User talk:ChessEric/Archives/2026/May

Hurricane Carla tornado outbreak

Hey there ChessEric. Hurricane Carla is getting some attention recently, about how to finish the article. I notice you were the user who created the tornado outbreak article. While the info there is useful, I think it would be more useful in the main Carla article, considering Carla is only around 3,000 words. The entire table could fit, and would not be out of place. Or on the other hand, the info about each tornado could be mentioned in the state summary. Any thoughts? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I know I'm probably going to be overruled on this one, but I'm not for that idea. This outbreak killed 14 people and injured 337 others by itself, which I don't believe the main article can adequately explain on its own. The outbreak also produced 14 significant tornadoes, which is an absurd number for one tropical cyclone, and Grazulis also indicated that he agreed that all the tornadoes rated as significant were indeed significant, which is also rare (he rated three of the F3 tornadoes as F2 tornadoes, but that was it). I argue that the historical significance of this event plus the high casualty count makes this article necessary despite its small size. Additionally, I've never liked putting tables in tropical cyclone articles. It makes the article clunky and isn't good for mobile devices considering that the article is supposed to highlight the stuff the tropical cyclone did, not show a list of tornadoes. ChessEric 21:45, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I get that, but the main article is only around 3,000 words, while the tornado outbreak article is only 1,200 words, so that would only be 4,200 words, well short of any size limit. And even then, the tornadoes are already mentioned in the main article. Considering how long ago Carla was, it's not like there will be so much other additional information that the tornado info will be too much. As for the table or not, there is the option of just writing out each tornado individually. I did that with both Hurricane Cindy (2005) and Hurricane Frances, merging in the content from both tornado outbreak articles, and I think both articles are all the stronger. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, I'm not talking about length; I'm talking about notability. I do not believe adding a chart or adding each tornado summary into long paragraphs is a good idea. Honestly, those 2 articles that you mentioned became very confusing and WAY too long to read as just adding all the summaries makes the article very hard to navigate. This is more than just the outbreak produced an F4 tornado; it's about the 13 other F2+ tornadoes, 14 fatalities, and 337 injuries that also occurred. The article doesn't give a timeline for when these tornadoes occurred, which is what the charts we make our for and is 1 of the main reasons why I've been against merging tropical cyclone tornado outbreaks into main articles in the past. ChessEric 00:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about notability. The info belongs on Wikipedia, and all of the tornadoes would get a mention. As Cindy is a featured article, and Frances is only 5,300 words, I'm not sure why you say the articles are confusing or way too long. That never came up in Cindy's FAC or when it was on the main page. Everything you said is all valid information about the Carla topic as a whole, and since the Carla article is so short, I think the additional content would be helpful, and keep everything more organized. And speaking of, where was the source connecting all of the tornadoes? The MWR mentions 18 tornadoes, but Storm Data doesn't mention Carla for the Alabama or Michigan tornadoes, and the Alabama NWS doesn't mention Carla. Was it Grazulis? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability and tornadoes for the criteria behind tornado outbreak articles. I think you'll understand a little more about why these constant mergers of tropical cyclone tornado outbreak articles annoy the heck out of me. Also, the wrong source was put in for the Alabama and Michigan tornadoes; it should be the Storm Data summary for September 1961, not December 1961. I don't know who changed it nor do I know why. ChessEric 07:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. If the info is on Wikipedia, what is the difference? The info belongs on the site, and the info is notable. I'm just arguing that all of the Hurricane Carla content should be in the same area, instead of having a stub where all of the content could fit. See Wikipedia:Article size - at under 6,000 words, the Carla article has more than enough room to handle additional content, and the content fork for the tornado outbreak wasn't necessary. And as for AL and MI, I checked the September 1961 storm data, but neither state section mentions anything about Carla. The Tornado Project by Grazulis/McCaul only lists 20 tornadoes, and doesn't include the Alabama or Michigan one. Lake Charles, NWS has a singular list connected to Carla by the way. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Paper about tornadoes and hurricanes lists the Alabama one as associated with Carla and puts the total from the outbreak at 26 the paper is here. I suspect that the MI one was not listed because Carla was an extratropical cyclone at that point, and given the timing and location I would be amazed if the tornado in Michigan was unrelated to Carla's remnants, but if it's not specifically established in any sources that it was related then can't include it? MCRPY22 (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh perfect for the Alabama one. As for Michigan, I agree it's likely related, but there would need to be a source connecting the events. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie; it kind of feels like you're ignoring me at this point. I've given you multiple reasons, sources to look for info, and a page that specifically talks about when to split tornado outbreaks into articles, and you keep telling me you don't understand and only give me 1 valid reason for a merge, which I don't think is adequate. The other 1 doesn't even make sense; the info is on Wikipedia, so it's notable? That's not true for everything and not everyone is going to agree with you on it. Grazulis gave this outbreak an Outbreak Intensity Score of 57, which ranks it as a "major" tornado outbreak and is another reason why it should be kept. Almost every outbreak that includes a violent tornado has an article beacuse of how rare they are, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather is constantly working to make sure that outbreaks like this one are highlighted as big events, no matter how short the articles are. I think you should take that into consideration as well.

As for the Storm Data, you can't just read one entry all the time; sometimes you have to read more than 1 and sometimes, you have to look at other months because reports are delayed. In Alabama, Storm Data states that a waterspout moved ashore and caused damage. Carla, clearly caused that as rainfall data map shows that heavy rainfall was affecting the state at the same time that occurred. In Michigan, a tornado hit Traverse City. The very next entry states that there was flooding from Carla in the Lower Penisula in the state, including Traverse City, on the same date as the tornado. That's 100% evidence that that tornado was spawned by Carla.

As for why I made the article in the 1st place, my goal back when I 1st started on Wikipedia was to create and expand on the tornadoes that occurred back before our time; the individual outbreaks articles were a product of that, especially since we don't have list pages and other than the tables in the articles, readers had no way of knowing the chronological order of when these tornadoes took place. Now that I've been on Wikipedia as long as I have, I see that despite my hard work, there were still a lot of flaws with the things I did. However, I think I helped set the groundwork for it and there are many other editors that have worked to improve upon them since I've taken a step back. However, 1 thing I always made sure off is that I found accurate info from reliable sources. Additionally, once I found other sources that were better than my original sources, I fixed the information I put out there. This article is a product of that and I'm very proud of not just the article, but the work I put into to make the information in it as accurate as possible.

Listen, bro. If you don't care about my reasoning and want to merge it anyway, just tell me that. I'll understand; I don't edit old events anymore as I don't have the time, nor the energy to do so and I've had many articles that I've made or worked extensively on merged or deleted, but don't keep telling me that the article I worked really hard to make has incorrect info or that it's pointless. Also, why would you put every tornado into an article like that? Some tornadoes from this outbreak literally have no description except the damage cost. It doesn't work here. ChessEric 17:01, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm with you - instead of trying to merge everything, maybe expand it? Eh? Meets all notability criteria and I don't see any valid reason for a merge besides length. If that's the issue then expand it. Simple as that. ^EF₅ 17:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChessEric: Bear in mind here that Hink came directly to you about the potential merger, rather than going through the articles for deletion process, which now covers mergers.Jason Rees (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay. I hope you're not implying that I called other editors to help me out here; I didn't tell anyone else about the conversation we were having. ChessEric 17:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I have this page watchlisted, which is how I saw the conversation. ^EF₅ 17:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that you asked other editors to help you out, I just meant that some of your comments seem a bit off, when you consider that Hink was trying to respect you by coming to you directly.Jason Rees (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay. So let me explain this from my point of view.

Hink came to me, which I appreciate by the way, and asked me about my thoughts on merging this article. I didn't want to see it merged, but I knew I was fignting a losing battle, as I've been through this in the past. However, I wanted to hear him out and give him my reasons of why it should be kept. Likewise, I expected him to do the same; this was going to be a disagreement, but I wanted us to exchange our viewpoints and come to a peaceful resolution regarding this matter and I presented my reasons to him. However, instead of us having a friendly debate, he consistently ignored and failed to acknowledge my reasoning by constantly telling me, "I don't understand what you mean", gave me a reason that I didn't see as adequate, and then gave me a another reason that made absolutely no sense to me, and I guarantee that at least 90% of editors would disagree with him on. He then proceeded to question the accuracy of the article that I worked on for 3 weeks and found 30 references for, including Storm Data and Grazulis. This was before I moved the article to the mainspace; I worked on it, then moved the article to the mainspace. I told him where to find the information, and, in my opinion, he flat out refused, and continued to question me. That's when him told him that I didn't feel like he was acknowledging what I said and expressed my dissatisfaction with how this discussion was going. I never yelled. I never threatened him. I didn't call in anyone else to help me out. Everything I've written here are my thoughts and I stick by them. I'm sorry if my comments seem a bit off, but he asked for my thoughts and everything you see here is exactly what I thought and felt like needed to be expressed. ChessEric 18:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the heated exchange, I just took my dog for a walk and didn't want it to go this way. All of the things you said kept reinforcing why I felt that the info belonged in the Carla article. The fact that the hurricane produced a bunch of significant tornadoes, that of course belongs in the main article. The fact several of them were deadly, that would be mentioned in the main article. Even the argument that the table would be too long for the article, I disagree with that, it fits neatly into the article if it were to be copied in its entirety. I wanted to hear your reasoning before an AFD because, as Jason noted, that is the process for proposed mergers, not just a merge notice and a talk page discussion. And I'm not arguing the outbreak wasn't notable, just that I don't see any reasons why it shouldn't be in the main article. If the main argument was about the exact times, and that the table might be too much, then that's the main thing I wanted to know when I reached out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

My second commemt mentioned both of those things: the timeline (a.k.a. the exact times) and how I didn't think it was a good idea to add tornado charts into tropical cyclone articles (that was also in the first comment). This is why I didn't feel like you were acknowledging my arguments because I mentioned both of those things and other things in that comment, but your next comment targeted only the first sentence and then you gave your reason again. Please go back and throughly read through my comments. ChessEric 19:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChessEric and Hurricanehink: Lets take a few steps back here and see if we can find some common ground, about how to deal with weather articles together. Firstly can we agree that there are some weather articles out that should not really exist or are better off being apart of a bigger article? Jason Rees (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Yea, apologies for how this all went town, it wasn't ignoring, and I didn't want to annoy you. I've re-read your comments. Nothing in the tornado notability page had anything to do with tropical cyclones. I never said the info doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Quite the contrary - thank you for finding the information and putting the work into it, and if anything, that just makes Carla seem more notable. Given the high number of significant tornadoes, I agree that the exact time would be useful for understanding the timing of everything, and I even agree with keeping it as a table. I just don't know what makes it clunky having the table, with the dates as sub-sections, in the main article. It looked fine to me, even on mobile. I wanted to get you involved in the potential merger because you worked hard on digging up the information, and Carla is getting some renewed attention in recent weeks. Eventually, all retired tropical cyclones will hopefully have their day at FAC, which means the article needs to be presented in the best possible way. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm also sorry. You caught me at a bad time and while I did feel like there were times that you weren't listening me or questioning me about how accurate the article, I didn't handle it properly. I'm actually in a bad mood right now, but that's because of something I'm dealing with at work, not here. LOL! I get off in 1 1/2 hours and I have a suggestion about a compromise, so can I get back to you? ChessEric 00:35, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

My big issue with the whole thing was what to do with the tables. I saw that you had written out all the tornadoes in the FA hurricane articles you were talking about and freaked out about (1) how long they were and (2) the fact that we a tornado outbreak page to that. All outbreak articles go into the List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks page and to have to remove them because the page was lost hurts me more than should. Thus, my worry was not only losing the outbreak article, but also losing the ability to allow readers to find such a significant event on that outbreak list page (Hurricane Isaias is a recent example of this occurrence).

After calming down and thinking it over for a bit, I realized something and came to a stunning conclusion: I was stupid. Why? The thing you suggested about putting the tables in the article is LITERALLY the exact same thing we do with extratropical cyclones articles where tornadoes aren't the main focus (the most recent example of this is the Early March 2025 North American blizzard). The practice is still relatively new though and doesn't happen all the time, so I didn't even think about it, but this allows us to merge content together AND keep outbreak articles on the outbreak list page.

Thus, the solution is simple: the Carla tornado outbreak article gets merged into the main Carla article. However, instead of having to write out what each tornado did, we keep the charts (this will also give us the caveat to update them to modern specs) and put them in their own section so that readers can navigate to it through the outbreak list page. Plus, this also allows us to only have to mention the most important tornadoes in the impact section rather than having to write them all out. I think everyone wins in this situation: you get the merger you desire and I get to have a section for the charts so that the outbreak gets to stay on the outbreak list page. What do you think?

By the way, I know that you already made the Hurricane Cindy (2005) and Hurricane Frances articles FAs, but would you consider adding the tornado charts into those articles as well? ChessEric 15:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely to all of the above! I think the tornado tables are a great way of displaying the information, and would absolutely work with Cindy, Frances, or Carla. I also agree that it would organize the info more, with only the most important tornado info mentioned in the impact section (like the total number of twisters, fatalities, anything record-breaking). Also one minor thing, Frances is not an FA, only a good article, but before I take it to FAC, I think re-incorporating the tornado table would be a good way of reorganizing the article. You also bring up a good point with the outbreaks going to the List of North American tornadoes and tornado outbreaks page. Now, if there's only one or two, I don't know if the article needs a table. But if there's ten? (or some other number to be established) There probably should be a table at that point. And I agree that it's kind of a new practice to keep everything under the same umbrella. It's why there used to be a ton more storm sub-articles in the past, many of which have been merged into their main articles. I agree and hope that everyone finds it a win-win. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@ChessEric Are the tables in the page up to code now? I saw the outbreak page has been edited. MCRPY22 (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes they are. ChessEric 06:20, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I added your tables to the Carla page. One of the sources is broken from the copy paste but I’ll fix it. MCRPY22 (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Storm drafts

Howdy! You appear to have a large number of abandoned drafts that are still using the soon to be deleted Template:Infobox storm. I'm working on finishing the conversion of all these to Template:Infobox weather event. Are any of these drafts ones that you are still currently working on? I don't want to mess with stuff you plan to use... But (for example) User:ChessEric/Tornado outbreak sequence of September 26–29, 1959 hasn't been edited since October 2022. Can any of these be deleted? If not, they will soon break when {{Infobox storm}} is deleted... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:58, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

My apologies for the late response; I was caught up with other things and forgot to answer this.

I don't plan to get back to those drafts in the short-term, but I did leave them up for others to work on. The User:ChessEric/Tornado outbreak of TBD 2 (why did I do this; LOL), the User:ChessEric/Tornado outbreak of April 2–3, 2017, and the User:ChessEric/Tornado outbreak of May 10–12, 2014 (articles were made for these outbreaks already) articles can go. When I get a free moment, I'll fix all the other infoboxes. Also note that I have some personal pages that I keep for myself (see my user page). ChessEric 16:12, 20 May 2026 (UTC)