# Talk:2025 Enderlin tornado

The current image is fine, but we can't really see the tornado itself. I say because of this tornado being as significant and historic as it is, and also because there are so many great images of it out there, we make an effort in getting permission from a chaser to include one of their images. We can do this after we flesh out the article because this is a very recent update Tetradisulfate (talk) 22:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Currently Someone will probably be able to find a free image out there.   Kingbob2011 (talk) 23:52, 6 October 2025 (UTC)
this video has some good shots around 4:38 and 5:52 (with permission from OP of course) 2601:247:C803:3C80:F0D1:8213:5CB1:4105 (talk) 03:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
most of that is from spiritwood afaik. I REALLY like Alex Resel's photo that was featured in the NWS document, but I don't think we can use that unfortunately :( Tetradisulfate (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
maybe one of us can be brave enough to ask </3 Featherweight.wx (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I reached out on his instagram, to see if he has an image he's ok for us to use. --Bluelily17 (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I got Alex's photo permission with a copy of the photo of the tornado he got Bluelily17 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@Bluelily17: tell him to email WP:VRT giving the exact license he put the image under and that we can use the image. EF5  18:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Ok I'll copy that to him, I reached out on instagram. Bluelily17 (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, upload it here if you can, VRT will verify whether the image is legit or not. EF5  18:29, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
@Celton Henderson: I see you’ve added your image of the tornado. Thanks! I had to of course double check and make sure that it is your own work and sure enough yeah it’s your image. With regards to copyright some users have uploaded images not taken by them but claiming they did which would be a copyvio on their end. So it’s nice to see a storm chaser lend a hand to Wikipedia to use their image with permission. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 17:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Did the photo get removed from commons? It's back to the mesocyclone again Featherweight.wx (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
@Featherweight.wx: no, it was removed as part of the GA review as it currently doesn't have a verified license. Still waiting for WP:VRT to get back. EF5  03:22, 11 October 2025 (UTC)
@Areselwx:, could you please use WP:VRT to confirm that you took the image? It's of higher quality than the one that was previously in the infobox. EF5  13:16, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I looked and it could be great to note the day length of the drought. From May 20th, 2013 (Moore Oklahoma EF5) to June 20th, 2025 (Enderlin North Dakota EF5) it's 12 years and 1 months, or 4,414 days. This is very historic. The drought is OVER. Tornado Tracker2 (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

By the way this is the second ever nocturnal EF5, as the Greensburg Kansas EF5 in 2007 was nocturnal. And, also we have finally gotten in the double digits, as this is the 10th ever EF5. Tornado Tracker2 (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
@Tornado Tracker2: It's actually the eleventh; the 1845 Montville tornado is widely-forgotten for some reason. EF5  16:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
"for some reason" I wonder why lol NomzEditingWikis (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I think the user is saying it's the tenth tornado in the United Stated to be given the EF5 rating. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 15:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Hackleburg and Moore's estimates both end at 210mph. Enderlin and Piedmont explicitly exceed that at >210. Which means Hackleburg and Moore should not be mentioned as tying Enderlin, only Piedmont should. I tried removing the 2 last night but they were re-added. Featherweight.wx (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

They are both still in the 210 mph category which is the highest the tornadoes on the scale have been rated, so this is still accurate. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 15:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how 210 is equal to any number greater than 210 Featherweight.wx (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I have to agree, that is the explicit difference between >210 and ≥210. Penitentes (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Ditto. I also don't agree with it being removed. EF5  16:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
I only added that section because it was already featured in the Moore and Piedmont articles, if its considered OR or too controversial then we need to remove that segment from the other articles Tetradisulfate (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
If we want to keep it then we need a source explicitly making this claim, especially as one will not consider both >210 tornadoes tied. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

As with Greensburg tornado (ironically that event and this one have numerous similarities), in the coming months I will attempt to get this to WP:FA status. EF5  18:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Why in bold text on the first page "Enderlin tornado #1" is "#1"? Kubahgsl (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Because that's what it's referred to in the PNS. I tried to remove the entire statement but was reverted, so that's the best that will come of it. EF5  19:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Enderlin, North Dakota EF5 tornado.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

... that the Enderlin, North Dakota, tornado earned the first EF5 rating in 12 years by throwing train cars over four times as heavy and nearly twice the distance needed for the rating?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ankarette Twynho
Comment: Apologies about the convoluted source. The article is brand new and already at GA, and weatherspace editors are on it with a fervor I haven't seen since I started editing here (except for ongoing storms). I feel it's only right for this to get some recognition (it was at ITN/C but won't be posted), and I've plenty of QPQs leftover. Again, credit to EF5 and ChessEric for this one.

Departure– (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC).

Damnit, I was going to nominate with the exact same hook later today lol (do they hand out 4As if you aren’t the one nominating the DYK?). Original hook is interesting as-is. EF5  16:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
For the purposes of 4A, I'm fine with you taking credit for this one, as you were the one who basically built this page up to where it is now. Departure– (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Nono, it’s okay, DYK still counts even if you aren’t the one nominating. Maybe we could use the Alex Resel or Henderson images? EF5  16:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
I personally think it'd be only right to use the photo of the moved train cars, but sadly this is one of the only cases of free tornado image, non-free damage image. Departure– (talk) 16:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Hey! Don't forget about me! It said me and EF5! XD ChessEric 16:10, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Note that while the article is currently at WP:GAR and will be there for at least a month the nomination is still valid as it was created in the last seven days. EF5  13:38, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
 The article has been vetted so thoroughly in what are essentially two GARs that I have 0 doubts about its quality. It was nominated within the time limit. I do wonder whether the hook could be simplified to be more accessible to the general audience. "EF5" does not mean anything to most of us, I think. Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
@Departure–, EF5,  and Surtsicna: How does this sound then?
ALT1 ... that the 2025 Enderlin tornado lifted multiple freight train cars into the air?
I imagine that that it is not unheard of for tornadoes to lift vehicles into the air, but for a layperson, this probably gets the job done without reliance on specialist terminology like EF strength. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Here's an idea:
ALT2 ... that the 2025 Enderlin tornado lofted and threw loaded train cars further than its surveyors had seen lighter vehicles thrown?
Let me know what you think. A good bit of the interesting-ness of this, to me, comes from how surveyors hadn't seen this to this extent to then. Departure– (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
@Departure–: looks good, but I don't see where that would be sourced from. I say if we have a source for it we're good to go. EF5  15:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
I think the source from the DAT (outlined in the nom) works (though, on second thought, maybe replace "surveyed" with "accounted for"). How about...
ALT3 ... that the 2025 Enderlin tornado threw train cars nearly twice as far as researchers up to then had accounted for?
@Narutolovehinata5: Let me know what you think of this (and if you have any trouble getting to the source).  Departure– (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
For DAT, I have a short guide on how to use it at User:EF5/How to use DAT. Looks good to me. EF5  16:32, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

A few days ago, I noticed that the radar scan in the infobox was the 0411z scan, yet the image description still says "near peak intensity." However, there is another scan (0408z) that is even closer, but even that one is still after the train I believe. So I changed it to the 0408z scan, including velocity since the velocity signature could be notable to the article (it is mentioned in the PNS.) This morning, it was changed back to 0411 and I'm not sure why, since the two-panel 0408z scan is more accurate to peak intensity *and* is more notable to be included in the article. I think another editor tried to bring back the 0408z scan as well, but it was changed again. I want to avoid an edit war here, so I'm just asking for a little bit of consensus on what to do here. Featherweight.wx (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, silly me. It's still there, just further down in the article. My bad! Featherweight.wx (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay, now it is fully removed. I don't really think that's right, for the reasons described in the original message. Featherweight.wx (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Because we don't need two separate images of the same radar scan. EF5  17:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
They aren't the same scan, and the one I'm talking about is more notable due to the PNS Featherweight.wx (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Do we really need a separate section? This section almost entirely duplicates the description of this damage in the met synopsis and adds little new information. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe not a separate section, but I do still think the information would be useful somewhere in the aftermath section. If anything just remove the sub header. EF5  18:34, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
The aftermath section should be about the impacts themselves, not what the damage was rated as. We don't, for example, talk about Hurricane Michael's post-season Category 5 upgrade in its aftermath section. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Aftermath sections for tornadoes usually cover casualties, recovery efforts, the rating (if needed) and damage. The rating was part of the tornado's aftermath, so I personally think it should be included there in some way. Might just be me, though. Not exactly sure how hurricanes do it but I do know that in the case of Hurricane Andrew it's included in a "meteorological history" article. EF5  18:49, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
Weird, I could've swore that was included in a met-history article. Anyways. EF5  18:52, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
That doesn't make it right to do here. Duplicate content is not MOS-compliant.
The other solution would be to pare down the description in the synopsis to only mention that it was first EF3 and then EF5, with details to follow further below. But we cannot have duplicate content at this level, and I believe this article in general was passed to GA prematurely. Jasper Deng (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
And I disagree with you about that, but I'm really not wanting to argue about this. If you think it was premature, take it to WP:GAR, where it can be decided.  EF5  18:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)


### 2025 Enderlin tornado
This is incorrectly reported ~2025-35718-31 (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it was done by a random unregistered user. Possibly vandalism. TornadoLGS (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC)