Talk:Storm chasing

message: Surely it's legitimate to post links to well-made science TV documentaries that can be viewed, even at a cost, as these contain in-depth data and visual presentation that would be of interest to the readers of this page and otherwise hard to find. Firstscience TV has several storm chasing documentaries available (see below). What do you think?
* "Stormchasers: Fury in the Skies" 
* "Stormchasers: Fury on the Plains"
* "When Nature Strikes Back: Chasing Killer Storms"
I know there are restrictions on commercial promotion but how does it differ from a link to a convention say - legitimate in the same way: as a source of information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.80.210.49 (talk • contribs).
:It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be a directory to external sources of information, especially not commercial ones. Femto 14:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. The purpose of WP is to provide information to people who are interested in a topic. There is no reason not to provide links to other sources. Redddogg (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV documentaries 

message: Would it be worthwhile to add an "in pop culture" section to this page?
I'm thinking specifically of the movie Twister.
Ntay 21:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Twister is mentioned in the section detailing the history of storm chasing due to its influence in greatly increasing exposure of the activity.  However, it and other instances of storm chasing in popular culture could be briefly mentioned in a section devoted to cultural references.  Evolauxia (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop Culture 

message: Don't know much about storm chasing but came here from a related article. I looked up some storm chasing websites and put them in an 'external links' section like many WP articles have. Soon after they were removed with no comments. I don't see what the problem with it was. Redddogg (talk) 05:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello.  The external links section is not meant to be a links repository (less is more) and should be to sites adding rich material beyond what could be covered in the Wikipedia article.  Personal websites are generally not appropriate, especially if it's merely a "link spamming" phenomenon where the function of a link is promotion of a person or organization.  The link should add something to the article.  This policy is loose; for example, an established storm chaser, recognized as an authority, might be appropriately linked if it provides information directly and in a professional, accessible manner.  Links to sites primarily about an individual or organization are generally not.  Any links should be very directly related and focused on the subject of the respective article.  See WP:EL for more information.  Evolauxia (talk) 16:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally checking back in on this project...I think the External links right now are more than sufficient. Maybe a NOAA site, or an international organization could be added, but thats all I can think of.-RunningOnBrains 20:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Is the Benjamin Franklin reference entirely relevant? Franklin was studying the electricity generated, not the storm itself.
68.147.241.201 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If Franklin traveled to intercept storms, then it satisfies the definition. The reference however doesn't verify that he moved any distance. Evolauxia (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Reference 

message: It's been ages since many pages have been visited by rating parties. Just have to say that this rates much higher than a C in my book. It's written clearly and well; the text stays factual, but not dry, conveying a sense of enthusiasm for the chase and the awe ... very non-dinosaur-encyclopedic. Salud! Twang (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is at least B class but to go any higher requires passing a nomination process. Evolauxia (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  As usual with these weather articles, the writing is abysmal, with countless grammar, usage, and spelling errors. I'd give it a D. Antimatter33 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Antimatter. The writing is shoddy, the tone is subjective, claims of fact are unreferenced... it's more like a newspaper or magazine article than one in an encyclopedia. Huw Powell (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "C" rating ... nah 

message: Amatuer stormchasers die all the time. The exceptional thing about 2013 was it killed pros 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:57E:A282:E2DA:3381 (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: https://www.ketv.com/article/adams-county-woman-was-blown-off-the-road-killed-in-tornado-storms/60876372 2604:3D09:1F80:CA00:57E:A282:E2DA:3381 (talk) 01:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the recent death a professional?