Well, in the case of 4/3/74 it'd be F4+, but yes, those dates both had significant amounts of violent tornadoes, with 4/27/11 having 15 violent tornadoes (F4/EF4+), 4/3/74 having 30, and if you want to count 4/11/65 that had 17 or 18.
(well, commonly is a bit of an exaggeration, especially for high-end EF4s, however on average there is about 1-3 tornadoes that achieve a EF4 rating on a yearly basis if I recall correctly, with some significant outbreaks containing that many or even more in a single day)
I mean, I don't see why they couldn't, but I'm thinking that'd probably be something off of a WFO to WFO basis rather than a strict guideline.
Yes, they can as far as I know.
I'm assuming you're either using the wrong infobox or managed to break the article code in some way, not sure what in particular would lead to that issue though.
Try using a different infobox for now, there are plenty of alternatives.
https://hypotheticaltornadoes.fandom.com/wiki/File:SPC_Outlook_Map_Tutorial Sorry for the delayed response but here's the link to the video guide
(there's more mature ways of approaching a tornado's rating than "yes it was" and "no it wasn't", because in many cases it may not be that simple)
(honestly, no idea)
Is this supposed to be a confession of being underage or am I misinterpretation this?
There is. As I said above, we can only take action against underage users if we have enough evidence to prove that the user is under 13, at least as far as I know.
I mean, not much we can do without evidence that they're underage or start blatantly attempting to disrupt activity.
> i was 5 miles away and saw wind
How do you see wind???
> more damage than joplin
> joplin literally damaged/destroyed hospital underpinnings
*properly rated EF4, sorry but that's just what it was. The NWS made the right call
As far as I remember, the building shown in this photo was a large shed or cabin (anchor-bolted, sure, but still a large shed or cabin of questionable construction quality otherwise). While there is some minimal ground scouring visible in the image from what I can see, I feel as if the NWS' rating of 190 mph EF4 was suitable in this circumstance, they're the professionals after all. (Completely unrelated but what's with the wording on the poll?)
Given not only the complete lack of ground scouring as far as I can see, but also the lack of information on structural quality (with how far out that picture is, it's nearly impossible to tell whether that house was well-built), I cannot say that said damage can be called EF5.
Regarding May 3, I wouldn't lock it in given the fact that it's 10 (or at the time of this post 11) days out, and with May 8, I'd just disregard that until we get closer to that day