Talk:Fujita scale/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

7 Categories or 13?

The article refers to "seven categories" (F0 to F6,which are described) and then later says the scale "peaks" at a "hypothetical F12".Now,I am not asking to see any F7 to F12 tornadoes,anywhere...but are they in fact categories on the scale?(The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale goes only to Category 5,which extends from 156 mph to infinity).--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 15:01, 19 October '05 (UTC)

Yes there are, although little is known about them. In fact, F6 tends to be an "unofficial" reading, although many have adopted it in the scale as several tornadoes have approached 318 mph (one in 1999 actually recorded a 318 mph gust - and some weather watchers believe it might have been in 319-325 range, although that is unofficial) Since, realistically, the highest a tornado wind will ever get is about 330 mph, they don't mention F7-12 at all. Top of F12 = Mach 1. If an F6 tornado was to ever occur, it would have to be confirmed by the direct wind speed measurement (probably on Doppler Radar) as the damage would be total by the time the F6 winds reach the structures. CrazyC83 19:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I found the wind-speed numbers for the rest of the categories [1]:

F7 - 380-440 mph

F8 - 441-506 mph

F9 - 507-579 mph

F10 - 577-651 mph

F11 - 652-731 mph

F12 - 732 mph - Mach 1 (761.5 mph at sealevel)

--hitssquad 08:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The correct answer is 6. There's such a large amount of confusion on this topic because of the windspeeds. Always remember that the Fujita scale was based on damage -- the windspeed estimates were added later, and the extrapolation to F12 later still. The speeds as correlated to the original F-scale have never been verified -- if anything, they have been proven to be much too high. The so-called "F6" is more a product of media hype after the Doppler-on-wheels analysis of the 99 Moore OK tornado than anything else. The windspeed is irrelevant to the damage scale. If a tornado with 80mph winds somehow managed to cause F5 damage to a neighborhood, it would be rated F5. Even a tornado with a windspeed in the "F6" range would officially go down as an F5, because F5 already represents the highest possible damage level (near to total annihilation of all well-built structures in the damage path). This is a large part of why the Enhanced F-scale is being designed. If anything, F6 should be excised from the description table, and F6-F12 mentioned only as a side note. See the four questions starting at http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/index.html#f-scale1. --Chairman Kaga 04:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision

I have made a minor cleanup revision which addresses some of the cited unresolved issues.

The original F-scale connected the end of the Beaufort Scale and beginning of hurricane windspeeds with the bottom F1 wind speed to Mach 1 with the top F12 wind speed. In practice, it is a damage scale and the associated wind speeds were mere educated guess approximations, only F1-F5 were used, and F0 was added shortly after the introduction of the rating system. F6 is the only other category to have a description, and it is "inconceivable". Remember, it is a damage scale, that said: wind speeds probably do approach ~320 mph, but for how long (momentary gust? 1/100 second? 1 second? 3 seconds?) and at what height (only near the surface - where people are - counts in rating)? No measurements of 318 mph have been recorded. That so frequently abused and misunderstood figure is from a mobile doppler radar measurement taken in May 1999. It was actually 301 mph +/- 17 mph (best estimate from further analysis of about 310 mph), and this was several hundred feet above ground level.

I will write a new, and greatly improved and expanded article in the relative near future. It will also address the new Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale, which is going into operational use in the U.S. in February 2006. Evolauxia 05:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

My plan was to keep one article for the EF/F scale which addresses the history and development of the Fujita to Enhanced Fujita scale, includinh only the current parameters. If anyone thinks there should be separate articles, please discuss. Evolauxia 01:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Color scheme

Should the color scheme be revised to the same one as the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale? (It would be based on the same numbers; F0 would get the same color as a tropical storm, F6 should get a purplish color sharper than the F5/Cat 5 color). CrazyC83 23:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I say no. I like the scale colors the way they are now, its easy to read and pleasing to the eye. TomStar81 00:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

EF-Scale

Some choad removed the sections about the Enhanced Fujita scale, without warning, and without creating a separate article about it or anything. So I reverted it.

In the EF table, the photographic example for EF-5 is from the 15 Nov 1989 Hunstville, Alabama tornado. I should know because the remnants of my apartment are mingled in the forground and my wife nearly died from her injuries that day. My question is this: Officially, that tornado has been categorized by NOAA as F-4 (evidence such as this photo and my own experience at the site to the contrary). Should it be used here as an example of EF-5 or would it fall there under the new specs? My vote: Our frame apartment building was ripped completely off it's concrete slab foundation and the vinyl flooring was stripped off it. Sections of the sidewalk were ripped up and cars were thrown from the highway 200 yards away into my building. If that's not F-5, I don't know what is. 128.158.14.42 21:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Per the new EF scale guidelines (large file), a totally destroyed appartment/condomenium/townhouse (which is shown here) would take winds of up to 217 mph, well within the new EF-5 range. The Huntsville Alabama tornado was a very high F4 indeed, but may not have been quite an F5. The F and EF scales are meant to correspond, but unfortunately this does not always happen.-Runningonbrains 04:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

F6

I have removed the reference to the Moore, OK tornado as an F6...for several legitimate and scientific reasons.

It was operationally assigned a category F5
318 mph is the measurement by the DOW, which is clearly, as stated by the table, in the F5 range
Even if 318 mph was an F6, the actual measurement was 318 ± 10 mph, so the uncertainty of this SINGLE measurement is overridden by the dozens of other measurements taken in the same timespan which did not correspond to an F6 rating
The 318 mph reading was taken more than 100 feet above the ground. F-ratings, just like Saffir-Simpson Scale ratings are based on SURFACE winds, which were undeniably lower.

This is not to say that there never will be an F6, but this most certainly was not the strongest tornado in history. Had the DOW not been there, we would not even be having this discussion. Runningonbrains 16:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing F6

Why is F6 even listed in the table? There is, by definition, no such thing as an F6 tornado. The windspeeds of strong tornadoes are known to be overestimated by the Fujita scale, hence the Enhanced Fujita scale, which makes an F6 windspeed even more unlikely, if not impossible. F5 windspeed estimates dropped from 261-318 to 201+ with the EF-scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.146.228.184 (talk • contribs)

Dr. Fujita did consider the possibility that some of the strongest tornadoes might be listed as F6, but gave no descriptions for the damage such a tornado might cause. I think it should be left on there. However, I believe a drastic re-organization of this article is in order—including splitting Fujita scale and Enhanced Fujita scale—once the EF scale is put into effect next February. Runningonbrains 00:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the F6 rating should not only STAY, but be applied to the Moore, Oklahoma tornado.

The tornado that had the wind speeds of 318 MPH is on the very border of an F5's upper limit, which is exactly 318 MPH. Therefore, i'd consider it to be an F6, and I doubt i'm the only one that considers it as such (an F6). NOAA chart, depicting this tornado as an F6 Even NOAA classifies this as an F6, and that's an official source. Therefore, it should be regarded as such. User:Raccoon Fox - Talk 18:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you describe where on that chart you see that it is an F6...all I can see are 5s. Please read my comments above for other reasons why the tornado does not qualify as an F6. Runningonbrains 03:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There very,very,very likely is sucha thing as an F6 tornado but no-one has observed one yetMike i cool (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Mike i cool

Please be sure to read other posts on the talk page- it is clearly stated how the original Fujita scale not only contained a hypothetical F6 tornado, but it actually went up to that of an F12 tornado with winds of Mach 1. Reasons like this are why the Fujita scale was retired and replaced with the open-ended EF5 tornado. In any case, the hypothetical rank of the F6 tornado should be included for historical accuracy. JasontheFuzz (talk) 7:35 EST, 29 April 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 12:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be on there, as any one like me who lives in Oklahoma and experienced it could attest. I've seen what it did, I heard what it was called, and I believe it was in fact a F6. If not for those reasons, than I agree with it being there for historical accuracy.Freebird (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You believing it to be true is not a very good justification for inclusion. F6 has been mentioned plenty in its historical context on this page anyway.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 10:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

conversions for mph to km/h seem to be incorrect

for example, 260 mph = 418km/h can we please correct this for all the entries?

Copied

Most of the tornado descriptions apear copied from http://www.tornadoproject.com/fscale/fscale.htm

They're taken verbatim from Fujita's original formal write-up: Fujita, T. T., 1981: Tornadoes and Downbursts in the Context of Generalized Planetary Scales. J. Atmos. Sci., 38, 1511-1534. I believe it was originally written informally in Fujita, T. T., 1971: Proposed characterization of hurricanes by area and intensity. SMRP Res. Pap. 91, University of Chicago, 42 pp. The list has been reprinted places including http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/f-scale.html. The Tornado Project write-up made minor wording changes.Hebrooks87 11:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Hebrooks87

Regardless, it should be cited. Im a bit busy now, will get to it later if someone doesnt take care of it. Runningonbrains 20:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

NOAA on F6

According to NOAA's online tornado FAQ, the May 3, 1999 Moore, OK tornado was not an F6:

" Q: I heard the Oklahoma City tornado was almost "F6." Is that a real level on the original F-scale?

A: Only in untested theory. Fujita plotted hypothetical winds higher than F5; but as mentioned in the previous answer above, they were only guesses. Even if a winds measured by portable Doppler radar (slightly above ground level) had been over 318 mph, the tornado would still be rated "only" F5 since F5 is the most intense possible damage level. On the Enhanced F-scale, there is no such thing as "F6." "

So there you go. There is no such thing as an F6 tornado, even though Ted Fujita plotted out F6-level winds. The Fujita scale, as used for rating tornados, only goes up to F5. Even if a tornado had F6-level winds, near ground level, which is *very* unlikely, if not impossible, it would only be rated F5. The damage that a tornado (an F5!) with winds at the hypothetical F6 level would produce can only be speculated on, and probably wouldn't be all that worse than a tornado with F5 winds, since the only things left standing under F5 winds are reinforced concrete structures and four-story condos with their top two levels blown off. Therefore, hopefully with no objections, I am going to do some editing on the section about 'F6 tornados'.

Here is the source of my quote, the online tornado FAQ, from NOAA:

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.145.139.17 (talk • contribs)

Alright, same editor. I added a couple of sentances explaining that F6 tornados don't exist by definition, and a link to the NOAA tornado FAQ (I don't know how to make superscripts or endnotes), and I removed this sentance:

"If this level is ever achieved, evidence for it might only be found in some manner of ground swirl pattern, for it may never be identifiable through engineering studies."

What the heck? What the heck does that even mean; that's just stupid. There isn't really any reason why it couldn't be identifiable through engineering studies- things like 2x4s punched into tree trunks or grain silos could be used. And I'm not sure there would be any ground swirl patterns unique to F6 tornadoes, especially since any F6 windspeed, if it exists, which it most likely doesn't, would be only marginally above F5 and would leave roughly the same ground swirly pattern. And that is if 'ground swirl patterns' can even be used to identify the strength of tornadoes, which I doubt. The forward motion of the storm would, I would think, have a bigger impact on the quantity of dirt blown around. And finally, if I recall correctly, not all tornadoes extend all the way to the ground. Technically the circulation must touch the ground to be classified as a tornado, but if it is three inches above ground, it's not going to matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.145.139.17 (talk • contribs)

There is an F6 but no-one has added it yetMike i cool (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Mike i cool

Hey; if a sentence is unsourced and dubious, feel free to just remove it with an edit summary noting that it's "unsourced and dubious". You don't have to write a paragraph debunking it, though it might be helpful for whoever tried to add it into the article. :) Thanks for helping out! —AySz88 \^-^ 13:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Last Tornado rated on the F-Scale?

Does anyone know when, where and what rating the last tornado that occurred in the USA before the EF-Scale takes over? I think that might be at least of some historical note. LK Thurisaz 16:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There was a report of wind damage in San Marcos, Texas early in the morning on the 13th which may or may not have been a tornado, but the last definate tornado was in Troy, Texas on the 12th. I may shoot them an email asking about it. -Runningonbrains 19:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Officially, it does appear to be this one: Before the winter storm hit Texas on January 13, a tornado touched down in the central Texas town of San Marcos. It registered F1 by local weather and police authorities. No one was reported injured or killed, but moderate damage was sustained, including damage near the local police station and a light fixture manufacturing business. No other tornadoes were reported from the storm. The tornado was an estimated 100 yards wide and three-tenths of a mile long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LK Thurisaz (talk • contribs) 16:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Fujita scale still in use

It's incorrect to call the Fujita scale "obsolete." The only country that will use the EF scale is the US. As far as I know, every other country that uses the Fujita scale will continue to do so. I don't think any of them plan to go through the engineering efforts associated with the damage indicators. Hebrooks87 12:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, but the degree indicators are so easily available on the Internet that you and I could use it to make assessments, so it is possible that other countries (probably the first will be Environment Canada) will adopt it this year. CrazyC83 22:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Fujita scale description was easily available as well and could be used to make assessments. One of issues with the EF scale is that damage indicators are tied to US design and construction practice. MSC is thinking about it in Canada, but they'll watch what happens in the US for a couple of years. They may try an experiment where they do parallel ratings in 2008. The effort to develop damage indicators for Europe consistent with the US DOIs would be large and I don't know of anyone who's planning to do it. Some of the Europeans are quite unhappy that comparisons with the US will be difficult, at best, in the future. Hebrooks87 19:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

F6 above and beyond...

Since Dr. Fujita's original scale went all the way up to F12 (shown in the Beaufort/Fujita/Mach graphic) shouldn't that at least be mentioned in the article? - Aerobird ^{Target locked - Fox One!} 14:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes it shouldMike i cool (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Mike i cool

It is. Read the article. -Running On Brains 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

F12, the mach twister

Exactly, what would, a mach 1 wind speed twister do, i'm guessing just total carnage and destruction for miles aways. --Jakezing (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

F4 description

This is what it is included in the EF4 description

"Skyscrapers and highrises toppled and destroyed."

Is it just me but this sentence (at least the toppled portion) doesn't make sense at all. Like, St John's Hospital in Joplin which got a direct hit by high-end EF4 or low-end EF5 wind damage, was still standing even though most of the floors had major damage and the roof partially destroyed but it wasn't toppled. The Lubbock Tornado didn't toppled the 20-story tower back in 1970. Probably some nonsense that wasn't detected. But will check past edits by anons 173.179.155.183 (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

You're talking about EF4, not F4. Try here... as this is the wrong area for discussion. Also, EF scale takes into account degrees of damage based on construction. --Maqattaq (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The F3 level was incorrect, however, and I have removed the false information. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 03:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

An anon had removed the false info related to the F4 damage description to skyscrapers just a week after my initial post in this thread (and yeah I meant F4 not EF4 as no damage description (just images) is shown right now in the EF table). But yeah the F3 description didn't made sense as well - that type of damage applies to category 5 (which was the case for the tower that was hit by the Lubbock tornado). 173.179.155.183 (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This was a pretty disturbing case of vandalism: the material was blatantly untrue, but it was added two and a half YEARS ago. Dozens of people (including myself), if not more, failed to spot the error. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 08:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fujita scale. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 05:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Pearson parameters

I removed path width from the table as it is not actually used in determining a tornado's Fujita and including path width falsely implies that tornadoes can be rated based on size. We already have too many people who think a wedge tornado automatically means F5. I understand that the Fujita-Pearson scale has separate P-scale numbers based on path length and path width. But I've rarely seen the Pearson parameters mentioned and only once seen them used (here). So, as I understand it, based on the numbers here the 1999 Moore tornado would be something like FPP-5-4-5 or F5 P4 P5. Should we have a subsection for the Pearson parameters? It would probably be worth looking through older literature on this topic. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

F0 Tornado Wind Speeds

I updated the wind speeds for an F0 tornado, the reference source shows < 72, but it looks like what is being shown should be referenced to https://www.weather.gov/oun/tornadodata-okc-appendix

In theory, an F0 is anything less than 73 mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.78.29.21 (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Extra comments outside discussions

(Created section for archiving purposes) Moved comment by Pakaran

Only one web source has a kilometer speed for F6 tornados, which it gives as 513-612 km/h; this does not mesh with Wikipedia's ranges, possibly because one of the sites used a conversion factor with a rounding error.

The proper speed for F6 tornadoes, from Thomas P. Grazulis "Significant Tornadoes: 1680-1991", p. 141, is 319-379 mph, which converts to 513-610 km/h. 511 km/h rounds up to 319 mph, so there is no real issue in rounding there. 612 km/h does round to 380 mph, so it is off a tiny bit. I've specified the range to be 511 - 610 km/h in the main article and moved the comment from the main article to the talk page. Catbar (Brian Rock) 02:54, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted somewhear on this page that the official Fujita scale measurements are issued after a tornado has passed through an area, not while it is on the ground. It is possible to make educated guesses as to the probable F catagory while a twister is on the ground, but in the end the official Fujita scale measurement is determined after scientist examine radar tracking, eyewitness testomony, and damage. TomStar81 01:36, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well said, added. -- Solitude 11:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Relative frequency ... on the whole earth ? Alvaro 23:48, 2005 May 28 (UTC)

Uhm, the percentages in this article add to more than 100%. They need to be verified. Pak aran 13:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The numbers still add up to more than 100% Is this just a rounding issue? --Holderca1 04:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The Fujita scale measures a tornado by the amount of damage the tornado creates, not by the speed of the wind. It is a tornado, not a hurricane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:2B81:3BA0:505B:41B7:4AEA:3ED3 (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Reason for F6 rating

F6 is included as it is historical. Two tornado were rated F6, but later "downgraded" to F6. As F6 is mentioned in their respective articles, it is useful to have it mentioned here. See the FAQ above. @Saintstephen000: Adakiko (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It’s not historical because it was never part of this scale. The two F6 ratings were errors which were corrected. It can easily be given a short mention in prose, but don’t go inventing scale parameters and damage patterns.T v x1 14:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

See the FAQ. While it may be errors, both were documented by NOAA. Xenia was directly rated F6 by Fujita (not an error) and Lubbock was given an F6 preliminary rating before being marked out as inconceivable damage. So while the rating doesn’t exist in modern day, it did exist. 1974 Xenia tornado’s F6 rating would be the easiest to argue that it wasn’t an error with the entire PDF stating twice than an F6 tornado occurred. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The Fujita Scale wasn't formalized into usage until the late-1970s, by which point F6 was removed. The Lubbock and Xenia F6 ratings were prior to official classifications. Just because the F6 category existed it doesn't mean we include a defunct category in the official list. It's sufficient to just mention it in prose, as it has been for years. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That’s true that they were prior to official classifications. But they were still preliminary F6 ratings. I mean, the section in the says Only two tornadoes, the 1970 Lubbock, Texas and 1974 Xenia, Ohio were ever rated F6. Both tornadoes were subsequently downgraded later to F5 after it was declared F6 damage was “inconceivable”. As of 2023, there are no F6 tornadoes and the rating no longer exists. Saying that seems fine since it specifically states F6 doesn’t exist anymore and that both tornadoes which received preliminary F6 ratings were downgraded to F5. It also points out the windspeeds that both tornadoes were rated with in their preliminary stage. I don’t see an issue with it on the chart as it is basically just for historical reference. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: I find including non-official information on this page to be unhelpful and unencyclopedic. We can't include every stat and piece of unofficial information, and I don't support this instance of doing it. United States Man (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

F is not EF. F0-12 exists. https://i.stack.imgur.com/dAGX2.jpg https://ia800306.us.archive.org/0/items/nasa_techdoc_19720008829/19720008829.pdf Though on this planet practically only F0-F5 exists. The F4 rating was basically upgraded to EF5. Why does it matter if a tornado goes slightly above by a few mp/h than the rating. An low EF4 wind speed by 1-2 miles per hour is piratically an high EF3.

I do support having the section to explained why it was dropped. But all of those two tornadoes that could have been were piratically F5. F6 and above is was really meant for tornadoes that the debris does just as much of damage, basically in said tornado the debris would be bombs as they would create creators with their impact, Reinforced concrete being competently nullified, foundations are just pick up whole, and so on. We never saw a tornado with enough power to do those things. Particularly all of the F6 tornadoes which existed were just high F5s. On, a side note I personally do not like the EF scale because it has nothing to do with survivability. I.e. what rating does it need to have to convey to you that if you do not have shelter then you would be pick up in a ditch? Why is it that a very powerful tornado that goes over farm land despite we have radar would get the rating of EF0 instead of EF4? If we built better then more powerful tornado would have a lower rating thus implying a higher survivability but that would only be true in those buildings.

The F scale was made before we knew how powerful they could realistically get. Thus we have grouping until F12 and the F scale was numerical i.e. you could get an F3.8 tornado while with the EF scale that is impossible because it's mathematically made up and not base on any formula to my understanding. The numerical aspect was not practically useful in any regard. We now know that tornadoes being F6 are impossible to due the fact that we never seen one in over 50 years. We only see a handful of EF5 tornadoes and those are mostly in America. Out of the past century only one was outside of the US/Canada which was in Argentina. America, more importantly only a certain area of America have conditions to blew the powerful tornadoes. Other places around the world do not get EF5 tornadoes and hints why they have no warning system. Out of the official EF5/F5 and other scales like the IF5 etc... there has been less than 5 ever recorded outside of the United states. And to make matters worse there have been less than 100 recorded EF5 or equivalent ratings tornadoes .

Rather it's possible on paper to get them or not, it's pointless because even in the most prefect place in the world for them can not blew them up to that level of power. Perhaps if there was 4 jet streams instead of 3 then perhaps it would be possible on paper. Or perhaps we are already at the max size and power and any larger it would just break apart due to not being stable. I do not know because either way it's doesn't matter. the Midwest has the most extreme weather on this planet in the term of how quickly it can change and the differential between temperatures and we can only produce EF5 very occasionally and so yeah... Even if we do get an F6 it would be only for a couple of meters inside of the tornado and so it wouldn't be able to tell anyways. Only the very center could ever gets upto EF5. The surrounding areas on the outside are still EF0-EF3 anyways. The EF5 tornadoes are only EF5 typically for a few minutes and near the very center. They are in effect merely EF3 tornadoes other than in a very few spots. The area of an F6 would be much worse perhaps only lasting for a few moments and for a meter or two. So what's the point?

This is the point of them dropping it. Unless one goes over a CBD and basically kill everything and level it then why does it matter. You would get killed by an EF5 anyways, it would suck you up. I do not really see the point into having it. And this is why they dropped

So I am in support of having a section to explained them but realistically there was no F6 tornadoes, it was just an play on our scale and numbers. They were all just F5s in reality. Mathsquare (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Fujita, the great man. Wow! Go practice your great man theory because it doesn't matter. Is Fujita was a type of god that he can magically pick numbers outside of his hat? Or does the system belongs to society and in that case what Fujita thinks doesn't matter. Everyone could be wrong and that is why we have science. We shouldn't worship people but rather understand how reality works. Mathsquare (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC for creating a section for the F6 rating

Should the information about the F6 rating be consolidated into a subsection in the Derivation section?

Option 1 — Yes, the information should be consolidated into a subsection.
Option 2 — No, the information is fine how it is now (inside the Derivation section).
Option 3 — No, the information should not be in a subsection, but should be organized/rewritten in a better format.

Elijahandskip (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Option 1: Right now, two of the four paragraphs in the Derivation section mention the “F6” rating. There is multiple sources related to it as well. The rating was previous removed by community consensus from the Parameters section. While I disagree with that, there was a general consensus that the information about the F6 rating should be kept in the article. Separating the information (roughly 35-40% of the Derivation section) would better benefit readers (39,000 views on this page in the last 30 days) and would allow for better redirects for the two tornadoes preliminarily rated F5; 1970 Lubbock tornado (7,825 views in last 30 days) & 1974 Xenia tornado (13,238 views in last 30 days). Elijahandskip (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Option 2 – Another RfC started when someone didn't get their way. Multiple other users have shown support for it remaining as is. United States Man (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:APR much? The discussion above was about the information being mentioned in the parameters section? I boldly created a sub-section, which was then reverted by yourself 4 minutes later. No other editor has commented at all about a subsection in the Derivation section. Stop trying to do subtle attacks or subtle discrediting attempts which have no basis or purpose on Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 Any information about the F6 rating should be kept in a single section in the derivation section. This is important for historical context relating for the Xenia and Lubbock tornadoes and to mention that it once was used (even if it was unofficial). However, this is the only place it should be as the F6 rating was never official and putting the F6 rating in templates/tables isn't desirable. Infinity (talk - contributions) 19:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

On second thought, the section is fine as it is, Option 2 Infinity (talk - contributions) 22:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Option 2/3 per my comments in the above section. It does not need to be given undue weight ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Premature RFC – where's the WP:RFCBEFORE? Five short replies in four hours to a comment made a week ago in response to a short edit war isn't a thorough discussion by any means, and there's been a noticeable lack of reference to content policies or guidelines (e.g. WP:WEIGHT, maybe even MOS:BODY). A full-blown RFC is not necessary at this stage. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@KN2731: The topic of the “F6” rating has been discussed since 2005. In fact, the talk page archive shows five previous discussions (Talk:Fujita scale/Archive 1#F6, Talk:Fujita scale/Archive 1#Removing F6, Talk:Fujita scale/Archive 1#NOAA on F6, Talk:Fujita scale/Archive 1#F6 above and beyond..., Talk:Fujita scale/Archive 1#Color scheme) on top of the discussion directly above. It isn’t like the topic of “F6” was only discussed yesterday. Edits (reverts and such) around the topic have been going on for many years. An RfC is actually best to establish a community consensus rather than continue an edit war or just have 2-4 editors basically battle it out in a talk page discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this is the first concerted effort to decide how we can best represent the information reliable sources tell us about the F6 rating. The five fifteen-year-old discussions you've linked to are mostly centered around removing original research, and given their age are hardly reflective of current (or even recent) policies on article content. Have you considered the first step of RFCBEFORE? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:19, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 - (invited randomly by a bot) The elimination of F6 in the scale is important for understanding the history of the scale but I don't view the info related to its elimination as part of the scale's initial derivation. Separating that out will simplify the Derivation section and clarify the scale's history. Jojalozzo (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Option 2 There isn't a tornado officially rated F6 any way (only two tornadoes received such a rating and BOTH were downgraded to F5 afterwards). There is no need to add it since all it will do is confuse the readers. ChessEric 00:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
So they have no brains? We can include it in the history of the scale. Mathsquare (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing SI units

This article has many areas where SI units could be included for those readers not familiar with miles or miles per hour. Avi8tor (talk) 07:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)