Talk:Tornado warning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Severe weather 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Severe weather.

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)

[edit] Suggested merging of "tornado emergency" into tornado warning

Completely disagree with this idea. It is a completely separate warning, with a different history, and usage as a tornado warning. AStudent 23:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of tornado emergency states: "There is no official product called a 'tornado emergency' and this wording, when used, does not replace the official Tornado Warning." So how is this different from a tornado warning? From reading it, it just sounds like a fancy term for "extreme tornado warning -- GET OUT OF THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW!!!!" or something. howcheng {chat} 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I also Completly DISAGREE, This is not a warning, but a term used during Diaster's. This is different, Because this is like and is, a Cival Emergency. Its not a Extreme, Its a statment used by the discresion of the metrologist. Most people wouldnt take cover during a Tornado warning here in Texas, I mean, They are usaual, But you get a TORNADO EMERGENCY, A LARGE AND DESTRUCTIVE TORNADO IS 5 MILES SOUTHWEST OF DOWNTOWN DALLAS, THIS IS A LIFE OR DEATH SITUATION, TAKE COVER NOW. It worked in OKC (3 Times), It worked in Greensburg. STORM-CHASER.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.94.50.19 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
So essentially this is a colloquialism, still meaning, "imminent tornado warning". I am not convinced this needs a separate article. A section in Tornado warning seems like it would suffice. howcheng {chat} 02:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a colloquialism. It's a separate warning issued only after a tornado warning is issued. "Imminent tornado warning" doesn't even make sense. All tornado warnings imply tornadoes, but tornado warning doesn't imply tornado emergency. 68.85.145.215 04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I also DISAGREE, as the original intention of issuing "Tornado emergency" alerts was to differentiate conditions from the broader, much more common alerts. Even if it is just a slight nomenclature difference to compensate for complacency of public, it is intended to elicit a very different reaction from those in the affected area. Also their seems little value added by merging, and if you do wish to merge these what is your reasoning to not include tornado watches. WikipedianYknOK 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Tornado emergency was introduced by the local NWS office in Norman, OK on 3 May 1999, to heighten awareness in an area saturated with severe weather coverage and to differentiate an impending disaster of a large tornado striking a heavily populated area. It was done on the spot and informally, and is *not* an official product, so it is not a different product.

From a NWS perspective, it *is* essentially a high end tornado warning, a special kind of warning with a special call-to-action statement, intended to be reserved for only when the warning meteorologist feels that a destructive tornado is about to impact a large population. They are issued in initial tornado warnings, as well as subsequent severe weather statements. They're somewhat analogous to Particularly Dangerous Situation (PDS) tornado watches, though those are official products with standardized guidelines. Again, however, there are no standardized guidelines for "tornado emergencies", it's completely up to the forecaster's discretion. Tornado emergencies have been issued where there have been no towns hit, when it wasn't certain a town would be hit, for smaller towns, and a few times even when there are only strong radar signatures and nothing confirmed (the latter occurred in the Southeast where tornadoes are very difficult to see and often few sighting reports - i.e. tornado itself, not damage - are received, especially at night), although there is some movement to more control issuance of tornado emergencies.

Tornado emergencies, in some areas, do elicit special action by emergency responders. They may initiate response to a disaster and mass casualty incident before it occurs, however, this to, varies by area and respective organization. It is also their prerogative, there are not set responses like there are in the example of tornado warnings (such as EAS activation, enactment of codified responses, and public facilities sending occupants to shelter). Evolauxia 04:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge "Tornado Emergency" into "Tornado Warning." This artice is redundant. There is no such thing as "Hurricane Emergency" or "Severe Thunderstorm Emergency" so why should there even be a separate article entitled "Tornado Emergency"? Just because some forecasters wisely used this term during a tornado event, this term has not officially replaced "Tornado Warning" as a form of tornado alert.

If anyone can find out what warning header the National Weather Service issues the warning under, then this problem is easily resolved. If the header is the same, it is a tornado warning. If the header is not the same, then it can be considered a seperate National Weather Service product. Ks0stm 10:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've got it!!! A Tornado Emergency is not a tornado warning, but neither is it in actuallity a tornado emergency! It is, in truth, a severe weather statement. An example is below: Ks0stm 11:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Their being no "Hurricane Emergency" or "Severe Thunderstorm Emergency" is not relevant to this discussion. WikipedianYknOK 04:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
WWUS54 KOUN 100304
SVSOKC
OKC017-109-100330-

SEVERE WEATHER STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NORMAN OK
1004 PM CDT FRI MAY 9 2003

...TORNADO EMERGENCY FOR THE WESTERN OKALHOMA CITY METRO AREA...

AT 1000 PM CDT...DOPPLER RADAR SHOW STRONG INDICATIONS THAT A LARGE
AND DESTRUCTIVE TORNADO IS IN PROGRESS AT SARA ROAD AND INTERSTATE
40. SPOTTERS REPORT A TORNADO AT THIS LOCATION. THIS TORNADO WAS
MOVING EAST-NORTHEAST AT 30 MPH.

THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND LIFE THREATENING SITUATION.
PERSONS IN WESTERN OKALHOMA CITY... BETHANY... WARR ACRES AND
MUSTANG SHOULD SEEK SHELTER IN A BASEMENT... SAFE ROOM... OR IN AN
INTERIOR ROOM ON THE LOWEST FLOOR NOW TO PROTECT YOUR LIFE!

LAT...LON 3551 9782 3533 9776 3545 9718 3566 9725

$$
MILLER
  • I don't see how this is any different than having an article on National Weather Service bulletin for New Orleans region. As shown above, tornado emergencies aren't tornado warnings, they're independent statements issued only in extreme circumstances. The fact that they are always accompanied by tornado warnings doesn't mean a seperate article isn't warranted. Indeed, the National Weather Service bulletin for New Orleans region could be merged into a Hurricane Warning article, but the severity of the situation, the notability of the event, and the unusual, vivid wording of the statement justify having the article on it--just as having the tornado emergency article does.

This article needs to be updated. Please insert a notice. --75.162.228.238 03:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)