parameter states "maximum rated tornado worldwide". Excluding an officially tescilled 180–216 mph event while maintaining a lower-velocity 175 mph event presents a clear meteorological inconsistency, solely based on scaling system preferences (IF vs EF).

I am requesting a consensus from WikiProject Severe Weather members to standardise a co-maximum format chronologically for global coverage consistency. Please refrain from disruptive reverts until a consensus is reached here. Thank you. StormL00ver (talk) 20:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The editor has reverted the verified ESWD data once again, completely ignoring the active RfC discussion above and providing zero scientific consensus or source links on this talk page. This persistent removal of official data during an active consensus-seeking process is a clear violation of WP:DE (Disruptive Editing) and WP:OWN. I am leaving the page as it is for now to avoid an edit war, and I will be escalating this blatant disregard for policy to the Administrators' Noticeboard for review."StormL00ver (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

"maximum rated tornado"

@StormL00ver, the infobox section "Maximum rated tornado" does not mean "strongest tornado". It is meant for the highest tornado rating. For example, if the highest rated tornado of a year was EF4/IF4, all tornadoes rated as such would be included regardless if one of them had higher wind speeds than the others. As of now, the highest rated tornado in 2026 was the EF4 in Enid, Oklahoma. The Turkey tornado would be allowed in the infobox if it was rated IF4, as seen in Tornadoes of 2021 where an IF4 in the Czech Republic is included.

However, I personally think this "Maximum rated tornado" section shouldn't even be included at all, or at the very least repurposed. There has been extensive discussion on the fact that tornado rating doesn't equate to notability, so why are we only linking the highest rated tornadoes in the infobox? For example, when the 2025 Enderlin tornado was rated EF5, it completely took precedence over the (at the time) five EF4 tornadoes that were included in the Tornadoes of 2025 infobox. This includes the 2025 Somerset–London tornado, which was arguably worse (in impacts, not intensity). I just think if a section like this were to exist at all, it should be of the most notable tornadoes that actually represent the year and not just the strongest few. Tetradisulfate (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

to be honest, this is something I've kind of thought about my self privately; you're right that a high intensity rating is not necessarily indicative of notability, for both tornadoes (which is what is being discussed here), or even tropical cyclones (as Humberto in the North Atlantic proved last year as one example). One idea I have had for the tornado infoboxes, is for years with less than 10 or 12 total tornadoes rated EF4 or 5 (or their equivalent ratings on the F and IF scales), maybe we should just display all the violent tornadoes that occurred in that given year. This does still have the issue of excluding notable tornadoes that were EF3 or weaker, but we also have the fatality map and links to tornado articles there to somewhat mitigate that at least. Alternatively, we could just list all the tornadoes in the main infobox that killed 10 or more people, but that still isn't perfect as when the next super outbreak happens (and it will eventually happen again sadly), we could have a lot of tornadoes listed that kill 10 or more from that one outbreak. Which is why I ultimately still land on the side of just listing all the violent tornadoes of a given year in the infobox, EF4 or 5, unless there's more than a dozen or so, in which case just list the EF5s. It's not perfect, but I think it's the best solution I can think of right now. AutisticYapper (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The reason I say "notable" tornadoes (i.e. tornadoes that probably have their own articles) is because I think most readers use this section as a quick directory to notable tornado articles. Usually, there's only about 3-6 separate tornado articles in a year, which could fit nicely in the infobox. Obviously there's the very extreme cases like 2011 with 17 separate tornado articles, so a compromise could be made on that.

But honestly I think a better route to take for a directory would be something like these proof-of-concept tables I made on my sandbox pageUser:Tetradisulfate/sandbox, which could go in the Events section. I think it's better because it links all of the most notable tornadoes along with all of the tornado outbreak articles which probably couldn't fit nicely in the infobox. Tetradisulfate (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

But atleast we need to include it in the strongest tornado of the year with the enid ef4 StormL00ver (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Kinda like max rated tornado Enid F4 and Aşağıbeylerbeyi IF3 StormL00ver (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Also the aşağıbeylerrbeyi IF3 was stronger than the enid ef4.İt had 180mph winds while enid ef4 had 175mph winds StormL00ver (talk) 03:30, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Also I think we should replace the maximum rated tonado with the strongest tornado by wind speed StormL00ver (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Enid got upgraded to 180mph Tetradisulfate (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

According to the current text in the article body, Enid's wind speeds are officially listed as 'at most 175 mph'. Until that official text and its NWS source are updated on the page to 180 mph, Aşağıbeylerbeyi officially stands as the stronger tornado by wind speed at 180 mph. Therefore, keeping both in the infobox right now is the most accurate reflection of the article's own current data."StormL00ver (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The reason we can't say "the strongest tornado" is because we don't actually know what the strongest tornado was. 180mph is an educated guess based on the damage the tornado did, but it's not a measurement. The strongest tornado could have happened over an empty field or a body of water, and we wouldn't ever know it was the strongest tornado because it didn't hit anything to prove it was.

Besides, like I said, strength does not equal notability. Both tornadoes did do some significant damage, but all things considered, their impacts were fairly minimal. If people are looking for the Aşağıbeylerbeyi tornado because of its strength, it is mentioned on the List of F3, EF3, and IF3 tornadoes (2020–present). Tetradisulfate (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Wind speeds vary across the Fujita scale, Enhanced Fujita scale, the International Fujita scale, so trying to figure out the strongest tornado by wind speed is literally impossible le. Plus, the wind speeds for a tornado aren't always specified or given in a range, making it even harder to figure it out. We should keep it as the max rating. ChessEric 04:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

But isnt the estimated windspeed is higher than the Enid EF4? Im confused StormL00ver (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That doesn't matter here; the wind speed estimate is different across the 3 fujita scales, and trying to nitpick the strongest winds for every tornado to come up with the "strongest tornado" isn't feasible. Plus, the EF scale is a damage scale; it doesn't take into account reliable wind speed measurements nor does it use radar data to estimate wind speed. It is entirely possible that the Enid tornado had stronger winds then 175 mph, so just assuming that it was weaker than the other tornado is wrong. ChessEric 05:02, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

but doesnt it also mean asumming the enid ef4 was stronger than the IF3 tornado wrong too?

İt could have windspeeds higher than 180mph? StormL00ver (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Exactly; why make that guess when you can uncomplicate and go by top rating? People remember the higher-rated tornadoes more anyway. ChessEric 05:16, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough. If the infobox template is strictly coded to display only the highest numerical rating (4 > 3) regardless of the estimated wind speeds, I understand the technical limitation. However, since both reached 180 mph, they scientifically co-exist as the strongest winds of the year. I hope future wiki templates can find a way to reflect physical intensity alongside official ratings so important data doesn't get sidelined. Thanks for the breakdown, everyone StormL00ver (talk) 05:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Also cant they co-exist as the strongest tornado? StormL00ver (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

After doing a little bit of research into the International Fujita Scale, I'm pretty sure the 180mph figure is just the central value of IF3, so essentially the "default" wind speed value we go off of when we have nothing but the rating. The Enhanced Fujita Scale and the International Fujita Scales are very different, so I'm not entirely sure. Tetradisulfate (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Regardless, I still think the "Maximum rated tornado" section is unnecessary. Tetradisulfate (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

2026 Aşağıbeylerbeyi–Çangallı tornado

290 km/h (180 mph)

May 3, 2026

0

Turkey, Syria

ESSL

This tornado traveled 25.9 km (16.1 mi)

with a peak width of 650 m (710 yd).

Source:List of F3, EF3, and IF3 tornadoes (2020–present) StormL00ver (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

İt is confirmed it is atleast 180mph StormL00ver (talk) 05:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia articles are not sources. WP:CIRCULAR Tetradisulfate (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

My bad, you are right about WP:CIRCULAR. To clarify, the actual primary source for that data is the official ESSL (European Severe Storms Laboratory) database, which confirmed the Aşağıbeylerbeyi tornado with an official peak intensity of 290 km/h (180 mph) and a 25.9 km international path length. I was just referencing the wiki list for quick formatting. Thanks for the correction. StormL00ver (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

That's fair, but still, Fujita rating takes precedence over wind speed estimate. Tetradisulfate (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I get your point about the wiki hierarchy and how the official rating takes formatting precedence over wind speed estimates in these templates. My main focus was highlighting the actual physical intensity verified by ESSL, but I understand how the site's guidelines handle the sorting. Thanks for keeping the discussion structured StormL00ver (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I kindly request Aşağıbeylerbeyi IF3 and Enid E4 to co-exist as the strongest tornado(es) StormL00ver (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Please change the "strongest" parameter in the infobox from: | strongest = [[Enid, Oklahoma tornado|Enid]] (E4)

to: | strongest = [[Enid, Oklahoma tornado|Enid]] (E4)<br>[[Aşağıbeylerbeyi tornado|Aşağıbeylerbeyi]] (IF3) StormL00ver (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Rationale: As officially verified by the ESSL / ESWD database, the Aşağıbeylerbeyi tornado reached a peak intensity of 290 km/h (180 mph), which meteorologically shares the top intensity tier for the year alongside Enid. Since both systems represent the highest verified physical intensity, they should co-exist in the "strongest" parameter to ensure accuracy and neutrality. StormL00ver (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

cutting in- 180 mph IS the default IF3 rating, but the IF scale has 1 second wind values while the EF scale has 3 second wind values. Converting it, the IF3 had 3 second winds of around ~170-175 mph, definitely a violent tornado but cant be added even with both ideas of notability and maximum rating, though i am working on an article for the outbreak and the tornado has a section, i don't see why the tornado should have it's own article. ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Also 180 mph is the minimum some estiments point out that the tornado could have wind speeds around 190-195 mph StormL00ver (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

maybe but that's VERY unlikely and not confirmed, while i think it's probably Turkey's strongest tornado, no reliable source has said 190-195. ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Also 175 mph at 3 second still ties it with the enid ef4 StormL00ver (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

ELLEWEATHERRRR StormL00ver (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we should give credit to both StormL00ver (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

its not a 4 on the scale though, maybe, maybe if the notability thing happens. But right now, it's a no. ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

because IF and EF scale use different mesurements thats why it isnt a 4 on the scale StormL00ver (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

But it still had windspeeds of an high end ef4 StormL00ver (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

what are the sources for 190-195, the most i could see it having damage wise is 166 mph. ELLEWEATHERRRR (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The IF scale has an 20 percent error so the IF3 tornado could have 216 mph but realisticly ı dont think it surpasses 200 mph and ı think it is bellow 200 mph also the damage doesnt mirror the winds of 200 mph or above thats why at most it could have winds of 190-195mph StormL00ver (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

late getting back to you @Tetradisulfate, but I looked at the solution you presented, and it looks good. The only caveat I'll say is it would probably be a massive headache to get it changed, both due to the precedent of the current system, but also just getting it formatted just right and stuff, basically any adjustments. Still, I wouldn't be opposed to what you have proposed, and I actually think a tornadoes by month table somewhere in the article would be good anyhow, even if we didn't change over fully to what you've proposed. AutisticYapper (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Wait; what exactly is being proposed? ChessEric 17:49, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

in Tetredisulfate's first reply to me (3rd post in this thread) they proposed an idea for an alternate infobox. I do think some of it should be implemented personally somewhere in the article, specifically the monthly tornado chart. It's on their sandbox AutisticYapper (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually...This is a great idea StormL00ver (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah...if they can find a way to make it smaller. That is DEFINITELY not going in the infobox. ChessEric 21:07, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

yeah true, it would need to be smaller. Def a good idea in theory. Maybe we could just have the monthly totals in a chart at the top of each month individually? AutisticYapper (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't that go against the previous idea that we were implementing about these articles needing to be more global-centric instead of U.S.-centric? ChessEric 21:19, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

hmmm. true. I don't know what to suggest then other than the status quo AutisticYapper (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

These tables were intended to go under the United States subsection of the Events section, so it wasn't ever meant to be in the infobox. An idea that might work would be replacing the "Maximum rated tornado" with something like "Major/notable events" that would essentially be the rightmost column of these tables but in the infobox. We can also include non-U.S. tornadoes if they are notable enough. More intended as a directory than anything, because that's what I think that section is primarily used for as it is now. Tetradisulfate (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The only problem is that it might get too long, but I've seen some year articles with a lot of F4/EF4 tornadoes have their sections be collapsible so that may work. Tetradisulfate (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

...that's what the Template:2026 tornado outbreaks is for. Why do we have to put it in 2 places? Just use that 1. ChessEric 21:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

But an extra one wont hurt right? StormL00ver (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the breakdown, everyone. Since I'm a student and pretty new to Wikipedia, I still have a lot to learn about the formatting and rules here. Do you have any good tips or advice for a beginner editor like me? I’d really appreciate it. StormL00ver (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

We don't need it twice bro.

Also, its alright to be new man and its also okay to try to change the status quo. The biggest thing to remember is that you should always be open to learn on here. ChessEric 19:58, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Could be useful for mobile users, who can't see that stuff. Tetradisulfate (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

But it could stay as-is honestly. I made those tables to go in the Events section, which I think is better than changing anything with the infobox. Adding those would be its own discussion though. Tetradisulfate (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually this could work StormL00ver (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, we don't need it twice. ChessEric 05:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

What are your thoughts about the tables? Not going in the infobox, the infobox can stay as it is. I'm thinking either it could go in the Events section or it could be a template and go at the top of the U.S. list articles.

User:Tetradisulfate/sandbox Tetradisulfate (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the table is an awesome idea and I love it! I don't oppose everything you know. LOL! ChessEric 14:44, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. Once again, you are autoconfirmed and can edit the article yourself. Edit requests are for those who can't. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 06:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

İ can't because they keep changing it also once they deleted the entire May 3 outbreak ~2026-29651-06 (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

the Brookhaven mississippi EF3.

the Brookhaven mississippi EF3 had a path length of 81.8 miles and that EF2 at the start of the tornado is a separate tornado from the EF3 ~2026-24153-23 (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Removing (180mph-216mph)

Please remove "(180mph-216mph)" from the May 3 (Turkey and Syria) section. Bad formatting and reading placement. "144–216 miles per hour (232–348 km/h)" is already mentioned later. ~2026-29942-72 (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Okay thanks for pointing out :) StormL00ver (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Also the confirmed windspeed is 180mph. so the minimum windspeeds were 180 mph thats why we cant remove it entirely.StormL00ver (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

About the IF3 in Turkey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Lightbulb Noob, I appreciate you clarifying that.

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

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

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

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

Hello Lightbulb Noob, I appreciate the straightforward inquiry.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2026

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

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

A Quick Question

Hi!

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

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

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

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

Possible new outbreak

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2026

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

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

MDT Risk today

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

Draft:Tornado outbreak of June 9–11, 2026

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