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

Film: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the American cinema task force. This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed. Oklahoma Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Low‑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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Low-importance).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: July 21 to 27, 2024

We now know that the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike ended on November 9, 2023. However, there are no sources stating that filming resumed. Is there WP:NORUSH to state when filming would resume? The Media Expert ( talk) 23:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I went to see Ghostbusters today and they had the official trailer for "Twisters". -- Nosehair2200 ( talk) 02:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, a source would be needed that says filming resumed. But there is a source saying filming wrapped in December. Filmgoer ( talk) 01:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

On second note, the first source right after says "Ms. Edgar-Jones is heading back to the Oklahoma set of 'Twisters.'" And that's an early November article coming from The New York Times, so that's sourced. Filmgoer ( talk) 01:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Just wanna leave this here to point out that, in addition to the blatant disregard of WP:SYNTH and WP:EW, User:Filmgoer does not want to avoid overquoting, therefore the reception section is mostly made up of quotations. ภץאคгöร 01:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

"overquoting" (?). It's one more quote that has "rousing" and "summer blockbuster" in them. It reads fine now. The problem with overquoting is the next two paragraphs, which are mostly summarizing independent reviews instead of finding a general consensus. But those can be worked on. Filmgoer ( talk) 01:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You continue to attempt to justify/re-add your syntheses. Stop this disruptive behavior. ภץאคгöร 19:14, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

How is this disruptive? The critical consensus mentions Glen Powell. Filmgoer ( talk) 19:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You keep submitting the same stuff despite the explanations. RT critics consensus mentions "Powell's charisma", exactly what I explained to you on your tak page for interpretations of what is actually written, not his "singled out" and praised appearance/performance by critics. Let the sources speak for themselves. Besides the quality of the photo is not good and it adds nothing to the article. ภץאคгöร 19:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I think the article could use some images. Either way, the underlying issue is that the rest of the section is underdeveloped; too few critics being sourced to tell the reader what people think of the movie. Filmgoer ( talk) 22:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Why is adding a see also with the following not ok to do: History of tornado research, Mobile radar observation of tornadoes, Tornadoes of 2024, List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes?

Every single one of those four articles are related to topics in the movie and would be valuable "see also" topics. Two editors have now disagreed that none of these are valuable see also topics, so I am coming here to discuss this. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 20:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Courtesy pings for the two editors who opposed the addition of all four articles: MikeAllen & Filmgoer. Hopefully y'all can explain why those four articles would not be valuable "see also" articles. Honestly, I am so curious to see your reasoning on how a "History of tornado research" article is not a valuable "see also" topic on a film related to research on tornadoes. So please, do tell. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 20:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This article is about a movie about tornadoes, not about tornadoes or instruments used to research them. A "see also" section would presumably link to related topics about films about tornadoes. Readers aren't clicking this article to read more about what tornadoes are. If they do, they can go to tornado and its "see also" section. Filmgoer ( talk) 22:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Good to note. Your entire thought is this movie is about "tornadoes" and not storm chasers. In the trailer, they literally mentioned about trying to disrupt tornadoes. That is literal tornado research, and exactly why history of tornado research should be listed. That first sentence you said shows you don't even know what the movie is about. lol. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Cool, mate. There's still no reason to link scientific articles for a film article. If you want, you can write a section on a scientific analysis of the movie (what it got right or wrong), and through prose link to those articles. But just adding a "see also" about tornado categories/tools/research isn't relevant for readers reading about a film. Filmgoer ( talk) 22:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There's still no reason to link scientific articles for a film article. Cool. I do respect your opinion that the topic of the science/disaster movie should not be linked in the movies article. But, I will continue to disagree with that assessment. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 23:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, the necessary information is already wiki linked in the plot section. So it seems excessive. Mike  Allen 22:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

See also's aren't "excessive", since they are on practically every Wikipedia article...Just saying. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There's not one on Twister (1996 film). Just saying. This is a fictional movie, it's not trying to be scientifically accurate. Did you watch this movie? Or the first one? Mike  Allen 23:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes MikeAllen, I have seen both. The first movie from 1996 was not accurate at all. However, Twisters (this movie) is scientifically accurate. Have you seen the movie? Clearly not if you are saying it isn’t suppose to be scientifically accurate. USA Today article on Twister and Twisters accuracy. Also, check out this NOAA press release about the science behind the scenes of the movie or this article from KFOR, you know, describing how NOAA and actual meteorologists and research scientists made the movie and designs accurate. Or this news article discussing how Glen Powell hung out with real storm chasers and also how the director “wanted his movie to feel as real as possible”, which included using real footage from tornadoes and real tornado research science equipment. I really do appreciate you practically confirming you both don’t even know what this movie is about. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 23:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sounds like you have enough material for a whole section! Mike  Allen 23:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Psst...You may want to strikethrough "it's not trying to be scientifically accurate" right after you Google "Twisters" and "Accuracy". I did and pulled up about 100+ news articles on the topic. That might be a good idea for you to do btw. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 23:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Domain Entertainment appeared at the end of the film itself. you guys need to add Domain Entertainment to "Twisters" please. 2601:803:47E:570:A03B:D9B6:426B:1CFE ( talk) 01:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Because of a logo? Mike  Allen 10:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC) reply

because it's a company Toshibafansandmore ( talk) 11:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

That did not get producing credit. Only "association with". No third party sources mention the company in detail. Mike  Allen 11:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

and it literally appears at the end of the film Toshibafansandmore ( talk) 11:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

As executive producing credits usually do. We do not list executive producers in the infobox, so why would we their companies?

• THR: "Amblin Entertainment, in association with Domain Entertainment"
• Screen Daily just list "Amblin Entertainment"
• Variety: " A Universal Pictures release of Warner Bros., Amblin Entertainment production"

It can always be mentioned in prose, if it's this important to so many. Mike  Allen 11:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Maths, science, and technology Media, the arts, and architecture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should History of tornado research and/or Research on tornadoes in 2024 be linked to this article by "see also"?

1. Yes – Both should be linked to the " Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template. (Example of this version: [1])
2. Yes – Both should be linked to a new "See also" section. (Example of this version: [2])
3. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be added to the " Scientific accuracy" section using the see also template.
4. Yes – Only one (specify which one) should be linked to a new "See also" section.
5. No – Neither should be linked to this article.

The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

RFC reason: Several editors have discussed or even "edit warred" over this, so an RFC is being started to get a solid community consensus. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Option 1 or 3 – Both should be linked to the to the Scientific accuracy section. However, I could see arguments for only having the History of tornado research linked and not the 2024-specific article. Given this movie is about tornado chasers doing research on tornadoes, having that article just as a "see also" seem valid. This is a fictional movie, but given the cooperation with actual meteorologists and actual tornado researchers, having the "real deal" article linked just as a simple "see also" seems valid. The Weather Event Writer ( Talk Page) 22:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Question – Is there precedent for doing similar linking in the articles for other films? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Cane ( talk • contribs) 09:42, July 31, 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose hatnotes – {{ See also}} hatnotes, unlike {{ Main}} ones, are more often than not a distraction and a waste of readers' time. I just want to read about Twisters` scientific accuracy, and instead I have to parse and evaluate first a series of See also links to vaguely related articles, only to conclude that none of them is really relevant to how accurate the film is. As for See also sections at the bottom, to me less is more: at a stretch, History of tornado research could be included, but Research on tornadoes in 2024 is little more than random. -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 20:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Option 5 - After considering it I think a link in the prose of the Plot section to History of tornado research (something like "main character did blah blah blah to conduct tornado research") is the most appropriate way to handle this.

The scientific accuracy section is not the best place to locate such a link because the section considers how well the film's creators consulted with NOAA and other scientists for their research as part of the project, not research that furthered tornado science. I agree with User:Deeday-UK that the articles are too vaguely related to warrant a hatnote. I oppose linking to Research on tornadoes in 2024 because a) this movie was a project that spanned several years and b) this movie didn't really add anything to scientific tornado research in 2024.

Per WP:SEEALSO, having a link in the prose means there should not be a hatnote or link in a see also section. DJ Cane _(he/him) ( Talk) 21:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply