# Talk:Tornado outbreak of December 28–29, 2024

can someone fix the tornado tables to have excerpts from December 26-27? SillyNerdo (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey ChessEric, I noticed you removed a lot of detail from the Athens tornado summary. I was hoping to take this to GA after the finalized reports come out in March 2025 and probably one day to FAC and several of the RS sources actually called out roads/specific locations along the damage path. Would you be opposed to me adding the details back, as long as all the other tornadoes get the same treatment? I'm wanting to do an experiment: If the NWS survey and/or RS specifically call a location or non-highway/interstate road out, then we can mention it. We do not have to mention them, but we can. The Athens summary I had written was not excessively detailed at all and only 3 non-highway streets were listed out, not every street in the city. So, with your permission, I would like to readd some if not all the details you removed from the Athens summary. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

We recently got a tag on the March 31-April 1, 2023 tornado outbreak summary list for having summaries that were too long, and that was on top of the other too long summary tags that we’ve got on other article pages in recent years, so I don’t think that’s a good idea right now. Having specific buildings and the peak wind speed estimate is fine, but there was a reason why US Man and TI12 didn’t put individual streets in the list summaries: it can become excessive and make summaries of shorter-lived tornadoes too long. If anything, the summary for the Athens tornado shouldn’t necessarily be as long as it is now, but I did leave most of it. I’m not saying that we can’t evaluate this later, but for now, especially since a lot of the info is preliminary, we should keep them short. ChessEric 21:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The issue that I understood existed with the March 31-April 1 outbreak (from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#RFC on tornado lists) was that it was sourced entirely by NOAA, a primary source, not RS sources. The editor who even added the excessive length tag confirmed if RS (not NOAA) stated something or sourced a tornado, then the info was ok for Wikipedia. Was there actually an issue with the length that I was unaware of? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Overly excessive detail makes articles too long and is a disservice to the average reader. Every detail on every street is highly unnecessary. Overly detailed summaries are discouraged no matter what source is being used. United States Man (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
What US Man said. ChessEric 19:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m pretty opposed to having the track maps in the tornado charts in their current format. Several months ago, I had proposed adding an image section to infoboxes, but that was shot down after discussion. My suggestion would be to remove the tracks and open a new WP:Weather discussion to see if consensus has changed. Per the latest consensus though, the track maps should not be in the tables as a stand-alone section (or at all even). Either way, EF5, can you remove the tracks maps until a new format can be discussed? The extra space/column currently is un-usable on mobile devices. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Any specific reason? I see no issue. This is completely seperate to infoboxes, and gives visual information for people who skim through TOR tables. I asked several people on the WM discord, and the majority said it looked fine. EF5 23:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Are we still sure that they're even allowed under copyright? DAT app screenshots credit private companies for their map data. Departure– (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
All map sources used in the screenshots I've taken are PD, or have no CC symbol next to them. EF5 23:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, since we are here now, we should probably check on the commons to figure it out. Might as well since I wanted to help take this to GA in the future, so if this will be the new format (which sucks right now), then we need to know if they are free to use. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I still haven't gotten a single reason as to why this format "sucks" or is not beneficial to general readers. :) EF5 23:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Not beneficial in my opinion. I personally do not like it in the current format. The track maps are not notable enough in my opinion to have a separate column. No policy reasons. Personal hate for the current format. The fact I cannot screenshot the entire Athens summary in a single screenshot at 100% zoom with the current format is miserable. A summary that is bluntly short and it is unscreenshotable on mobile phones. Sorry, but if track maps or damage photo (which is what I would prefer…i.e. the max damage photo), then the chart format/layout itself needs to be rediscussed. This current format is not good and I would prefer to remove them entirely until a new layout can be discussed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Notable? Images don't have to be "notable" to be in tables. Nobody was opposed to the idea of track maps in articles last time I started a discussion about this. I see no reason why it wouldn't benefit general readers, which we try to optimize. If you dislike it, then I personally like it. EF5 23:53, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I was. I specifically noted that I was all for track maps in articles and sections. I am currently opposed to them in the actual full chart. I am still all for having them in sections or stand-alone articles. But due to space cramping on the current layout, I am strongly opposed to them in the table. For me to change my !vote opinion on that, a new layout needs to be created and discussed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Fine. I still support them as-is, but we can come up with something. EF5 23:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
@EF5: I noticed ChessEric removed the track maps from the table. I went ahead and boldly re-added the track maps to a gallery section. I’m not opposed to them being there until a new full table layout can be discussed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Danke. I have started User:EF5/Path images test to see how different formats will work. EF5 00:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I am opposed to these track images, as they are unnecessary and crowd the table. Wikipedia is not a catch-all for every single factoid about every single tornado. It is wildly unnecessary to include these images on every tornado in the table and repeated attempts to do so will lead to broader discussions that involve other editors outside the wikiproject. United States Man (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with broader input; I've already reached out to others on the Wikimedia Community Discord. How about as a gallery, as seen currently? Seems less "crowded", and I say we remove it after it reaches 4-or-so rows, assuming the outbreak even produced that many tornadoes. EF5 02:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm opposed to having the DAT track maps on the tornado articles for a few reasons:
For right now, we haven't determined whether copyright applies to screenshots of DAT maps or not, and if it does, then we risk having a high amount of copy-vio images being uploaded and placed on the article for which we would have to request deletion.
The high amount of images may cause the article to load more slowly on devices, especially if there is a lot of tornadoes that need to be listed in that section.
Additionally, removing it after four rows, if there were a lot of tornadoes, would defeat the purpose of having that section as it documents all tornadoes that touched down within the outbreak, and would create inconsistency among articles.
These are my reasons for why I think they shouldn't be in the article, and why I think this is a change that shouldn't be made. Chris ☁️(talk - contribs) 18:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm confused as to why every outbreak article has to be "consistent". If everything has to always be consistent, then nothing will ever be able to grow and we'll always be stuck with this format, which I think "sucks", as WeatherWriter put it, but in the exact opposite way. I'm on mobile (with horrible internet, at that) and the images load perfectly fine after a few seconds, so I personally don't think that's an issue. If the DAT screenshots are PD, which they should be; I'll contact a local NWS office shortly, then we're deliberately leaving out information that can help readers better visualize the topic. As USM stated, we're always too specific in damage summaries, and so why can we not include images to visually sum it up? EF5 19:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
@EF5: I agree that not all outbreak articles have to be consistent, we should try new things and expand upon the formats that we currently have. I just mean that a majority of outbreak articles will have inconsistent placements of the gallery section that would cover the tornadoes that took place in one article with all their track maps, but not on articles of larger outbreaks which don't have that section, if it's to be removed after four rows. I do agree with your point on if the DAT images are proven to be PD.
A solution to the above would perhaps be to make it collapsible in some way, or make a template where you could insert and collapse these images. That way, the images don't need to be immediately loaded and viewing them is optional if the sections get crowded, if it's kept as a gallery.
Also, if consensus is to place them in the tables instead, then I would support that as that gives readers an immediate ability to view these images along with their respective summaries, and for larger outbreak articles, the collapsible gallery option may be used to prevent long load times, while still keeping the tracks in the article. Chris ☁️(talk - contribs) 19:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I would also support a collapsible gallery of sorts, that's a really good idea. EF5 19:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't support that either. After most outbreaks, Wxtrackercody typically makes a map that compiles all the SPC outlooks, tornado warnings, and tornado tracks from the outbreak. THAT'S what we should have instead of a gallery with a bunch of DAT track screenshots. ChessEric 22:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

(EF5 here) He hasn't since May, if I'm correct. I also don't think we should be voluntelling other users to make maps, as we have no idea if they wang to till they reply. Sir MemeGod mobile (talk) 23:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't have the time to keep the lists updated anymore since I'm entering my final semester of grad school. As long as the lists are up to date/accurate, I can continue to make the maps though. It may just be a while after the event so I only have to update ~once (as opposed to creating them immediately after and updating repeatedly). wxtrackercody (talk  · contributions) 01:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
@Wxtrackercody: We were talking about the maps here not the list, so don't worry about it. Timcigar12 does a great job of adding tornadoes to the list, so we're good to go there. ChessEric 09:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@ChessEric: I tried making a similar map using the same software, although it's not nearly as good. EF5 22:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Other than missing the tornado in Ohio, there is literally nothing wrong with that map. In fact, we can use that in the info box for now. Good job! ChessEric 04:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

i have a radar scan of the Port Arthur tornado. I just wanna know where I can place it ChaseTOM4YT (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

We don't have a place as of now; let's wait till we have a section. EF5 17:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
That can go in the Aftermath; the Port Arthur tornado isn't looking like section material despite its length since most of its track was in rural areas. ChessEric 18:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@EF5: I noticed that you included Storm Prediction Center's outlooks in the days leading to the event (e.g. December 26-27) in addition to the ones added for the main outbreak in question. This was preceded by a mid-level shortwave that was not associated with the main outbreak (as noted by mesoanalysis archives); as a result, are we intending to add the ones that occurred on December 26-27 and make this more of a tornado outbreak sequence article that includes that day or remove and keep the main outbreak the intended target for this article as is? ~ Tails Wx 18:32, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure, it can be a sequence. Not a ton of tornadoes were confirmed on the 26th and 27th but I don't see why it couldn't be expanded. EF5  18:35, 1 October 2025 (UTC)