Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather/Possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornadoes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Poodle23 (talk | contribs) at 22:23, 20 July 2024 (→1984 Ivanovo: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

This is an organized place for discussions regarding the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes' section for "possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornadoes". Each individual tornado has a section for discussions and notes. This page and these discussions began in July 2024 or later.

NOTE: This page contains a lot of sections. Be aware of that before proceeding.

General conversation & questions (Talk Page equivalent)

Doing a quick note here. So I started this page so we, as a community, can formally decide on the guidelines for the possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornadoes first and then after a consensus forms for that, discussing each of the tornadoes. Currently, each tornado has a subsection already made, but I have hidden them until we have a consensus for the chart guidelines first. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has this page been abandoned or something? Because only three people including myself have actually replied on here. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conversing on Wikipedia is by nature slow, and we're waiting for the discussions about individual tornadoes to open up. Nothing can be changed on the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes subsection without consensus, and reliable consensus can hardly be built with 3 editors. I suppose it'd be wise to call some more editors who could help build consensus and start deliberation; @CapeVerdeWave, @MarioProtIV, @TornadoLGS, @Sir MemeGod, we would appreciate your contributions to this page and the deliberations to follow. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usually talk pages in obscure corners like this aren't very visible. I didn't even know this page was here until I got pinged to it. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:03, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to all the dang canvassing accusations I had back in 2023, I was honestly worried about pinging people. I did the standard talk page notifications (F5/EF5 talk page & WP:Weather's talk page), but besides that, there wasn't much else I was going to do. I will send out full alerts to all WP:Weather editors via their individual talk pages in the morning. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you're all good. I'm glad you made me aware of this page though so I can give my own input in here. Thanks! Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 03:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should thank GeorgeMemulous for that. I think he’s the one who pinged everyone. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question why aren’t all the F/EF5 tornadoes listed? There was a tornado rated F5 in Wheelersbueg, Ohio in the 1960s that isn’t listed. Why not? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page lists F5 tornadoes before 1953 when the Fujita scale was introduced, as well as tornadoes where there is reason to believe they may have exceeded F5 intensity. If you think a tornado that isn't already on the official F5 page should be discussed here, feel free to add it. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What GeorgeMemulous said. The 67 tornadoes officially rated F5 or EF5 by their respective rating organization (like the NWS in the United States or ESSL in Europe), aren’t in question for any “possibly F5/EF5” lists. For instance, the “Official F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes” section is remaining as is as those cannot be questioned whatsoever as those are the actual officially rated F5 and EF5 tornadoes.
This discussion page is for every other section: “Possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes officially rated F4/EF4/T9 or lower” and “Possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes with no official rating”. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well this one was officially rated F5. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the Wheelersburg tornado during this outbreak: Tornado outbreak of April 21–24, 1968? If yes, then it is already listed as one of the 67 official F5/EF5 tornadoes. If no, then create a new subheading for it below. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Wheelersburg tornado. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a few days since we started discussing individual tornadoes, and already pre-1953 tornadoes rated by NOAA and anything rated by Grazulis has near-unanimous support, alongside El Reno 2013 and Tri-State 1925. Should we close those conversations and add them to the article? GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d say give them a few days. Maybe until Monday or Tuesday (United States time) and then close them. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, let’s see if anyone else wants to put their two cents into it first. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 13:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chart guidelines

Before beginning the process of assessing each tornado, the current consensus/directions for the charts is as follows:

  1. The tornado was previously rated F5/EF5/IF5 or has been rated F5/EF5/IF5 by another scientist (preferably an academic publication)
  2. The tornado caused damage assessed to be "possibly" F5/EF5/IF5. Potentially, a rating of F5/EF5/IF5 was considered
  3. The tornado was assessed to "possibly" be F5/EF5/IF5 intensity. Statements of possible F5/EF5/IF5 intensity may come from mobile radar measurements.

Guideline consensus (Result:)

Do you support the above guidelines for the charts?

  • Support – Yes, I support the above guidelines. A direct statement of either a rating of F5/EF5/IF5, possible F5/EF5/IF5 damage, including tornadoes where the rating was considered, and a direct statement of possible F5/EF5/IF5 (with "F5", "EF5", or "IF5" directly quoted) intensity. I do support those criteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1666 Lincolnshire

Comment: this says that it was recently (i.e. 2012) upgraded to T8/9 intensity, which would possibly place it as a low-end EF5. However, I cannot access the source that it references. Procyon117 (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our criteria though when using the TORRO scale is T10. So it wouldn’t quite meet that criteria. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m going to stay neutral on this one. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – When the TORRO scale is converted to the Fujita Scale, T8/T9 align with an F4 rating, while only T10 and higher align to F5. Therefore, there is nothing mentioning that this was potentially an F5 tornado. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 23:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as T8/T9 would fall short of our criteria when using the TORRO scale. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason 1666 Lincolnshire was included in the article was that TORRO lists T9 windspeeds as up to 269mph, which would slightly overlap with F5 windspeeds (261mph to 318mph), therefore technically there is a extremely slight chance of it being of F5 intensity, but unlikely. EuropeanXTwisters (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume the T8 criteria assumed here is due to T8 being over 210mph. As is the case with 2019 Nepal, only the EF scale's 3 second sustained here counts for ratings above 200 but not above 260, not the TORRO, IF or F scale's 0 second gusts. T10/11 is equivalent to F5/EF5. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1880 West Prairie

1881 Hopkins

Support as Grazulis rated it as an F5. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1881 Renville County

1882 Grinnell

1883 Rochester

1884 Oakville

1892 Southern Minnesota

Support as it was directly rated as an F5. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll add that they did assign ratings to tornadoes before 1953. They retroactively rated them. I read somewhere where they’d have meteorology school students look at newspaper images and rate these old tornadoes. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any ratings in the U.S. prior to 1950 are unofficial. Also, the official list of U.S. F5 and EF5 tornadoes can be found here by the Storm Prediction Center. Any tornado not on that list, if it occurred in the U.S., is not an official F5. That said, I am supporting this being included as Thomas P. Grazulis rated it F5 in his book. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1893 Willow Springs

1893 Pomeroy

Where was this? And how is it possibly an F5? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I figured it out. Pomeroy, IA. Support based on damage description given. F5 actually mentioned in article as of now. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that Thomas P. Grazulis rated this an F5. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1894 Kossuth County

1895 Harvey County

1895 Sioux County

1896 Sherman

1896 Seneca

1896 Ortonville–Oakwood

1898 Marathon County

1899 Salix

1899 New Richmond

Support – Grazulis is one of the people who have widely accepted this tornado to have likely reached F5 intensity. Its inclusion is, therefore, justified. ChessEric 23:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per @ChessEric. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1905 Snyder

Support – Per Grazulis. ChessEric 23:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1905 Colling

1906 Houston County

1908 Goodwin

Support – Per Grazulis. ChessEric 23:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1908 Fremont–Page County

1908 Fillmore County

1912 Kingfisher County

1912 Kiowa–Canadian County

1912 Creighton

1913 Omaha

1915 Mullinville

1917 Andale–Sedgwick

1917 Mattoon–Charleston

1917 Kiro–Elmont

1918 Crawford–Greene County

1918 Boone–Story County

1919 Fergus Falls

1920 Van Wert

1920 Frobisher–Alameda

1921 Texas–Arkansas

1923 Pinson

1923 Big Spring

1923 Hettinger

1924 Clark–Taylor County

1925 Tri-State tornado

Strong support – This tornado was the deadliest tornado in United States history; and it has been directly rated an F5 by the National Weather Service. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support – I mean, what is there to say? Poodle23 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support – I think this is the obvious choice. ChessEric 16:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: would also definitely support this being an F5. Procyon117 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support – So many sources say "F5" for the rating. Easiest tornado for a support. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1925 Tennessee–Kentucky

Conditional Support – Given that there is an entry saying that it may have reached F5. However, if no sources can substantiate, I’ll change my vote to “oppose”. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I'm not sure who Shamburger is, but the NWS Nashville apparently found them credible enough to include their description of the tornado, which included the possibility of it reaching F5 intensity. This can be added. ChessEric 23:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1925 Pottawattamie–Harrison County (1st tornado)

1925 Pottawattamie–Harrison County (2nd tornado)

1927 Rocksprings

1927 Barber–McPherson County

1927 Dunlap

1927 Neede

1928 Cuming–Thurston–Dakota County

1929 Sneed

1931 Lublin

1933 Tryon

1935 Benson

1936 Tupelo

Support – Per Grazulis. ChessEric 23:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1938 Oshkosh

1938 Clyde

1939 Woodward–Barber County

1939 Hennepin–Anoka County

1940 Amite

1942 Peoria–Marshall County

1942 Oberlin

1944 Wilmot

1944 Grant–Stephenson County

1945 Antlers

1946 Windsor–Tecumseh

1947 Glazier–Higgins–Woodward

1947 Worth

1947 Leedey

1949 Palestine

1951 Olney

1951 Waupaca

1952 Byhalia–Moscow

1952 Linwood

1953 Worcester

1953 Cygnet

1954 Crowell

1955 Walcott

1957 Dallas

1957 Fremont

1957 Pavia

1958 El Dorado

1960 Wamego–St. Marys

1961 Custer County

1963 Patricia

1964 Lawrence

1965 Dunlap

1965 Lebanon–Sheridan

1965 Strongsville

1965 Wolbach–Primrose

1968 Falmouth–Ripley

1969 Chuhegang

1970 Bulahdelah

Comment: Most I can find is this. For a destructive tornado in 1970, seems to hardly have any coverage on it. Procyon117 (talk) 15:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I’m gonna have to say conditional oppose for right now. Although if more sources can be found, I might change my vote. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1971 Gosser Ridge

1973 Union City

1973 Central Alabama

1979 Cheyenne

1974 Franklin County

1983 Belle Pointe

1984 Ivanovo

1984 Kostroma

1985 Parker Dam State Park

1987 Edmonton

1989 Allendale

1990 Stratton

1991 Red Rock

1991 Arkansas City

1992 Bucca

Weak support Retired Bureau of Meteorology staff rated it as "F4 or possibly F5". Not much else to go off of. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral – per @GeorgeMemulous. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1995 Pampa

Strong support Grazulis directly stated F5 and potential F6 intensity. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support as the National Weather Service had contemplated assigning an F5 rating. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. ChessEric 20:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1995 Hoover

1995 McLean

1995 Allison

1998 Spencer

1998 Wayne County

Neutral: "Some NWS personnel today might rate this as an EF5 tornado, based on the severity of the damage in Wayne County." in my opinion is not enough for me to be swayed towards support, so being neutral for now. Procyon117 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Oppose per @Procyon117 rationale. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Mulhall

1999 Loyal Valley

2002 La Plata

Very Strong Oppose – The F4 rating was the result of a downgrade from F5 due to a reevaluation that found flaws in the preliminary F5 rating. The F5 rating was initially due to homes being swept away and a damaged brick building in downtown La Plata being destroyed. A secondary survey, however, determined that many of the homes that were swept away in the town could be destroyed at wind speeds well below the F5 range and that the brick building was also struck by debris from a nearby lumber company, which exacerbated the damage. Although it was acknowledged that the tornado's fast speed likely contributed to the lack of F5 damage, more weight was put on the structural deficiencies here and for that reason, I still think that keeps this tornado off this list. ChessEric 21:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Previously rated F5 by NWS, even if it was downgraded after the second survey; this page has a section for those. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per all of the above EPhC4 (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Franklin

2004 Harper

Support – This was a very weird case: NWS employee regretting not rating a tornado F5? I find that interesting. Long story short, this makes the list. ChessEric 22:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per @ChessEric. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Marion

2006 Westminster

2008 Clinton–Mountain View

2010 Bowdle

2010 Wilkins County

2011 Cullman

2011 New Wren

2011 Cordova

2011 Flat Rock-Trenton

2011 Tuscaloosa

Support as some survey teams did claim to find EF5 damage. Plus, the EF4 rating is a very high end EF4. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per 1st reason above. ChessEric 21:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – One of the survey teams found EF5 damage per the National Weather Service. So it should be included. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WeatherWriter. Procyon117 (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per @WestVirginiaWX EPhC4 (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Chickasha

Support – Surveyors acknowledged that while none of the damage was rated EF5, this tornado was likely at EF5 intensity at some point. This can go on this list. ChessEric 21:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support per ChessEric’s reasoning. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Goldsby

Support – Literally the same reasoning as above. It's crazy how this day had one EF5 tornado and two EF4 tornadoes that could've been rated EF5. ChessEric 21:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support – EF5 rating was considered for the tornado. Also, Yuko Murayama, Dimiter Velev & Plamena Zlateva edited a book of revised academically peer-reviewed papers, in which they directly rated the Washington—Goldsby tornado an EF5. So, possible EF5 damage + being rated EF5 by others. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per @WeatherWriter. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Henryville

Oppose – Maybe I haven’t looked too well. But I haven’t found anything that suggests that the Henryville tornado was anything more than an EF4. If someone comes up with a source, I’d be inclined to change my rating. Until then, it belongs in the F/EF4 list. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the article: In 2022, the National Weather Service office in Louisville referred to a possible EF5 damage location at a demolished house, where a pickup truck was blown away and never found and a backhoe was deposited into the basement of the house. (NWS Louisville on Youtube) GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above comment. ChessEric 16:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support as per above editor. Struck through my previous comment. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per that YouTube video above, the National Weather Service stated: "Well that one spot that had the possible EF5 damage the guy had a he had a pickup truck and and he had a backhoe in his garage, and the pickup truck…he never did find it." The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: I find your use of the exact quote to be absolutely hilarious! XD ChessEric 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you need to join the Department of Fun. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know that was a thing! XD ChessEric 23:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ask @Sir MemeGod. He’s got a user box that says he’s a member. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, that is the last thing I woulda expected to be pinged in on a large-scale discussion about tornadoes! @ChessEric We just make wikipedia a fun place to be active in, such as making every article related to the Department "Bottom" class and being responsible for like 95% of the humorous essays on here. Among other stuff, which I won't go really in depth about it just because I at least kinda want to stay on topic. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And ps. I was referring to @WeatherWriter needing to join WP:FUN. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. LOL! ChessEric 03:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I am glad you liked the quote! XD. It was the most stereotypical southern accent as well saying it. I for sure need to join FUN for some good old fun time! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 13:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Cherokee

Might I ask what rationale there is for this being an EF5? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Shawnee

2013 Bennington

Support – This tornado having a disputed EF3 rating instead of an EF5 rating was ironically overshadowed by the entry below. This can go on the list. ChessEric 22:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 El Reno

Strong support - directly rated by NWS as EF5 (albeit briefly), no reason to doubt RaXPol and DOW measurements. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - above EPhC4 (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support it was once rated an EF5 by the weather service. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Despite official rating now being EF3, I still support it as being a possible EF5, in line with its official rating briefly in 2013, especially considering it had winds possibly exceeding 500 km/h. Procyon117 (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Everyone, including the NWS Norman, believes that this tornado was an EF5 at some point in its life; easy decision here. EDIT: Whoops. I forgot to sign here. ChessEric 22:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I’m starting to miss SineBot West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @ChessEric. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support – Previously rated EF5 by the National Weather Service, and that is one of the three criteria for inclusion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:19, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 East Peoria–Washington

2014 Mayflower–Vilonia

Strong support - No EF5 damage indicators existed, per NWS, and I believe it was also briefly directly rated EF5 initially. Here's a hard-hitting paragraph that states that this would have been rated F5, had it occurred before 2007:

Following the devastating tornado of April 27, 2014, it was noted (during damage surveys) that numerous homes were removed from their foundations with only slabs remaining. Years ago, that might be justification for an F5 rating on the original Fujita scale. These days, the quality of the construction is examined before a rating is assigned. One of the factors determining the rating is the use of anchor bolts.

Clear indication of what would have been F5 damage. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per GeorgeMemulous’s rationale. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support There have been publications stating that this could have been an EF5 tornado, so it can be added. ChessEric 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Pilger

I thought the twin tornadoes were EF4. Someone comment please on reasoning. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As in why would this be an EF5? West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I've seen plenty of analysis of ALL the EF4 tornadoes produced by this supercell and I don't remember any of them talking about ANY of the violent tornadoes possibly being rated EF5. This doesn't make it. ChessEric 23:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose I can't find any source thinking EF5 intensity was possible except for a few forums. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per other editors. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Rochelle–Fairdale

Conditional oppose – I'm actually somewhat surprised that this tornado didn't get an EF5 rating based on the damage I've seen. My only guess is that the swath of extremely intense damage was too small and that the contextual evidence was just not quite enough to raise it that 1 mph needed for the tornado to go from being rated very high-end EF4 to low-end EF5. However, the only thing I've seen about this tornado getting an EF5 rating is a YouTube video from a non-expert talking about how the EF-scale needed to be reevaluated. If anyone can find anything that could support putting the tornado on this list, I'm all for it, but until then, it doesn't go on. ChessEric 21:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Weak Oppose per above editor. Although it is very very possible given the fact that it was 1 mph off that it could be list worthy (which is why I voted neutral.) West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Literally nothing stating EF5 intensity was possible or likely. High-end EF4 damage was noted, with official estimates at 200mph, but that rating is widely accepted and as close as it got to being EF5. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Ashland

2016 Sulphur

Support – In the final report for this tornado, the NWS Norman wrote, "Preliminary analysis of winds from the Doppler on Wheels mobile research radar provided by the Center for Severe Weather Research indicated approximately 218 mph (+/-) at 17 meters AGL near US-177 N of Buel Green Road, however there were no structures in the immediate vicinity of this wind maximum to give a corresponding damage rating. Therefore, based on the acknowledgement of the DOW readings, the tornado should be included in the list. ChessEric 23:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per ChessEric. Procyon117 (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per other editors West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Dodge City

Support – In the final report, the NWS Dodge City wrote, "During the initial stages of development, there was DOW data on this tornado. It intensified from 40 meters/second to 90 meters/second in a span of 21 seconds that lasted less than a minute at those velocities. This would have been enough to produce EF5 damage briefly, based on those velocities. Therefore, this tornado, despite only being rated EF2, should go on the list. ChessEric 23:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Chapman

2016 Ensign

2016 Friend

2016 Jiangsu

Oppose Officially rated EF4. No source for EF5. Only reason I think it could be here is due to the record width of 2.4 mi (3.9 km). GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Katie-Wynnewood

2017 Perryville

Conditional strong support if we can verify that one editor's claim of NWS Paducah's indecision over the final rating. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are “that one editor”. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original was in an archive of the List of F5 tornadoes talk page, and was by an IP editor who I believe is using a dynamic IP so can't easily be contacted. The original post was by LimWeather on Twitter, dated to May 24, 2024. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - going to wait on actually casting a vote until someone can find a source. Leaning towards support. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Maloye Pes'yanovo

Support: Under figure 7 here it says EF5 intensity can be supported by the fact that up to 100% of trees were blown down or snapped in 100 by 100 metre areas in the tornado, supported by here, using the estimation technique. Therefore I believe it possibly could have reached EF5. Procyon117 (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Source directly stated “EF5” intensity was possible for the tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per @Procyon117 and @WeatherWriter. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Alonsa

2019 Nepal

Strong oppose - survey directly stated EF2-EF3, but used original Fujita scale wind estimates - 180-330km/h or 113-207mph is F2-F3 on the Fujita scale, whereas 180-265km/h, or 112-165mph, is EF2-EF3 on the Enhanced Fujita scale. There was likely confusion in the rating, where the tornado was actually rated on the original F scale from wind estimates, but was assigned a rating on the EF scale. For reference, confusion of this manner would lead to anything above a high-end F3 tornado being viable for this list, as their wind speeds could exceed 200mph - discounting the fact that F is 0-second and EF is 3-second sustained. The 2019 Nepal tornado was likely no stronger than F/EF3 intensity, and confusion about the interchangability between ratings on the F and EF scale led to its erroneous inclusion on this list. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per @GeorgeMemulous’s rationale. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)'[reply]

Also Oppose per GeorgeMemulous. Nothing in the article suggests that it could have been EF5 either. Procyon117 (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Greenwood Springs

2020 Bassfield

Oppose – I've not seen any publications that say that this tornado could've and/or should've been rated EF5. In fact, Grazulis analyzed this tornado as being smaller and weaker (albeit still as a violent low-end EF4) than what the final report said. This doesn't make it. ChessEric 23:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Chaser found area of potential EF5 damage. Either NWS missed it, or assessed it as EF4. Either way, a non-reputable surveyor finding a single area of EF5 damage isn't enough to add to the article. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Sandy Hook–Purvis

2020 Scarth

2021 South Moravia

  • Support — An IF5 rating was considered for the tornado. In the 9-organization damage survey (which included the CHMI [Czech Republic’s version of NWS] and the ESSL), it was stated, “300 houses were damaged by the tornado in Mikulčice, out of which 62 had to be demolished. Three locations with IF4 damage were observed there. The tornado first impacted a row of newly built houses. Here, an IF4 rating was assigned to the damage of three well-built brick structures. One of the brick structures was completely destroyed, which would warrant an IF5 rating. However, a rather weak connection between the roof and the walls was found, which prevented the damage to be assigned an IF5 rating.” The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My gut instinct is to say oppose since it was only a consideration of IF5. However, since I believe that there is the possibility that there may still be a disagreement between survey teams like there was with 2011 Tuscaloosa, I'm going with conditional very weak support here. ChessEric 21:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Western Kentucky

Support - That center in Europe, can’t remember at the moment what it’s called. But they did strongly consider rating it as an IF5. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The European Severe Storms Laboratory? Procyon117 (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this comment was intended for 2021 South Moravia above? Penitentes (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That (the ESSL) was who I was referring to. Thank you for that clarification @Procyon117, although I still support it. Go look at the current list for reasoning. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I’ll also point out @Penitentes that this comment was intended for this section. The ESSL did give an unofficial rating of the Kentucky tornado. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The last time I was in a discussion for this tornado, I said oppose, but I've recently realized that my reasoning behind saying that was faulty. I won't make the same mistake here, especially since there is a section in the article that says the tornado could have reached EF5 intensity. ChessEric 17:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support — The tornado’s article has a dedicated section to this, so it seems fairly obvious this should be on the list: See 2021 Western Kentucky tornado#Possible EF5 intensity for further information. Marshall did stated it was the closest to EF5 since the 2013 Moore tornado, so I have to say support on it staying on the list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Andover

Conditional strong support if the original frame from the AMS / ESSL presentation can be found and attributed. Photogrammetry has been used by Grazulis on 1995 Pampa, and the ESSL directly stated IF4/IF5, so it should be included. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support given that the ESSL directly stated IF4/IF5. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Support — This was probably one of the best documented and most studied tornado in recorded history. The presentation was well-received and accepted and I believe it can go on this list. ChessEric 22:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GeorgeMemulous rationale. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 05:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support per GeorgeMemulous and WestVirginiaWX. Procyon117 (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Rolling Fork

Can someone give a reason for why it could be an EF5? Then I’ll vote. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Officially rated high-end EF4 by NWS, 3-second sustained winds at 195mph. The original addition of Rolling Fork here was based on a Scott County Times article that compared it to a previous F5 tornado that struck Inverness. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m going to stay neutral on this for now. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Actually no. Weak support West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

::Oppose — It's just a comparison made by a local newspaper and although Grazulis did eventually rate it as such, the F5 rating of that tornado is disputed anyway. It also took the NWS quite some time to even find that this tornado peaked at 195 mph. This doesn't cut it for me. ChessEric 22:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rated EF5 by Grazulis. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misread that; the Inverness tornado mentioned in the article has a disputed F5 rating. Rolling Fork was not rated EF5 by Grazulis. Oppose. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This is simply a comparison by a local newspaper noting that the damage looked similar, not a comparison from a detailed survey of the damage, and therefore not taking building construction quality or contextual damage into account. Additionally, the NWS took a long time to survey this tornado and come up with the 195 mph peak, indicating that they did a detailed, comprehensive survey of the damage and didn't find anything that seemed to be potential EF5 damage. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC) !vote struck, new !vote made below. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 06:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris WX, you forgot to date your thread. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
O’ @SineBot… we could use your expertise at signing and dating talk page threads for people (like @ChrisWx) who forget to do so, or have a typo (I’ve done that before). West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently (completely unrelated to this tornado discussion), SineBot has reportedly been down for a good while. Better part of three months. I’ve notified Slackr about it. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 01:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support: The reason the tornado is regarded as potentially EF5 intensity is due to multiple NWS surveyors going on record claiming they believed EF5 winds were present but did not assign it the rating because of lack of DI's. Here's one claiming this in a youtube video, he says a building was slabbed in EF5 fashion but was not given the rating due to an adjacent building left standing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUaYOCI-0K4&t=572 Wikiwillz (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support – Wow! I hadn't listened or heard the video linked above by Wikiwillz until now. NWS 100% considered the EF5 rating and the National Weather Service of Jackson, Mississippi directly stated:
"So, what gave it the 195 mark? And, the best answer to that is what didn't give it the 200 mark...The Green Apple Florist , essentially a single family home that was modified to built to be a floral shop and it is slabbed to the ground and swept clean. Why not F5? Why not EF5? And two things really stuck out to us from the consensus on why not EF5. One was this building, even though it was extremely, extremely destroyed, I mean on its own, taken out of context, I think most people would agree this would be representative of an EF5 tornado; the damage to that building...If there had even been two of these side-by-side that had suffered the same fate, then maybe we could have had more confidence on that, but we didn't...But it was, to that point that we were very very close and this is probably about as close as you'll get across that threshold, without making it...A question we get a whole lot is like how can you be so sure that it was a five miles per hour from F5, but not quiet there? And the answer to that is is is we aren't. What the EF-scale is, is a damage scale...Is it possible that it had winds that were stronger? Certainly."
For me, that entire National Weather Service statement is a big mark for inclusion of this tornado. I am going to do some courtesy pings for those who already commented prior to this NWS-statement being mentioned. Pings: WestVirginiaWX, GeorgeMemulous, ChessEric, ChrisWx. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Didsbury

2024 Harlan

Strong oppose This tornado belongs in the Potential F4/EF4 article. 224mph 0-second ground level winds is F4. The EF scale is 3-second sustained wind speeds. Also, the official report states it was in the upper bounds of EF3 damage; seeing how the tornado peaked in a field near Harlan, it may have easily had F4 intensity, but I couldn't justify re-adding it to this article. Again, no source for EF5/F5 intensity. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- I agree with potential F4/Ef4 intensity, as the windspeeds were well above Ef4 windspeeds, but only 0-second and not 3-second sustained winds. For ef5 I oppose due to it being well below the IF5 0-second winds. EPhC4 (talk) 16:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support – there was that radar reading that supposedly registered 200+ mph winds. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask where? ChessEric 16:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DOW team released this statement on KTIV. The original source was on Twitter, which I believe, when posted by the DOW Twitter account, falls within the acceptable use terms of WP:RSPTWITTER if that comes up any time in these discussions. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If the wind speeds were not made through inferences, I might have been more receptive to it. As it stands now, this is not enough to put this in. ChessEric 16:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Infer" probably isn't the best word here, as the 224mph figure was calculated but not directly observed. 170mph was directly observed in Harlan. For reference, Greenfield was recorded at only 260 or so but was calculated to be over 300 at ground level. Also, very few tornadic wind speed measurements have occurred, aside from Radar observations, and damage surveys are a sort of inference, albeit an educated one, just as this was. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that wasn't acknowledged by NOAA, was it? (this is a genuine question, not sarcasm) ChessEric 21:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, NOAA hasn't acknowledged DOW measurements since 2016 or so. At the same time, they're also using 36-year-old radars, so it might do them some good if they contract FARM to aid in real-time forecasting during high-intensity weather outbreak. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slight support — Consider this more as a neutral until others comment regarding it. To answer ChessEric from above, NOAA did not state anything about the DOW measured winds. However, the Washington Post wrote up and did use the term “EF5” regarding the measured winds. Now, this is a paid article…which I do not have access too…and internet archive is being dumb and not actually archiving it right now…That said, based on the small blurb Google shows, the article stated, “...Harlan twister had winds up to 224 mph. Such winds are equivalent to what is expected from an EF5 tornado, but the twister did not receive ...” That is all I can see of it. So we do have RS mentioning EF5 intensity wise, just not NOAA. I’m staying more neutral with a lean toward including it based on that TWP article. But, I do what to hear from others on it as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment About my strong oppose vote: Yes, 200+mph is EF5, when it's a 3-second sustained gust. Harlan was 224mph, but that was 0-second wind speeds. The IF scale, the one that accepts measured wind gusts, has 0-second gusts at 261+ for IF5, and 208+ for IF4. Therefore, the reasoning for this being compared to EF5 is faulty, but I suppose if a reliable source can be found, it can be added. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Hollister

Wait There has been much buzz online about this specific tornado being significantly more powerful than the rating it was given, some of which I do buy in to (especially the claims that rotation was seen at 40,000 feet!); however, from official sources (mostly the official summary), it's known it almost certainly was more powerful than EF1 intensity. The report directly states the tornado's rotational velocity exceeded 114 kn (131 mph), and as it's known that tornadoes are strongest near the ground, as well as seeing the width of 1,200 yd (0.68 mi) which is on par with violent tornadoes, an educated guess is that this tornado likely exceeded EF3 intensity at the minimum. I suppose a fitting analogue to this is Greenfield, which is being discussed below; it reached peak intensity in Greenfield with a similar velocity reading on radar. Of course, Greenfield had the advantage of a DOW unit being right nearby; with Hollister, you'll recall it was a Slight risk (2/5) day, and the DOW team was likely unaware such an event was even possible. It's likely some sort of academic material for the intensity will be released in the future, in which case it could easily be added to either this article or the one on potential EF4 tornadoes. As of now, all we have is 131+ recorded well above ground by NEXRAD, and some other radar signatures that haven't been used to rate tornadoes in the past. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The listed rotational velocity would put it at high-end EF2 strength, which is WELL short of EF5 strength. ChessEric 16:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is an apples-to-oranges comparison, rotational velocity this high up can't reliably be used to say one thing or another about ground wind speeds. I distinctly recall it being stated somewhere that 131mph is the second highest rotational velocity seen on radar - I assume first is Bassfield, and that passed within a kilometer of the radar so its estimate is much more reliable. My argument isn't based solely on rotational speed, even though it would put it ahead of established F4 and F5 tornadoes, but rather the lack of any academic sourcing. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose per @ChessEric’s reasoning. It’s likely this particular twister was well short of EF5 intensity. Especially if it was only rated as an EF1. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — I have yet to actually see a source mention the term “EF5” at all regarding this tornado. The NOAA finalized report also only mentioned a VROT of 114 knots (131 mph) being recorded by the radar. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose "EF5" was only mentioned by one man on Twitter, and had a weak EF1-2 rotational velocity (as ChessEric stated) Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hollister in particular is a special case in that there was so much special about it but by most metrics it was a typical EF1 tornado. The height at which rotation was seen, as well as NEXRAD rotational velocities, are unlike anything seen before, but as Hollister has less people than even Wikiproject Weather (37 in Hollister vs 63 in WPWeather), let alone the fact the tornado missed the town completely, no wonder an EF1 rating was assigned. Surveyors directly noted the tornado was most likely much stronger than the assigned rating, had this been an EF4 it would be common sense to include, but because it was so poorly predicted and understood, it's more akin to a tornado that struck unpopulated areas in the US before the arrival of humans than one happening in the digital age. No academic research exists into it, and all we have is NEXRAD data and spotter reports of a "huge wedge on the ground", which goes for almost every tornado on this list. I say we should close Hollister 2024's discussion for the time being, and if a development happens, we can re-open discussion and come to a new consensus. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that there are ~5 images that do exist of the tornado, which does confirm the wedge shape (although this is irrelevant in a rating discussion per Elie). Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 02:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and to that end; as @Sir MemeGod pointed out, you can (and often do) have EF4 and EF5 tornadoes that are cone shaped and in rare cases even rope shaped (see the 2007 Ellie tornado); and you can have big huge wedge tornadoes that are only EF0 or EF1. Although if it’s a big area of EF0 damage, it might just be a strong mesocyclone that reaches the ground rather than a tornado. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One final note Rotational velocity is NOT the same as DOW velocity readings and it shouldn't be treated as such. The radar signature of this intensity has only been seen twice before, and both the other times are being discussed on this page: Greenwood Springs 2019, and El Reno 2013. For an expert's opinion, I present Eric Graves on Facebook. I previously discounted his unsourced opinion on the Jarrell tornado, but here, he's the best voice we have for analysis of primary sources. Graves strongly implied this tornado was an EF5 or equivalent. Definitely not enough of a source to add to the article, however, this proves Hollister should NOT be discounted as quickly as it has been. Let's wait for the (hopeful) future AMS paper like Greenwood Springs got, then re-open discussion. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I hadn’t even heard of the Hollister tornado until this discussion. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it occurred on a Slight risk (2/5) day, received little coverage from the wider weather community having been overshadowed by the 2 outbreaks of April 25-28 and May 6-10, and unlike El Reno and others, while powerful, this tornado was poorly documented and wasn't immediately given an article. It's also unlikely to get one if no more sources show up, which is what I'm anxiously waiting for. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Greenfield

Strong support University of Illinois paper clearly states wind speeds of over 300+ could be observed in the tornado. No matter how short they lasted, wind speeds over 260mph are accepted as F5/IF5 intensity, with the IF scale accepting wind speed measurements. This tornado runs into the problem that so many other EF4 and F4 tornadoes, and even F5 tornadoes, had run into in their day: no structures capable of withstanding EF4 damage were available to act as damage indicators, so even though the tornado peaked over Greenfield, no EF5 damage was observed. It's common sense this tornado is added to the list, considering we had El Reno in the Potential EF5 section, but also the other radar-observed tornadoes of 2011 El Reno and 1999 Bridge Creek-Moore. There is, in fairness, no reliable source stating this tornado directly had EF5 intensity... even though everybody knows it did, nobody has said it. Greenfield should get added to the NOAA Event Database in the next month. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> "There is, in fairness, no reliable source stating this tornado directly had EF5 intensity"
That should say it all—we can't synthesize or extrapolate from pure data. Penitentes (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the tornado had winds over 300 mph, it would have been rated EF5 if it caused damage to well built structures during that time. Catstornadoesandmore123 (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Wait Let's see what the final report for this tornado has to say about this. We can make our decision then. I want to say that I'm leaning support, but I'm going to go neutral here. ChessEric 16:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC

Neutral – ditto on Chess Eric’s vote. At least for now. West Virginia WXeditor (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slight support — We have the ESSL director who stated it would have been rated IF5 due to the wind speed measurements. An WP:IAR-rare case could also be made for the tornado. While no source has directly stated the term “EF5” (rating, damage, or intensity-wise) with the tornado, we do have RS sources (several) for a generalized “one of the strongest tornadoes ever recorded” statement. With the IF5 note + the RS generalized statements, I am going to be more or less neutral, with a lean to supporting inclusion of it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per reasoning given by WeatherWriter, which provides further justification of this tornado's inclusion. ChessEric 23:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Weather/Possible_F5/EF5/IF5_tornadoes&oldid=1235727847"