Talk:Mid-November 2005 Tornado Outbreak
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Severe weather, an attempt to standardize and improve all articles related to severe weather. You can help! Visit the project page or discuss an article at its talk page. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Severe weather. |
 |
Mid-November 2005 Tornado Outbreak is within the scope of WikiProject Kentucky, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia. | |
| B | This article has been rated as b-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the Project's importance scale. | |
 |
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page. | |
I was going to move this to Mid-November 2005 tornado outbreak, but the whole title sounds rather clumsy. At the very least, the "mid-" is not necessary unless there's some other November 2005 tornado outbreak with an article. There ought to be a place indicator somewhere in the title, I think. Any suggestions? Tuf-Kat 05:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Two other November 05 outbreaks: Evansville Tornado of November 2005 and Iowa Tornado Outbreak of November 2005. NSLE (讨论+extra) 05:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- Something denoting the effected places would be good, though narrowing that down will be somewhat imprecise. Perhaps Ohio-Tennessee Valley <Region?> Tornado Outbreak of November 2005? Evolauxia 08:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- It was a pretty broad area affected; I created this page while the outbreak was in its early stages (there were 6 tornadoes when the page was created, now there are at least 33). It's difficult to narrow it down. I called it the "Mid-November" outbreak as it was on November 15th and it was thought that it could continue to the 16th (it didn't). CrazyC83 04:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
-
News article on autumn tornado outbreaks: Tornado 'second season': new outbreak, old risk.
[edit] Windspeed in infobox
All tornado infoboxes should have maximum windspeed removed; it is pseudoscientific and unencyclopedic. Evolauxia 23:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
It's totally unjustified and not something that should be perpetuated by Wikipedia or any encyclopedia. Ask a NWS meteorologist if they really can say that those exact speeds are known and they would say no. NSSL, SPC, researchers, Fujita, Grazulis, etc. would tell you the same and it is very well reflected in the literature. Given that *some* NWS offices do unfortunately post this information, here a couple of authoritative online sources in support of my position:
http://www.srh.weather.gov/jetstream/mesoscale/tornado.htm "The F-scale is to be used with great caution. Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors."
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#f-scale1 "Tornado wind speeds are still largely unknown; and the wind speeds on the original F-scale have never been scientifically tested and proven. Different winds may be needed to cause the same damage depending on how well-built a structure is, wind direction, wind duration, battering by flying debris, and a bunch of other factors. Also, the process of rating the damage itself is largely a judgment call -- quite inconsistent and arbitrary (Doswell and Burgess, 1988). Even meteorologists and engineers highly experienced in damage survey techniques often came up with different F-scale ratings for the same damage."
"So if the original F-scale winds are just guesses, why are they so specific? Excellent question. Those winds were arbitrarily attached to the damage scale based on 12-step mathematical interpolation between the hurricane criteria of the Beaufort wind scale, and the threshold for Mach 1 (738 mph). Though the F-scale actually peaks at F12 (Mach 1), only F1 through F5 are used in practice, with F0 attached for tornadoes of winds weaker than hurricane force. Again, F-scale wind-to-damage relationships are untested, unknown and purely hypothetical. They have never been proven and may not represent real tornadoes. F-scale winds should not be taken literally."
[edit] "Confirmed" tornadoes
SPC reports are not confirmed tornadoes, those are preliminary reports. They shouldn't be under such a heading, and early in the article in the "news" phase when SPC reports are listed the preliminary nature should be noted. Evolauxia 03:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
