Talk:Tornado warning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article related to tornadoes is part of the Tornadoes and Related Events sub-project of WikiProject Meteorology and Weather Events, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to weather or meteorology. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Meteorology.

See discussion at Category:Weather warnings and advisories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wyatts (talk • contribs) .

Contents

[edit] Link Inclusion Discussion and Request

Added a link to an external website (of which I am affiliated) and the link was removed by another user. Request that this be approved for reinclusion in this article. Link points to a highly relevant site whose theme is Tornado Warning systems and phone service. This site provides viewers with additional information not found in the article and not easily reproduced within the article. I checked Wikipedia guidelines and these do allow links to commercial web pages if they meet certain criteria including relevance. The link appeared as the following and is the only occurrence of this link in Wikipedia:

During the short period of time that this link appeared in this article (several weeks), hundreds of Wikipedia users followed this link to this web page, particularly during the time period when the tornados hit the US Midwest.::Pgillman (talk) pgaz 17:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From Mrtea's talk

[I'm removing the posted copy of relevant discussion from my talk page. Indeed Pgillman and I have already discussed the issue, but I was hoping some uninvolved opinion could help clarify the issue better for him than I have tried to. If you would like, click the link to my talk page for the discussion. Mrtea (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)]

OK, I was thinking that anyone viewing this talk page would want to know that background information (I nearly missed it and it cleared some things up for me), but I suppose this is just as effective. –Tifego(t) 16:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I wasn't offended or anything. If it was helpful for you then certainly our little dialogue here will catch people's attention :) Mrtea (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further Mrtea Talk

Since Mrtea talk was included in this discussion, it is ALSO important to include further developments that was discussed in his talk. The article referenced in this discussion RUOK was marked for deletion by Mrtea. His recommendation was overturned, however, by a Wikipedia adminstrator and is still live. I bring this up only to demonstrate that Wikipedia users can have disagreements about content and linking - thus I've followed the standard for getting further review from other users HERE. –Pgillman (talk) pgaz13:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More

My opinion: I wasn't sure at first, but I don't think that link belongs here. If it is such a site that it is one of the top results for a web search about "Tornado Warnings" or something similar, then maybe, but this doesn't really seem to add anything to the article. That hundreds of people followed the link is in no way a good thing for Wikipedia or evidence that it improved the article. –Tifego(t) 02:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to comment. FYI, after reading your comment I did a check on MSN and found the above link was in the top 10 search results for "tornado warning" and "tornado warnings" and number 1 for "tornado warning system". However, I don't think that search engine position should be the criteria. Relevance and interest that enhances the user experience should be the most important issue. My point about the number of Wikipedia visitors who followed the link was to indicate that the Wikipedia User community found the topic of "Tornado Warning System" relevant and interesting enough to want to visit that page. Since the whole point of Wikipedia is to provide the visitor with information (and the means to obtain additional information), why censor links that future users may wish to follow. Again, thanks for your input. –Pgillman (talk) pgaz13:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Aren't there other similar services? It seems odd that only this one in particular would be listed in the external links. If there was a good assortment of other external links, some of them non-commercial, then I think keeping this link would be more reasonable. Also, at least on Google it's not nearly so high, I know that's not anything official but at the same time I suspect it would not be #1 on MSN for "tornado warning system" were it not for the link on this Wikipedia article going to it with the title of "Tornado Warning System". –Tifego(t) 16:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Comment at the current time, the external site appears to be down. --Oscarthecat 07:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
External site is not down. - also arguments by Tifego do not address Wikipedia standards - the presence of other links or Google ranking are not criteria under Wikipedia for link inclusion in an article - relevance to article and enhancing user experience are important. The fact that hundreds of visitors (in a very short time period) visited this link demonstrates the relevance and interest in an external Tornado Warning System. –Pgillman (talk) pgaz13:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

I noticed this on the RFC page, and I'll suggest that this link should not be added to the article. Under "Links to normally avoid", #4 on WP:EL: "Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services". This website fits that description, and thus does not deserve inclusion here. Commercial websites should only be added if they are useful as sources of more information. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 16:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/r/Talk%7ETornado_warning_f73a.html"