Talk:Tornadoes of 2012

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Mid‑importance 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. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: KYOVA Region / Nebraska / Ohio Low‑importance 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject KYOVA Region (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Nebraska (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance). Kansas Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Illinois Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois 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.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Missouri Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tennessee Low‑importance Tornadoes of 2012 is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Years This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Lists Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

There was a tornado in Sugar Land, TX on January 9; it was confirmed to be an EF1 Meltdown627 (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well guess what! Be bold and add it. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 17:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that before any further edits are made in that regard, the issue of the Ellenboro tornado be discussed here in the discussion section, rather than in the form of an edit war. To begin, I personally agree with United States Man. The name of that part of the chart is "Maximum rated tornado," not "Strongest tornado." The difference is rather subtle, but if we follow that wording, then all EF2 tornadoes in the U.S. should be listed there until wee have our first EF3 or stronger tornado. The same approach is done for other tornado years. If we were to follow the "strongest winds" approach to 2011 for example then only the Joplin tornado, which the article puts at 225-250 mph, would be listed while the other five EF5 tornadoes for that year would be excluded. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article cover only actual tornadoes, or are mere funnel clouds also included? I ask because a funnel cloud over Richmond (on the mainland) was spotted,[1] photographed,[2] and videotaped,[3] and funnel clouds/tornadoes are extremely unusual for these parts. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is just tornadoes. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is beginning to appear that there is now the potential for this outbreak to need its own page.... I dont know who has the template but if someone can create it and then we can start making the page Cwachal (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created it here. Feel free to add. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, an article will likely be required (pending surveys). The individual details on other pages can guide you to it. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add two tornadoes to this event. On 31 January, the NWS Paducah released damage survey results for 2 tornadoes in IL (1 EF1 and 1 EF2) that occurred on 22 January. See NWS public info statements. There is also another January tornado (not related to this event) that the Mobile NWS office confirmed in a public info statement released on 28 January. The event date for that was 26 January. 18:17, 02 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.58.106 (talk)

Normally, January and February (and often March) are combined due to low activity. However, the hints suggest an active pattern continuing. Should February go onto a separate page (like what 2008 might have needed) thinking a Super Tuesday-like outbreak could occur, or keep going for another month in one page? CrazyC83 (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at 2011, months more active than this January have been merged. I wouldn't think we'd need to split them unless we do have activity on the level of February 2008. We can always split them later, right? If that's the case I'd say we wait until we get into February a bit and split if it looks like we'll break 100 tornadoes for the month. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February can be added now. There has been a confirmed tornado in Mississippi. United States Man (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Unless some says otherwise, I will stick to the plan I came up with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TornadoLGS (talk • contribs) 03:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be time for an article on this...there's been multiple confirmed fatalities [4]. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 18:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think CrazyC83 hinted that he was working on or planning one already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TornadoLGS (talk • contribs) 18:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the bases are set, but I just want to see more specifics, especially from Harrisburg. One will probably be warranted though - but how to name it? CrazyC83 (talk) 19:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Leap Day Tornado Outbreak sounds good to me, since that is when the most significant activity took place.TornadoLGS (talk) 19:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That title sounds good to me, too. United States Man (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was picked up by Tulsa World as a first source, so sounds good. I'll be able to work on the article this evening, but if someone else wants to start it, go ahead! CrazyC83 (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Friday (March 2) is supposed to be bad as well it appears, but we cannot get into speculation too much at this point. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't though that was related to this event. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

that is a separate event.74.69.95.29 (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow will be a separate event from the 28/29 event. I'm all for naming the recent outbreak the 2012 Leap Day tornado outbreak. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So a separate article, or an article sequence with today as a break? I know it is all speculation, but it DOES look very ominous right now. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favor a separate article over over combining them, but they should have links to one another. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, a full day break is good to split the articles. I think we need to get away from outbreak sequences unless they're mentioned elsewhere too anyways. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The same front that spawned the last outbreak was associated with this one, so it should be part of the same outbreak sequence. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd need to check the weather maps, but that seems unlikely since it was the same region and there was no activity yesterday. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was no activity yesterday because the front that spawned the outbreak on the 28th and 29th sunk down to the Gulf Coast states yesterday, keeping all moisture in the Gulf, but then rose as a warm front today. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not start arguing about this. These were seperate systems and the articles should remain split. United States Man (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do we name this article? Since it is becoming highly likely one will be warranted. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with March 2012 tornado outbreak or Early-March 2012 tornado outbreak. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favor Early-March 2012 tornado outbreak, just incase we have another notable outbreak this month. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone make it soon; this looks big enough it could go to WP:ITN/C. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article underway. Had to write a test for college so had to break for a bit. CrazyC83 (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know the primary focus has been on the March 2-3 tornado outbreak, but there seems to be a miscount between the number of confirmed tornadoes we have on Wikipedia and the actual number of confirmed tornadoes as reported to the SPC by the National Weather Service. According to the SPC, 53 tornadoes were confirmed in the United States during February, while the 2012 Leap Day tornado outbreak article and Tornadoes of 2012#February 28-29 say 39. January is fine. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just speculation on my part I think it's possible that finalized information might have been submitted to the SPC, but the WFO's didn't have time to publish details on many the weaker tornadoes on the Leap Day outbreak, given the even more severe outbreak that followed right on its heels. So I think we may have to wait for NCDC to get details on those missing ones.TornadoLGS (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where these 6 extra tornadoes are coming from, but the totals need to be for the tornadoes that we have on wikipedia and not what the SPC says beacause we don't have info for those tornadoes. United States Man (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the SPC page, which was just updated, there were 79 confirmed tornadoes in January, and 53 in February. That equals 132...Now go this page List of United States tornadoes in March 2012, and there have been 77 confirmed tornadoes in March. 132+77=209. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The totals on Tornadoes of 2012 make no sense because when you add up the tornadoes on the List pages you get 203, not 209. So, I am going to change the totals to reflect what is on wikipedia, which is 203. When NCDC reports come out, the totals for Jan. and Feb. will be increased then. But the totals, for now, will reflect what is on wikipedia and not the SPC. It is kind of confusing to the reader because there are 203 tornadoes on wikipedia and the total says 209. United States Man (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is an issue of not updating them. The 79 and 53 might just be rough guesses which should be close to our findings but not exact (due to not publishing or missing information - our estimates are UNOFFICIAL especially before Storm Data is released), since Storm Data has not been released yet (it is done to December 2011). CrazyC83 (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado emergencies issued with significant damage according to WBAP (AM)...may be worth keeping an eye on for a potential article. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 19:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the rationale behind redirecting the April 3, 2012 tornado outbreak? Is it just the personal opinion of the editors who did so that it is "too soon"? Is it just an arbitrary standard made up on the spot? The tornadoes meet the notability guidelines, are being widely reported, and the NWS has confirmed multiple tornado touchdowns. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that you could consider this a tornado outbreak yet. Typically, 8 to 10 tornadoes is the basis for an outbreak. There is also very little information to go on at this time. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So change the article name to "tornados". From the article on tornado outbreaks: "Beyond this, there is no single agreed upon definition, and the number of tornadoes required to qualify as an outbreak typically are at least six to ten." Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there were outbreak articles for every day a tornado touched down then there would be more than 200 tornado outbreak aricles for evnts in 2011. I see what you mean by creating this page, but since there have been less than 20 reported touchdowns it is really not considered an outbreak. United States Man (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cluster of tornadoes touching down in a major metropolitan area, causing severe and widely reported amounts of damage. Its a bit different from a single tornado touching down in a corn field in Iowa. And, as is stated in the article for tornado outbreaks, "there is no single agreed upon definition, and the number of tornadoes required to qualify as an outbreak typically are at least six to ten." I'm removing the redirect. Please see WP:BRD - someone edits, someone reverts, and then you discuss it. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to agree with Falcon8765 on this...the tornadoes are significant for having occurred in a major metropolitan area and were the lead story on the national news this evening. Note also that the outbreak has not concluded yet; there's still multiple tornado warnings in effect. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you since it is in a large area, but it could maybe use a name change. I suggest maybe April 2012 Dallas tornadoes or, depending on tommorrow's events, you could keep the name the same or change it to April 3 - 4, 2012 tornado outbreak. United States Man (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's moot, because SPC is currently showing 12 reported tornadoes in the area, and has not yet received any reports from the western part of the DFW Metroplex, when there are tornadoes that were confirmed by television coverage (live helicopter footage) south and west of Fort Worth. So that qualifies as an outbreak by any definition. rdfox 76 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The situation probably warrants an article as we are talking about damaging tornadoes in a major metropolitan area, even though numerically an article is probably not warranted. However, the SPC site doesn't seem to give us a lot of clues and finding out where the tornadoes happened is difficult. CrazyC83 (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else takes place today with what is left of the system, we could probably go with an article title like "April 2012 Dallas-Fort Worth tornadoes" since it was a relatively small event. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're still a day out, but the situation is unprecedented. High Risk this far out has never happened. We better be ready this weekend to write an article, since the wording is stronger than April 27, 2011! Most likely Mid-April 2012 tornado outbreak. Those in that area, STAY SAFE!!! CrazyC83 (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone jumped the gun and created an article at April 13, 2012 Severe weather outbreak, but it was in such bad shape that I just redirected it to the section in Tornadoes of 2012 and moved the title to the more apt April 2012 tornado outbreak, so it's there when it's needed. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 15:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping the gun when there has yet to be a single severe weather report...it is like someone making a hurricane article when it is still an Invest. CrazyC83 (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's going to be a historic outbreak - 2 high risk areas on day 2 outlook is insane! Skycycle (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a tornado yesterday in bray county Wicklow ireland it was on the RTE news is it notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.135.183 (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was covered on the Weather Channel in the US, too; it was (correctly) identified, from the photo, as a waterspout, not a convective-based tornado, and its only real claim to notability is its unusual location. If it were on another day, it might be considered notable enough to include, but it had the bad luck of occurring on a day when there were over 120 tornado reports in a major US outbreak that, at last count, had killed at least five people. It may make List of April 2012 tornadoes, but given the other activity on the day, it almost certainly won't end up making this article. rdfox 76 (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map for killer tornadoes needs to be updated. I would do it myself, but I don't know how. New map Lou1986 (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I had this same problem a couple months ago on a different map. In the future what you can do is go to the new version you want to put up and download it to your computer. Then go to the image you want to upload and click the link that says "description page" just below the image. This goes to the page on Wikimedia Commons. Toward the bottom of the page there there is a link that says "upload a new version of this file." Go there and simply upload the new image. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the October 17 tornado in Ireland really have a section here? Generally speaking should we follow the criteria the criteria that Cyclonebiskit noted when this issue came up in 2011? TornadoLGS (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that one is a bit much, however I do think the others should remain. United States Man (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most other events seem to fit Cyclonebiskit's criteria or are at least close enough except for the Glasgow tornado of August 4, which produced no damage. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some looking around and the highest death toll figure for the April 4 event in Argentina I can find so far is 17 (The full articles here cannot be accessed without a subscription), and I cannot find a reliable source specifically referring to the event as a tornado either. This leads me to suspect that it might not have been a tornado at all. The List of tornadoes striking downtown areas of large cities lists it as an F2, which seems unlikely to have such a high death toll. Given that it is unclear how many deaths, if any, from this event were tornadic, I think it should be removed from the lede. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a tornado, but, after looking on Youtube, it appeared to be embedded in a larger storm. I think it is safe to remove it from the lede. United States Man (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2012 tornado outbreak was of marginal notability, only causing (according to the article) 25 tornadoes and 2 fatalities, the absolute minimum required by WP:SEVERE/N. Seems like it would be better handled in a section of the Tornadoes of 2012 article. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge - per Ks0stm. United States Man (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. The outbreak produced a total 25 tornadoes, including 10 strong ones, and two killers. Also, EF3 that moved through the Birmingham, AL suburbs was quite significant, and one of the most destructive of the 2012 season. While not a massive outbreak, it was still significant. This article falls just short of merge status imo. If there is one article that needs merged, it would be the "Mid-May 2010" outbreak. No tornadoes stronger than EF2, no fatalities, and no large metro areas impacted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-May_2010_tornado_outbreak Sharkguy05 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

I disagree with your reasoning. 25 tornadoes is barely an outbreak. Yes, the EF3 was notable, but it was not a very significant event itself. The other tornadoes were mostly rural and weak. A section is fine. United States Man (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is 25 tornadoes barely an outbreak? That is a significant number. There are plenty of articles here with less touchdowns than this one. For example, just this year there were 26 tornadoes, 2 significant for the May 15-17 outbreak, and 17 touchdowns, 4 significant for the October 3-5 outbreak, both of which have full articles. By comparison, this outbreak was more significant than both of those events, with 25 touchdowns 10 significant. In addition to the Center Point/Clay tornado, the Fordyce, Rock Creek, and Maplesville tornadoes were quite destructive as well. I don't see your point. Sharkguy05 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05[reply]

The October 3-5 outbreak does not have an article. It is included with the blizzard article that was from the same system. I personally didn't push for that to have an article either. Those tornadoes did next to nothing and what they did do can easily be covered in a section on the parent page. United States Man (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Everything that is currently in the separate article can be said by merging it into this article, and the length of the section would not be long enough to make it awkward or seem out of place. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Inks and Ks0stm. This event was pretty unusual, but not to the point--and not significant enough--to warrant its own stand-alone article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tornadoes of 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120317002902/http://www.myfoxdetroit.com:80/dpp/news/local/tornado-destroys-homes-in-dexter-michigan-other-areas-hit-by-severe-weather-20120315-DK to http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/tornado-destroys-homes-in-dexter-michigan-other-areas-hit-by-severe-weather-20120315-DK
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120318033428/http://www.myfoxdetroit.com:80/dpp/news/local/dexter-michigan-tornado-survival-stories-shared-20120316-ms to http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/dexter-michigan-tornado-survival-stories-shared-20120316-ms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tornadoes of 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.erh.noaa.gov/gsp/pns/3tors.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Tornadoes of 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229163819/http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/29/10536654-13-killed-as-tornadoes-rake-midwest-states to http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/29/10536654-13-killed-as-tornadoes-rake-midwest-states
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120317104301/http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/march-tornado-severe-weather_2012-03-15 to http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/march-tornado-severe-weather_2012-03-15
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529011250/http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tornado%20strikes%20community%20northwest%20Montreal%20heavy%20property%20damage/6684634/story.html to http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Tornado%2Bstrikes%2Bcommunity%2Bnorthwest%2BMontreal%2Bheavy%2Bproperty%2Bdamage/6684634/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811154836/http://climate.umn.edu/doc/historical/tornadic.htm to http://climate.umn.edu/doc/historical/tornadic.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202030737/http://www.meteo.pt/export/sites/default/bin/docs/tecnicos/rm_tornado.silves_112012.pdf to http://www.meteo.pt/export/sites/default/bin/docs/tecnicos/rm_tornado.silves_112012.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202030737/http://www.meteo.pt/export/sites/default/bin/docs/tecnicos/rm_tornado.silves_112012.pdf to http://www.meteo.pt/export/sites/default/bin/docs/tecnicos/rm_tornado.silves_112012.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]