Talk:Tornado/Archive 4

message: I just liberated long portions of text that were commented out because they were unreliable.  Unfortunately, no one can fix those if no one can see them. I tagged those for accuracy problem; we'll have to parse through these sections and find references and separate good info from bad. -- Beland 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Previously commented-out text 

message: I have split off two articles, one for climatology, and one for damage and intensity.  The todo list and some comments above may now apply more to the subarticles than this one, per se.
This article is still 51K long, which is longer than recommended.  Some material is probably redundant between sections, and could be cut down.  Other material could be moved to subarticles, making the summaries left behind here more concise. -- Beland 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one project I have been procrastinating majorly on.  I did manage to fork out a few articles (mostly ones that already existed), but yes it has been cumbersomely long recently.  Hopefully once winter break starts up I will have time to do more. -Runningonbrains 15:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to be manageably long now, especially for an article with such breadth.  A lot of the 52K is photos, references, and external links.  I suppose it could be cut a bit more, but also a few more things could be added.  I'll see what I can do over the next few weeks. -Runningonbrains 23:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting 

message: I've heard it oft quoted but NEVER with a source, that the UK gets more tornadoes per square km than any other country in the world... Now, I've looked but I can't seem to find anything but hearsay, any confirmation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.159.19 (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UK - world's tornado alley?

message: Really, is there any difference? -Runningonbrains 04:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shear funnel vs. Cold air vortex 

message: There is a bit of vandalism here, and as I have no admin powers, I can't efficiently revert it. Could someone take care of this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cormallen (talk • contribs) 14:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism on Tornado and Thunderstorm 

message: Congrats, it's a Good Article! :-) For "next up" projects I would reccomend expansion of the Climatology section, and also addition of the Enhanced Fujita Scale. - Aerobird Target locked - Fox One! 01:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Passed

message: ...Has been getting rediculous.  I'm fed up, so I put the page up for semi-protection. -Runningonbrains 16:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon Vandalism... 

message: I happen to live in tornado alley (TX) and I thought this was very useful info. I also love this site!! I am in 7th grade and doing a project for science over avalanches. This website helps with everything!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bandgeek3377 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Helpful! 

message: The article on Tornado alley appears short enough to add to this article. I don;t know enough of the history about these two seperate articles to know if they where prevoiusly on one page. If not how about adding the tornado alley atricle to the see also section. There are a few links here and there but they could easily could be missed. Natural number is e 18:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is almost too long as is, and Tornado alley stands on its own just fine.  My next project is to get all the sub-articles of Tornado to GA-class, so I'd definately leave it as is.  As for being in the see also section, it is already linked to in the climatology section, so I'll leave it out. Thanks for your input! -RunningOnBrains 22:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Torndao alley

message: Perhaps there should be a vote as to whether other people involved in the editing of the article prefer the current look of the article or the former look.  If enough people like the former look, it can be reverted easily enough.  Thegreatdr 13:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Old or new?

message: Just finished a minor overhaul of the first half of the article.  What do people think?  Better, worse, neutral, or none of the above? -RunningOnBrains 10:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely an improvement.  I also broke up multiple vortex tornado, satellite tornado, and tornado family to separate paragraphs. Evolauxia 00:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just when we thought I increased the white space.  =)  I like the fact characteristics was moved up...was thinking of making that change last week (that was the biggest improvement).  In a way, it makes some sense to separate out types of tornadoes.  It just occurred to me that the article is missing any discussion of the formation of non-supercell tornadoes, which I remember placing in some article in the past (maybe it was waterspout).  It needs at least a paragraph on that.  Thegreatdr 11:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restructured the restructuring

message: The current photograph, as well as those in the Commons are not good examples.  The rest are all tornadoes without full condensation from ground to cloud but with readily apparent swirling debris at the surface, whereas the currently used photograph is probably also a tornado but the likely surface circulation is obscured.
Perhaps some text should be added denoting funnel cloud aloft from funnel (condensation) cloud of a tornado.  There is little difference between a true funnel cloud (rooted in boundary layer and associated with mesocyclone) aloft and a tornado ("funnel cloud on the ground"), the emphasis on such stark divisions hammered in for years created confusion, misidentification, and was counterintuitive (and indeed is being relaxed with much more emphasis on watching under funnel clouds and rotating wall clouds in spotter training).  I would probably introduce the catch all term condensation funnel and explain the differences, as well as add a little more on debris (the emphasis is on condensation cloud, though debris effects are described later in the appearance section).  I will also revise shear funnel (a kind of mid-level or high-based funnel, i.e. not rooted in the boundary layer) vs. cold-air funnel, they are not the same thing.  I think this should be done in the tornado article as it's important but should be succinct with greater detail in the funnel cloud article.  Evolauxia 00:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replacement of funnel cloud aloft photograph and revisions 

message: I could translate and redraw this diagram, however, what are thoughts on this NSSL digram? Evolauxia 02:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That NSSL diagram would be great, if not in this article definately in supercell. -RunningOnBrains 05:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tornadic supercell diagram 

message: In tweaking the section on types of tornadoes, I thought of looking for photographs to illustrate them.  We currently have a decent public domain photo of a tornado family in the Goshen, IN tornado from the 1965 Palm Sunday Outbreak, though other examples exist such as Hesston-Goessel, KS from March 1990 and another from 1993.  I've yet to find others, some of which may illustrate it better, and also show how merging tornadoes can make it especially difficult to discern continuous tornadoes from tornado families in post (damage) analysis.  There is a great example of a satellite tornado near Chickasha, OK during the 3 May 1999 outbreak, however, I've not yet found a fair-use or public domain example.  Other examples are out there too.  Multiple vortex tornado and features of tornado vortices are more examples to locate, though the latter would require textual explanation of vortex features and perhaps its own article. Evolauxia 00:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the Twin tornadoes example...it is on the blurry line between multi-vortex and separate tornadoes.  I'll look for a better one, there's gotta be one out there. -RunningOnBrains 05:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't particularly like it either so I brought up finding alternatives.  We know for sure they are completely separate tornadoes, we have photos of both before and after that famous still was taken, but at that time it *is* ambiguous in the photograph.  Video illustrates some things much better, notably mergers, subvortices and other transient vortex feautures.  Other photographic examples exist, finding good fair use examples will be the trick. Evolauxia 18:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a series of three photos would work.--Kevinkor2 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't personally have the expertise to do this, but I know wikimedia supports .gif animations, so if someone were able to convert a video into a simple .gif it would be perfect, as an alternative to just linking to videos. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Runningonbrains (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of other tornado phenomena 

message: I've expanded the continuing research section with the big areas of study and a cursory mention of research methods.  Cognizant of limiting the size of the main article, I've limited it for now.  One could elaborate on the ways instruments are used (and different kinds of instruments) as well as research methodologies such as field programs, observational analysis, and numerical modeling, but the latter is probably extending beyond the scope of the section.  The continuing research section was pegged for expanding, is it now suitable? Evolauxia 11:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing research section