This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kansas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Kansas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KansasWikipedia:WikiProject KansasTemplate:WikiProject KansasKansas articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
NWS published preliminary information and preliminary damage surveys
NWS signs off on the preliminary information and sends it to NCEI
About 75 days (3 months) later, NCEI finalizes the tornado's information using NWS info and other sources.
Per NWS and NCEI: The Storm Events Database is the only place for official information on tornadoes.
In the case of Elkhorn, the finalized NCEI report for the tornado has already released. If NWS did upgrade it to EF4 from the finalized EF3 rating, then the EF4 rating is preliminary for about 75 days, or until NCEI publishes it. I.E., now that NCEI has published a report, we have to follow the verifiability policy and guidelines and keep it EF3, since the EF4 rating is preliminary. The same process applied to the 2023 Amory tornado, when NWS upgraded the wind speed preliminarily, but the finalized report did not. Wikipedia followed the finalized report, but makes notes for any new preliminary information. For all of this, it must stay EF3 until released officially. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)03:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see NWS Omaha putting out a PNS on the upgrade, and if they do, I believe we should circumvent the NCEI publication, since Wikipedia is a domain for timely information. Wikiwillz (talk) 03:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I would logically agree with that...we really can't. We had an oddly similar case a couple of years ago (WP:VNTIA). Basically, NOAA put out new info (primary info) which disagreed with the mass of RS we had. An RFC actually decided it is better to have the outdated, factually inaccurate information rather than updated, only primary-source verifiable information. That is also why Tornadoes of 2022 has factually inaccurate information, but verifiable information. Based on that RFC and our similar case back in 2022/23, the only way we should change it is if a secondary source (news article) points it out. Chances are, one will, but the PNS alone would not be enough, since the WP:VNTIA case involved a new NOAA publication which made other sources then-inaccurate and outdated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)03:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed this incident, I appreciate you explaining it to me. That would make sense, and I do believe secondary sources will take to covering the upgrade so I'm not too concerned. Wikiwillz (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same. I'm not worry about Wikipedia keeping the EF3 a little longer, even after the PNS. Some news guy will almost certainly write up an article about it being EF4 now. But yeah, as crazy as it is, consensus was with keeping the verifiable information, even if it was outdated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)03:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fear that including the outdated information that can be verified using an official source, even if it is primary, impedes efforts to maintain and/or improve the encyclopedia. I feel like we need to remember that Wikipedia has no firm rules, that sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions, and that WP:VNT should be avoided in order to do so if an official, trusted source actually confirms the information in a timely manner, while other sources may take more time to update their sources or not update them at all. These are my personal thoughts on this that I just wanted to share with you all. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 03:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This whole thing smells like trying to ignore WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (even though that’s for articles, the same logic can apply here too), and Wikipedia should be trying to have the latest updated information, regardless of how it works legally speaking as Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over that. NOAA is an official source so we should take it from them, even if it is primary source. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChessEric: What people are referring to regarding this tornado being an EF4 were two new DAT-points recently entered in the path of the tornado that reflect an EF4 rating.
I will state that I do not support this being upgraded to the higher rating here before an official statement is released by NWS Omaha, and that my thoughts above apply to the time after the NWS potentially releases an official statement upgrading the rating, along with general cases where this may be an issue such as the list of costliest tornadoes in 2022. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 15:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]