Template talk:Infobox tornado

	Weather portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
	Tornadoes portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject Severe weather.

Enhanced Fujita scale

Hi. I'd like the template to have an optional parameter for listing the link instead to the EF-scale article rather than the original Fujita scale used in Canada (enhanced = yes). Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 01:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done All you need to do now is give |fujitascale=F4 or |fujitascale=EF4 and it will link to the right scale. --Netoholic @ 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colors

Could we add some sort of color-coding to this infobox? It's used in hurricane infoboxes, and in our tornado charts we use the same colors:

EF?	EF0	EF1	EF2	EF3	EF4	EF5

So, at top the the infobox for the 1999 Bridge Creek – Moore tornado we'd have something along the lines of

F5 tornado

Or for the 2011 Tuscaloosa – Birmingham tornado

EF4 tornado

I couldn't quite figure out how to get the coding to work for such a thing as I don't usually work in templates. Could such a thing work so that the color is defined by the "fujitascale" value and the F/EF displayed depends on whether a yes/no value is entered under "enhanced"? TornadoLGS (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Netoholic @ 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties vs. Fatalities

Although this infobox requests "total fatalities", the display reads "Casualties" -- at least in the case of the "2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado". Casualties = injured + dead (fatalities). So this template is not displaying correctly. Cwkmail (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've changed the default parameter to "casualties", while leaving support for articles out there that used "fatalities". -- Netoholic @ 18:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Estimated Winds Parameter

I am well aware that the definite majority of tornadoes do not have wind speed sampling from mobile Doppler radar, but on the occasion that a tornado has been sampled, such as in the 2013 El Reno tornado, I think that it would be useful if there were a possible parameter called estimated maximum winds. This is just a suggestion. Dustin talk 03:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there would be much in it, since such a small minority of tornadoes have wind measurements. If I remember correctly only two tornadoes that we have articles for have had such measurements taken. So, I don't think we have enough instances to warrant changing the template. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with LGS, it could just be mentioned in the lead section. United States Man (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The wind speed parameter would be helpful in some cases and it's not technically prohibitive to include it even if there are a small number of cases. The biggest problem would be standardizing the measurement: what radar unit, what elevation, what is the duration of the gust, etc.

Given that the 2013 El Reno tornado rating is highly suspect, within article text I favor avoiding mentioning the EF scale rating except in discussions about the controversy. Since it's an official rating (though over the objection of the relevant local NWS office) this is not a policy suggestion but it is something to consider. Evolauxia (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all people are willing to spend much time trying to read the text if an infobox is present; some people will just look things up on Wikipedia and spend ten seconds looking at the infobox, and that's it. There are other situations which may arise as well, but I will not mention them at the moment. In any case, I see zero problems with this apart from the trouble taken to do the coding, and just because a parameter is rarely used should not be a reason against inclusion. There should be a parameter for the infobox where both mobile Doppler speeds may be given (if present) and, if present, possibly other estimates could be presented as well. Ask if I need to clarify. I will attempt to get this to work on the sandbox and testcases subpages to see if I can get it to work, at least. Dustin (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be perfect, but I managed to add the parameter on the sandbox subpage and I tested it on the testcases subpage. The parameter appears to work, so all difficulty in terms of coding should now be gone. Dustin (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the parameter could also be used for more specific estimates, such as by the National Weather Service, when they are available. Many more tornadoes will have these estimates than Doppler estimates, so the parameter could be used more often as well. NWS estimates don't always aline perfectly with the EF scale, so I think this would be a useful addition. Dustin (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I am wrong about this, but wouldn't we end up with a blank space next to the Doppler-measured wind speed for tornadoes that didn't have such measurements? I don't think that should be around unless it was left blank only for a minority of articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the parameter will just not appear at all. You can make any edits if necessary to the testcases page if you are wondering about any other things. Dustin (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since these wind speeds are not official, I would still be against including them in the infobox. It never hurts people to read at least the lead section. United States Man (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all people are logical though! You shouldn't automatically assume that people will read the text, or more than just a small part. Especially with the 2013 El Reno tornado, this brings up many issues; some person goes to the article and reads "EF3" and assumes it was just some run-of-the-mill tornado and leaves immediately afterwards, and if someone else asks this careless person about it, more misinformation can easily spread about how it was "just a moderate tornado of no significance." Some people really behave this way, and it really angers me; in having no indication in the infobox about how this tornado's strength is disputed and/or differs from other tornadoes, some readers may just leave. Not all readers watch the news either, so we can't make assumptions there. Please give a better reason than "they can read the text." We aren't the US government, so not everything has to be "official" for it to be worthy of direct inclusion. And how is that a logical reason against it anyway? We could easily say where the information was recovered from, as I did on the testcases page (e.g. University of Oklahoma RaXPol mobile Doppler). I am really trying to be reasonable, so don't think I am trying to be offensive or something like that; please consider what I have said. Dustin (talk) 01:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that some people could argue that tornado ratings are misleading, and what is official isn't always actually the most accurate. People may also think more of a tornado with a disputed rating as well for similar reasons. Dustin (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is really not our place to aide in the laziness and the stupidity of the public. I still get mad when people call the April 27 Tuscaloosa tornado an EF5, but I know that I can't do anything about it. Now with this, if we are listing just wind speeds (as would be in the infobox), that makes the listed rating misleading. If you have it in the lead, you can explain about the recorded wind speeds and why the rating is so. Plus, as I said, those windspeeds are unofficial anyway, and there may be one or two per year that there are actually readings for. And I wouldn't let the stupid behavior of other people bother me, because, as I said, you can't do anything about it. As far as these weather facts are concerned, 98% of the people are just going to drown in their stupidity no matter what we try to do.

You said: "some person goes to the article and reads "EF3" and assumes it was just some run-of-the-mill tornado and leaves immediately afterwards, and if someone else asks this careless person about it, more misinformation can easily spread about how it was "just a moderate tornado of no significance."" If the person really goes to the article, it is most likely because they DO actually want to read about it. They more than likely will not just leave. And about the misinformation spreading, there is nothing on the WP article that would cause them to be misinformed. United States Man (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the information is provided by NOAA, I see no reason we couldn't add it for convenience. After all, an infobox serves as a summary for the article, and...at least in the case of the El Reno tornado...the >295 mph recordings were one of what made the tornado so amazing. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Man, I understand you in what you are saying; still, regarding the still present uncertainty in these wind estimates, you should still take note that the parameter is names "estimated winds," after all. Also, if you are talking about the effects of these winds in the tornado rating, with the 2013 El Reno tornado, I can say that it is unlikely that they will revise the wind estimate much if any beyond its current value; I may be wrong in saying so, but I believe that all of these estimates attempt to account for any percent error such as to ensure that values remain more accurate. Take May 3, 1999 tornado near Bridge Creek, OK; the winds in that tornado were estimated at 301 "+/-" 20 mph, which accounts for a massive potential percent error (40 mph range). Take the 2013 El Reno example again - the tornado was estimated at >295 mph, which is not a range, but an inequality. The percent error of mobile Doppler radars has definitely decreased (ask for ex.) since the 1990s, meaning these winds are, again, less likely to be modifies (not to be certain, though). I assume that in presenting the estimate of >295 mph, they accounted for some amount of percent error within about 10 mph. Some of this is somewhat difficult to cite because some of the information was presented in the first place via videos, but I can say that if the issue is reliability, we are probably safe (still not certain). We can use the about symbol anyway. Another thing to note is what I mentioned earlier about possibly using the parameter to include NWS estimates as well; one example can be presented for the 2011 Joplin tornado, which had an estimate of 200-something mph (I am nearly certain it was over 210). Dustin (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What ever happened to this proposal? Dustin (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes discussion 2014

Given the edit war that the recent changes seem to have started, I thought it would be best to discuss things here. Both User:United States Man and User:Cyclonebiskit have made a good point that no consensus was established, though I am inclined to agree with User:Netoholic that no objections were voiced to any of these proposed changes. So, shall we see whether or not we can establish a consensus here rather than in edit summaries? TornadoLGS (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The points by USM and Cyclonebiskit are not good points:

WP:SILENT consensus applies to the original change requests on this talk page. "Consensus is assumed when there's no evidence of disagreement", and so, since no one complained in the very long time since people made the original requests, it can be rightly assumed that no one objects. Its regretful that you had to wait so long for someone to do the work.
WP:BOLD tells us that we do not have to ask for permission from anyone ahead of time to make changes. In this case, I made the changes that were requested on this very page, along with a couple updates to standardize the template's functionality and commonize the default parameters with similar templates - all very typical maintenance sort of work.
WP:EDITCONSENSUS expresses the idea that one way to establish consensus is by simply leaving good changes stand. On this template, I made most of the requested changes on July 19. It can rightly be assumed that those changes were seen as beneficial to the readers and regular editors of the tornado pages (or at the very least, not noticeable enough to generate any comments).

The only reasons given for the reverts of my updates here were "there has been no discussion" (from USM) or the insinuation from Cyclonebiskit that since he didn't like my edits to other templates, then there must be something wrong here. That is ridiculous, stalker-type mentality. Seeing as there are no actual objections (other than Cyclonebiskit's complaint about the storm intensity colorations), I am reverting to restore my other updates, but commenting the colors out for now. If Cyclonebiskit doesn't give a clear explanation of his objection to the colors in some time, then I'll put that back too for you. Netoholic @ -- 05:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no comments from User:United States Man and User:Cyclonebiskit despite being invited to, I am going to assume WP:SILENT consensus and reinstate the requested changes to this template. -- Netoholic @ 19:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]