Template talk:Infobox tornado outbreak

	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.

Windspeed in infobox

Tornado infoboxes should have maximum windspeed removed; it is pseudoscientific and unencyclopedic. Evolauxia 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#f-scale1 "Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the original F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors. Also, the process of rating the damage itself is largely a judgment call -- quite inconsistent and arbitrary (Doswell and Burgess, 1988). Even meteorologists and engineers highly experienced in damage survey techniques often came up with different F-scale ratings for the same damage." "So if the original F-scale winds are just guesses, why are they so specific? Excellent question. Those winds were arbitrarily attached to the damage scale based on 12-step mathematical interpolation between the hurricane criteria of the Beaufort wind scale, and the threshold for Mach 1 (738 mph). Though the F-scale actually peaks at F12 (Mach 1), only F1 through F5 are used in practice, with F0 attached for tornadoes of winds weaker than hurricane force. Again, F-scale wind-to-damage relationships are untested, unknown and purely hypothetical. They have never been proven and may not represent real tornadoes. F-scale winds should not be taken literally."

Thanks for making the infobox. The wind speed info has been removed.

I updated footnote #2 so that it refers to F-scale damage instead of wind speed. --JFreeman ^(talk) 06:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make 'duration' optional

Please will someone make the duration parameter optional, so that, for single-tornado events like Birmingham Tornado (UK), where no value is entered, the field and its footnote do not appear (and so that the second footnote is renumbered accordingly; or, say, dagger and tilde symbols used instead of numbering). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Injuries field, or rename total fatalities to casualties

Right now, it seems like (see e.g. Mid-April 2012 tornado outbreak) people put the injuries in the "total fatalities" field, which doesn't really make sense. There should probably be a separate injuries field, or a combined casualties one. Superm401 - Talk 13:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]