Talk:Tornado warning

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Comment at the current time, the external site appears to be down. --Oscarthecat 07:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Link Inclusion Discussion and Request 

message: [I'm removing the posted copy of relevant discussion from my talk page. Indeed Pgillman and I have already
=== Further:Pgillman|Pgillman]] (talk) pgaz13:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From Mrtea's talk 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Comment at the current time, the external site appears to be down. --Oscarthecat 07:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  More 

message: 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)
thread_title: RFC

message: The "What to do when a tornado warning is issued" section seems to be in violation of WP:HOWTO. This is probably going to be controversial, so I'm starting this discussion. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 20:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I sincerely apologize if I'm doing this wrong. I'm new to Wikipedia and struggling to figure out the tech side of how things work around here. I'm chiming in on this older comment with a related query.  I do understand the need to avoid a violation of WP:HOWTO and absolutely agree with the policy. That would be a dangerous road.  However, it seems like some very basic information is missing from this page, if not this specific section.  I know that the NWS has statements explaining what it means when a tornado siren goes off. We have nothing here explaining that or at least directing people to the right agency for that information.  Is it possible, without causing a violation of WP:HOWTO, to at least define what the siren blasts mean?  For example, perhaps it could be stated that the NWS instructs local officials to activate their sirens for a Tornado Warning, that the sirens continue for a certain amount of time (how long?), and that they resume to signal an "All Clear" when the danger is past.  Additionally, communities generally test their sirens at a set time each month for a certain amount of time (e.g., the first Wednesday of each month at noon for 60 seconds).  That seems like fairly basic information explaining the usage of the sirens and is not actually giving instructions to people about how they should respond.  My inquiry is prompted by having overheard someone, newly arrived in the Midwestern U.S. from New England, complaining that "fog horns" had sounded twice, waking them during a bad thunderstorm.  They had no idea what the sirens meant, and the person talking to them was struggling to convey the precise policy for when the sirens are activated, particularly the "all clear" signal.  --99.103.93.163 (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How-to violation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Tornado warning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.crh.noaa.gov/mpx/?n=swaw
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Tornado warning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130716172215/http://mattcuttsalerts.com/tornado-warnings/ to http://mattcuttsalerts.com/tornado-warnings/
*Added archive https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071119173544/http://www.pnr-rpn.ec.gc.ca/air/severewthr/warning.en.html to http://www.pnr-rpn.ec.gc.ca/air/severewthr/warning.en.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ref my latest change: while the notion that the ban on using the word "tornado" was instituted because businessmen felt it would endanger potential investments is rather sweet, I wanted to verify whether this was indeed the reasoning. The ban on tornado forecasts is frequently discussed in academic sources, but I could not find any suggesting that it had to do with business investment.
But it's such a delightfully juicy factoid that I'd love to see a source verifying this and to see the idea reinstated. --Caundle (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasoning behind 1890s tornado forecast ban 

message: Is there going to be a tornado on Saturday morning 2600:1015:B04C:D414:49DF:8CD4:F55A:1CF4 (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tornado