Talk:2021 Tri-State tornado

This article was nominated for merging with Quad-State supercell on 3 March 2025. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was Not merge.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 24 November 2023 by reviewer Xegma (talk · contribs).

Weather Low‑importance

	Weather portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 16 February 2025, it was proposed that this article be moved to 2021 multi-state tornado. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Images placement need reorganised. The "multiple image" template may be better for this. I removed the clear template. Its not used on Wikipedia.

scope_creep^Talk 09:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Photo isn't of the tornado

The "photo of the tornado" at the top right of the page isn't of the tornado. The tornado wasn't visible from Jonesboro, and was a narrow stovepipe during the Arkansas phase of its life. This is just a photo of the lowered cloud base and wall cloud. Either somebody needs to find a good replacement or I'll have to take it down and just use a damage photo. TornadoInformation12 (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)TornadoInformation12[reply]

I would just use a damage photo. Its more likely to fix the problem. ChessEric 17:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ive found a storm chaser on youtube who apparently has footage of the tornado and asked him if I could use a still image from his video to replace the current picture on this article, or request someone to do it for me. Currently waiting for an email back. 104.235.88.241 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement image uploaded Mm37. (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mm37.: I have nominated it for deletion; a free image (the security camera one) exists and thus an NFF is not needed. "That's not what it looked like" is original research. E_F⁵ 17:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Mm37. (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 February 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No prejudice against opening a new requested move to discuss a different target or if Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February#1925 tri-state tornado closes with an inconsistent article title. DrKay (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Tri-State tornado → 2021 multi-state tornado – This tornado does not have a proper name. Sources refer to as "multi-state" and "four-state" in addition to the other terms mentioned in the lead (and sometimes they talk about 5 states). We should pick a good descriptive title from among those in sources, and not over-capitalize. The current "tri-state" concept is hard to find in sources, other than those comparing the 1925 tri-state tornado. Dicklyon (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: (by nom) I see now why some might prefer 2021 tri-state tornado. The lead says "the majority of the storm's path consisted of two distinct EF4 tornadoes – the Tri-State tornado and the Western Kentucky tornado – with three short-lived and weak tornadoes in between them in northwestern Obion County, Tennessee. The parent supercell that produced the two EF4 tornadoes, and eleven tornadoes in total, later became known as the "Quad-State supercell"." (though it would be better if there was a source for this tidbit). Dicklyon (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, aside from the incorrect casing (Tri-State is uppercased Dick, please take note) this tornado covered three states (i.e. Tri) so the article is correctly named. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose because it didn't hit four states and hitting multiple states isn't at all unique as numerous tornadoes every year does it. By the logic that it has no common name, it should get an alternative along the lines of 2021 Monette–Leachville tornado but even that is awkward as it hit a lot more places than just those. The Western Kentucky tornado which the storm made later on was a strong favorite to be renamed 2021 Mayfield tornado but due to its impacts around the state that was left with no consensus. This tornado did hit three states and cause significant damage in each and the status quo works. Departure– (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - two separate tornadoes. One which went through three states, other went through Mayfield. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose both lowecase of "Tri-State" and rename proposal. Lordy, no. One, that looks horrific as a tornado name, and two it never hit more than three states. See 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, which was the other tornado produced by the quad-state cell. E_F⁵ 18:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: 22 tornadoes crossed through more than one state in 2021, what makes this the WP:PRIMARY tornado? Another multi-state tornado on the same night injured over 30 people. E_F⁵ 18:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other ideas? – What's the best name for this then? Obviously there's no proper name "Tri-State" that applies to this area, and as a description it should at least be lowercase, right? Dicklyon (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a descriptive name definitely in line with the 1925 Tri-State tornado, copying over their capitalization. Really, as a whole, this might be best to merge with the Western Kentucky article into Quad-State Supercell, a name that has itself received much coverage, or some variant, per the logic that neither a common nor descriptive name should be used. Departure– (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, Western KY deserves it's own article; the Quad-State article would be too long if you merged both 2021 Bowling Green tornadoes and 2021 Western Kentucky tornado into one singular article. I really don't get this lowercase war with "Tri-State" and "tri-state", the latter looks weird and isn't typically lowercased. E_F⁵ 21:09, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Were the Bowling Green tornadoes caused by the same system? I'm nearly certain they were a satellite system independent of the Quad-State cell. It is well documented the Quad-State cell produced both of the EF4s that night. Either way, I don't think a merge is necessary. The status quo works just fine. Departure– (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly sure. E_F⁵ 13:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling Green is from a separate supercell that produced the 122 mile long Dresden EF3 in Tennessee Hoguert (talk) 13:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support current title. If it were to be changed, I would be neutral to "2021 Tri-state tornado" and would weakly oppose "2021 Monette tornado". Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support lowercase 2021 tri-state tornado. Having reviewed sources (google books, google scholar, google news and the article, I reach the same conclusion as DL, that there is no WP:COMMONNAME for this event and any name for this tornado falls to WP:NDESC. Where "Tri-State" has been used, it is a reference to the 1925 event. Randy would present this ngram to support the uppercase version; however, the ngram is irrelevant because uses of the term are not being used in this context. The term "Tri-State" might be capitalised in prose in certain contexts but certainly not generally (see here). There is no evidence presented that this is such a context. It is certainly not referred to in our article, Tri-state area, as being a proper name. As an NDESC title, there is no substantive reason to use "Tri-State" in prose as opposed to "tri-state" in this particular context. WP:LOWERCASE (part of WP:AT) invokes WP:NCCAPS, which in turn invokes MOS:CAPS. While there is no apparent support to adopt an alternative descriptive title, the P&G is quite clear that we should adopt the lowercasing - 2021 tri-state tornado. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the n-gram [EDIT per discussion below] of mine that you present above, as well as in this one, please note that lowercase doesn't even register! We're not in kansas anymore. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, apart from the one that you linked, I presented one ngram here (I just did a copy and paste from the text above). I suggest you look again. I don't know what you are smoking but can I have some please. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The one I originally linked and then you re-linked. That's the one I was referring to, and should have linked it again. The new n-gram I've linked to adds the word 'The' and 'the', making it another example. I don't really know what you are actually pointing out, I'll read it and use the links again. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Think I found our miscommunication point. The n-grams I link to include the word "tornado". Your tri-state n-gram and links do not. Uppercased, 'Tri-State' and tornado seem paired, making 'Tri-State tornado', in whatever form, common usage. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the n-gram you present above; this is the ngram you presented above. I have simply referred to it. The statement made is a misrepresentation. I suggest you strike it. I suggest you read what I have said about that ngram. I suggest you do up your fly before you step on it again. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified the language so you can understand it. Thanks for the compliment. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:18, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the n-gram [EDIT per discussion below] of mine that you present above, as well as in this one, please note that lowercase doesn't even register! If you have read what I wrote, you would know that those ngrames are not referring to this event but the 1925 event - ie it is irrelevent to this event. Furthermore, this is a NDESC name, not one supported by sources. One of us appears to still be in Kansas. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose any change to the title per EF5. This is well in line with tornado naming conventions. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 11:52, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How? Cinderella157 (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Name me a single tornado known as the "multi-state tornado" or a tornado article wih its entire title being in lowercase. The lowercasing just doesn't look right in any way; I just don't like it. — E_F⁵ 13:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Consistency is key here, "Tri-State" has been used many times while "multi-state" has never been used, and per WP:ASTONISH, would be surprising when the tornado is usually called Tri-State and affected three states. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is well in line with tornado naming conventions. You have not cited any documented convention. This is an NCDES title and multi-state tornado is used to describe tornados in sources. See searches here, here and here. The problem with making such emphatic claims (eg never) is that they are often easy to disprove. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have very obviously not been looking for sources that say "tri-state", as this one did (all uppercase by the way). I was talking about other Wikipedia articles. Approximately 96% of the mentions of "multi-state tornado" anywhere on Wikipedia are in reference to this move request. While we're on the subject of actual common names, I found that sources are pretty evenly split between "tri-state" (usually uppercase) and "quad-state" (almost always uppercase), with perhaps a slight lean toward Quad-State so if we want a move to Quad-State Tornado, then I would enthusiastically support. I would also appreciate if you stopped bludgeoning this and related discussions to push your pro-lowercase viewpoint, including, most egregiously, your speedily closed ANI thread the other day. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 12:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with Quad-State is that the tornado didn’t hit four states, which was determined via a [[Tornado damage survey]] post-event. While I wouldn’t be completely opposed to Quad-State (uppercased, obviously), it’s a blatantly inaccurate title. Seconding Chicdat about the bludgeoning too, it’s getting annoying. E_F⁵ 12:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quad-State supercell with a merge with the Mayfield tornado? I mean, this article is pretty short and right now we're at a point where there is no consensus for either storm's specific name. Departure– (talk) 13:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that ends up being the case, I would support "2021 Quad-state (cyclic?) supercell" Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Tri-state" vs. "tri-state"

First, I strongly disagree with the controversial move of this article, but I'm not challenging it solely because I'm not going through more MRVs and the entire thing is highly controversial, obviously. Second, why was the "Tri" in Tri-state tornado of 1925 lowercased? That wasn't how the RM closed. ^EF⁵ 15:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opened at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves. No prejudice against a second RM opening here. Departure– (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, preliminarily, I'll state that the only sources using verbatim "Tri-state tornado of 2021" are all self-published (Google only shows usage on TikTok and Reddit), and, while the name we'd be moving back to also doesn't have any proper coverage, within SPS, "2021 Tri-State tornado" appears more than "Tri-state tornado of 2021". Departure– (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But what part of "2021 Tri-State tornado" do you think is a proper name? "Tri-State"? "2021 Tri-State"? We can use any descriptive title we choose, but we should only capitalize proper names.

My case fixing got reverted here. It's not clear which of these things the editor thought "isn't really helpful" per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No prejudice against starting another RM, but consensus here on this page was against a move not three months ago. The request to move back wasn't because your logic was faulty, so save your energy for any new RM. Departure– (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Departure–, yup. Honestly I no longer care about the CAPs issue, feel free to revert my revert, but the undiscussed move is way more important. — ^EF⁵ 17:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After the long discussions and thoughtful close on the 1925 one, it seemed this one ought to follow suit. If you disagree you can ask at WP:RMTR to have it moved back. Dicklyon (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 May 2025

It has been proposed in this section that 2021 Tri-State tornado be renamed and moved to Tri-state tornado of 2021.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

2021 Tri-State tornado → Tri-state tornado of 2021 – Similar to Tri-state tornado of 1925, recently moved after long discussions. It's clear that neither "Tri-State" nor "2021 Tri-State" is a proper name here, so the current title doesn't make much sense. The alternative 2021 tri-state tornado would be OK, but the other order was preferred by more editors on the 1925 one. Dicklyon (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - It is clear, there was a RM exactly on this 3 months ago (apparently consensus doesn't matter?). Anywho, "Tri-state tornado of 2021" sounds horrible and there aren't any reliable sources that explicitily call it that. — ^EF⁵ 20:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The previous RM had a different proposed target, and the closer said "No prejudice against opening a new requested move to discuss a different target or if Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2025 February#1925 tri-state tornado closes with an inconsistent article title." Now that the other one has settled, this one could appropriately adopt the same result. Or some other fix to the over-capitalization of what is clearly not a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What happens there has little prejudice over what happens here. No reliable sources refer to this as the "Tri-state tornado of 2021", and as such it isn't the WP:COMMONNAME. ^EF⁵ 23:05, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also no reliable sources refer to it as the "2021 Tri-State tornado", as far as I can find. None of the cited sources do, and I don't find it in books either. Dicklyon (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So… why are we moving it to a similarly-bad title? ^EF⁵ 23:57, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're proposing moving it to a properly styled descriptive title. I'm open to alternatives that don't include the weird capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t weird to me. ^EF⁵ 00:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't weird because you think "Tri-State" is a proper name? Or you think "2021 Tri-State" is a proper name? Or you don't see capital letters are being pretty much reserved for proper names? How is it not weird? I'm trying to understand why you are defending it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because it’s much better than the current title being proposed and the proposed title isn’t a WP:COMMONNAME (whether the current title is doesn’t matter). Please stop bludgeoning the discussion, my vote isn’t going to change. ^EF⁵ 01:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per the n-grams, there is very little or no record of 'Tri-State tornado' being lowercased. I don't know how the recent RM was closed by lowercasing "State" (?). Here's another example. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly those book stats through 2022 have little relation to what this 2021 event has been called. They do show that the capitalized name jumped in popularity about the time WP adopted "1925 Tri-State Tornado" here in 2003. Dicklyon (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also find, if you look, that tri-state is by far most often lowercase in regional descriptive terms such as "tri-state area" and "tri-state region", and that the capitalized uses are almost always business names. If there was any evidence for a common or proper name for this tornado we'd use it; but there's not. It shouldn't be a tough call like it was for the 1925 one, where several books had "Tri-State Tornado" in their titles. Dicklyon (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
History note – when the creator is this article moved it from his user sandbox in 2023, he chose the name to be parallel to the weirdly capitalized 1925 Tri-State tornado. The article did not mention "Tri-State tornado" or "tri-state" at all at that time, except in the Infobox weather event name. It's certainly not a "COMMONNAME" thing. Dicklyon (talk) 23:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the creator wasn't pinged for some reason: @Nicholas Krasznavolgyi: feel free to comment. — ^EF⁵ 00:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose not a common name like the 1925 one, so this need not replicate it. Departure– (talk) 00:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But the current title is all about replicating the original title of the 1925 one, even though it's not a common name. Your objection doesn't make sense. Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what? The RM there didn't concern this page. This is independent of whatever consensus is made there, and I don't see the argument to move besides needing to somehow be consistent with the 1925 page, which I just don't see the case for. Departure– (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the close there doesn't mean we have to do the same here. That's why I mentioned that I'd also be happy with 2021 tri-state tornado (see the nominating statement up top), and why I had proposed other alternatives in the past. The reason for this RM is really the weird capitalization, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's title and capitalization guidelines. Dicklyon (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to clarify for closing that my opposition is especially towards the "Tri-state tornado of 2021" as that is a significant departure from standard naming conventions used across tornado articles. I have much less opposition to just lowercasing it but I don't see why it needs to be lowercased either. Departure– (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – If I trusted myself to open an MR about the 1925 close, I absolutely would. It was clearly a supervote. Now, I oppose because Tri-State is nearly always capitalized. Sources show this. This is also an entirely separate discussion than the one that received a frankly weird close by Compassionate727, which reflected a sentiment by exactly one of the !voters. (The user's talk page is full of editors who believed their RM closes were supervotes.) I support a year-long moratorium. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:24, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good to note there that "headcount isn't concensus" was invoked despite 75% of people supporting the proposal. I'm going to open a MRV later today. Support a year-long moratorium given this ain't stopping soon. ^EF⁵ 13:46, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a moratorium until we clear up the 1925 page's name, but I don't think it needs to last a whole year. Departure– (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5 to clarify: You are opening a move review for Talk:Tri-state tornado of 1925#Requested move 19 March 2025 and requesting a one-year moratorium on RMs for this one? I support an eventual détente for both but I don't understand the rationale for relitigating the 1925 closure while simultaneously closing off discussion here for a full year. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Myceteae, yes. The closed RM did not reflect consensus; the person who wrongfully closed the RM also closed the MRV. We shouldn't implement a moratorium till the MRV is cleared up; then I'd support a moratorium on both. — ^EF⁵ 16:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So would the order of operations be:

Pause discussion here
Resolve 1925 dispute and impose one-year moratorium there
Reconsider 2021 name in light of of 1925 outcome then impose one-year moratorium here

? --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:06, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Myceteae, sure, that works. — ^EF⁵ 17:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could support this as probably the least-worst option. As long as one of these articles is subject to RM discussion, the other becomes implicated through arguments from consistency, disambiguation, topic-specific naming conventions, and shared pool of involved editors. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:19, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my preferred option is to leave the 1925 decision alone, proceed with this RM, and be done with this (at least for a while). But if an MRV for the 1925 🌪️ is inevitable and part of the argument here is based on consistency and prior decisions there, I fear we’ll be in an endless cycle. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:28, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely inevitable as an inappropriate close. If someone doesn't open one tonight (I had less time than I thought to be at my computer) I'll do it tomorrow. ^EF⁵ 22:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am persuaded by Departure's and BarrelProof's arguments that this discussion is at least substantially independent of the 1925 tornado. Regardless, the horse has already left the barn and it's not clear centralizing discussion is achievable, whether or not it is desirable. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no rationale for a moratorium. This RM is fully aligned with recent consensus declarations in two RMs and their associated move reviews and with the previous RM closure for this article, and is arguably supported by Wikipedia policy & guidelines. Maybe some of that will be appealed, but this RM is fully consistent with the current state of affairs. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming a moratorium would have the effect of centralizing the discussion, which is why I supported it. As these two articles have similar names for a reason and folks like EF5 (and me to some extent) believe the previous close was done suboptimally, sorting out the 1925 one would save us a big headache later on (see last week where both a requested move and move review were underway). Departure– (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centralizing discussion is desirable, but currently, this is the only place where a discussion is taking place (aside from user talk pages, apparently). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This title is out of step with recent developments and with MOS:HYPHENCAPS, and this is a basic descriptive title that doesn't need statistical analysis. After contentious RMs and MRs (some of which were opened and closed more than once), we now have Tri-state tornado of 1925 and 1925 tri-state tornado outbreak, both of which use lowercase for "state". "State" is not something that would ordinarily be capitalized as a word in running prose. MOS:HYPHENCAPS says to use lowercase in such an instance. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support changing to "X tornado of YYYY" or just lowercasing the title, or both? Departure– (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am focused on the capitalization. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support 2021 tri-state tornado. Several issues here:

There is no common name for this tornado. This seems to be the only thing editors on all sides of this agree upon. Therefore, we must find a suitable descriptive title.
The last RM rejected multi-state, another thing many editors do seem to agree on, and with no prejudice to a new RM to consider alternative proposals. So there is no procedural reason to object to this RM and it is not strictly speaking disruptive, even if the endless discussion about these tornadoes is rather tedious.
The evidence shows that tri-state and tornado are usually not capitalized in running text, whether used together or when either phrase is used in other contexts. Some editors disagree but their evidence is unconvincing and has been repeatedly refuted. Tri-state is a generic descriptor, like multi-state. There is no evidence that the three states involved are routinely called "the Tri-State" anything or "the Tri-States"; this is not a Quad Cities or Tri-Cities situation.
This alternative is more CONCISE and more CONSISTENT with the titles of similar articles about individual tornadoes. See for example those listed at Category:Tornadoes of 2021, Category:F4, EF4 and IF4 tornadoes, Category:Tornadoes in Arkansas, Category:Tornadoes in Tennessee, and Category:Tornadoes in Missouri. The format "[Year] [Place] torando" is not universal but appears most common.
The tri-state tornado of 1925 may be a special case because it does have a common name (or several) or because of some other factors specific to that tornado. Regardless, the format of that article's title is an outlier (per #4) and it continues to be contested. I am persuaded that there's little sense in enforcing consistency with the other tri-state tornado.

--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me, also by BarrelProof and Departure– if I read their comments above correctly. It's also what was proposed in the previous RM by Cinderella and got some support. Thanks for the reasoned analysis and willingness to do the case fixing. Dicklyon (talk) 00:56, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fully in support of the lowercasing but I will by all means take it over the weirdly named ones, and I'm going to also state that Myceteae's arguments are better than most of those I've seen in this series of discussions so far. Departure– (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also just noticed that the closer of the other one said on his talk page, 'The question of "1925 tri-state tornado" vs. "Tri-state tornado of 1925" ... does not really matter to me or, I suspect, to most people. I moved it in an attempt to clean up what I perceived to be an outstanding issue from the previous RM and subsequent MR. I can move it back if anyone cares.' So if all are OK with year first, I expect that will be an easy fix there, too, to remove the inconsistency. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue is the “of 1925” part, honestly capitalization is the least of my worries right now. If they’d move it, that’d be great. ^EF⁵ 01:22, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

—⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:30, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I mention above, per the n-grams, there is little or no record of the words "Tri-State tornado" being lowercased. Why start now? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, you're free to present a fresh argument, especially one that acknowledges prior discussions. Others have shown that in running text these are not consistently capitalized with respect to the 2021 tornado. I found these arguments persuasive and didn't see fit to regurgitate them here, in my already lengthy response. No clear evidence to the contrary has been presented and the burden is on those claiming this tornado meets WP standards for capitalization. The Ngram corpus is updated through 2022. How many books were published about the 2021 tornado in the first year after it occurred? At most your Ngram is applicable to the 1925 tornado—that, too, is disputed, but it's irrelevant here. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:52, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Randy, as I pointed out before, none of those stats are about this tornado. Even if you look at books from 2021 on, those words almost always refer to the 1925 tornado. The present tornado having no official or common name is not a reason to capitalize what people want to call it. If you have an alternative for what to call it, without over-capitalization, we could entertain that. But when I tried that, multi-state and quad-state didn't go over well. Dicklyon (talk) 06:25, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support lowercase per my comment and evidence in the previous RM. This a WP:NDESC title. There is no WP:COMMONNAME. Randy's ngrams are irrelivent to this title as they capture other contexts. Per the lead of MOS:CAPS, there are exceptions to the general advice, of which MOS:HYPHENCAPS is one. It is given voice by WP:LOWERCASE at WP:AT through WP:NCCAPS. Support year last To facilitate a search, it is preferrable for the key term to come first. While the key term "tri-state tornado" is likely know, the year may not be accurately known. In terms of an argument of WP:CONSISTENT, per Category:Tornadoes of 2021, there is no consistency as to the year/date being first or last. In terms of WP:CONCISION, a difference of three characters is negligible and of no concern when weighed against the search advantage. In terms of the other WP:CRITERIA, there is no difference. To objections to this RM, it is clearly in order given the previous closers comments and a resolution of the MRs mentioned. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:06, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of an argument of WP:CONSISTENT, per Category:Tornadoes of 2021, there is no consistency as to the year/date being first or last. There are 26 articles listed here, of which 8 describe individual storms/tornadoes, and all 8 have the "[When] [Where] tornado/blizzard" format (a ninth example is June 2021 North American storm complex). At Category:Tornadoes in Arkansas we see that most entries are "Tornado outbreak of [Year]" and of the 8 articles on individual storms/tornadoes/storm complexes, 7 follow this "[When] [Where] tornado/storm/storm complex" format and the eighth, Sneed Tornado, apparently has a common name. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:03, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The categories are populated with tornado outbreaks and tornadoes. Overall, the word pattern is where/what - when rather than when- where/what. I don't see a good reason for treating outbreaks substantially different from discreet tornadoes. My comment was made on this basis. Cinderella157 (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Sneed Tornado is a rare case; tornadoes very rarely have common names. The only others I can think of are Joplin tornado, Jarrell tornado and Greensburg tornado. ^EF⁵ 14:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, completely off-topic, but feel free to give me feedback on the 1920s newspaper references at Sneed Tornado. I rarely, if ever, have used old newspapers as references, so all feedback is good feedback. :-) ^EF⁵ 14:40, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to get URLs that go the articles? I see it's also called "the Possum Trot - Sneed tornado". A few sources say it came to be known as the "Sneed Tornado", but I don't think that's enough to justify capitalizing tornado here. Dicklyon (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but that's for another RM and not here. ^EF⁵ 15:37, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, it would be best to take this discussion to Talk:Sneed Tornado if there are concerns about that article's title or sourcing. My point was that the outlier at Category:Tornadoes in Arkansas is explained by common name, which obviously trumps consistency with descriptive titles for tornadoes lacking a common name. If Sneed Tornado is mis-titled, it's either irrelevant or should come in line with similarly titled articles. There are other outliers on WP and Cinderella may still argue that consistency is less important here than search functionality or other considerations, but it's not true that there is no consistency here. I acknowledge that the broader category of tornadoes could use more consistency; as I said earlier: The format "[Year] [Place] torando" is not universal but appears most common. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary but there are dozens (maybe thousands) of these articles and someone could do a more comprehensive review. When I type tri-state tornado in the search bar, I get four pages, in order: Tri-state tornado, Tri-state tornado of 1925, 1925 tri-state tornado outbreak, and 2021 Tri-State tornado. When I Google tri-state tornado of 2021—a rather clunky phrase—this article is the first hit, with its current year-first title. I don't see that search functionality is greatly impacted by where we put the year. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:50, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Support of the lowercase, and the article being called either the "Tri-state tornado of 2021," "2021 Tri-state tornado," or even the "2021 Missouri Bootheal tornado." Even more so as the tornadoes of 1925, and even of 1974 (so soon after the article was created) recently changed their names anyway under everyones noses.--Halls4521 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "2021 Tri-state tornado" would only make sense if "Tri-state" were a proper name. Probably you meant "2021 tri-state tornado". Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did, thanks. Halls4521 (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]