Talk:2000 Fort Worth tornado outbreak

broadcast parts
"A KXAS camera in downtown Fort Worth was broadcasting during the 6 p.m. weather segment and may have broadcast parts of the tornado."

One should know by now. The comment should be removed.

--145.254.65.18 20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This was the camera that was facing away? The commentary mentioned "some slight winds blowing a little debris."  The tornado was behind the camera ripping up downtown.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.206.155.210 (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Name
I moved "Fort Worth Tornado" to "Fort Worth tornado" to comply with Rosiestep (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fujita ranking
I cannot believe so an error has not been caught yet: "with some estimates making it a very low F4" NO. The damage surveys put the tornado at a "minimal f3" And to my understanding that rating has been criticized for being to high. Yes, the damage to the Cash America building was bad, though it probably was hit head on with the worst winds. The tornado was definitely not that strong. Just google images from the Atlanta tornado and one will find the damage to be somewhat similar. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ZW4Hjs1iAZQJ:www.srh.noaa.gov/images/fwd/ftwtor2000writeup/march28.pdf+march+28+2000+fort+worth+tornado+noaa&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShbERCjGbKUvhBaZsIIP3Dowpp9b3c6MVOQjHcNPI9mUwssQUC8MLQym_vYf8PxoX0Mx18KAthKnIykisW4PnJ75StXuukEHXKrVe6fKfZ33ZN-mlQ8Bm1lOR_3_gwxHVnZiPPa&sig=AHIEtbRVFlmfj77Qc0MNLVjk3Yy2cWqOww

Dead link
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.srh.noaa.gov/fwd/ftworthtornado.html
 * In 2000 Fort Worth tornado on 2011-05-25 06:59:33, 404 Not Found
 * In 2000 Fort Worth tornado on 2011-06-10 05:24:40, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.wind.ttu.edu/Pubs/pdfs/D3-28-00%20Tor%20FtWorth.pdf
 * In 2000 Fort Worth tornado on 2011-05-25 06:59:33, 400 Bad Request
 * In 2000 Fort Worth tornado on 2011-06-10 05:24:51, 400 Bad Request

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!


 * http://www.srh.noaa.gov/fwd/sd0300.pdf
 * In 2000 Fort Worth tornado on 2011-05-25 06:59:33, 404 Not Found
 * In 2000 Fort Worth tornado on 2011-06-10 05:25:00, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2000 Fort Worth tornado. 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/20110522140509/http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/misc/000328.html to http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/goes/misc/000328.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) 03:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Renaming
I agree that the title here ought to include the word "outbreak", since the article makes clear that there were ten tornadoes that hit the area that day. It looks to me, however, like "2000 Fort Worth tornado outbreak" is the standard sequence of ideas in the title for articles of this sort. When I look for other tornado and tornado outbreak articles with locations and years in the their names in Category:Tornadoes in Texas, which includes this article, I see 1902 Goliad, Texas, tornado, 1922 Austin twin tornadoes, 1997 Central Texas tornado outbreak, 1999 Oklahoma tornado outbreak, etc. They all seem to be structured  ; I don't see a single one structured  of. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh. I have no idea why I renamed it that. LOL! Thanks for changing that.ChessEric (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)