Talk:Tornado preparedness

Calm before the storm
I think that the line about the winds dying down before a tornado strikes is misleading...oftentimes some of the strongest winds in a thunderstorm are found near to but outside the tornado, some of which are known as the rear flank downdraft. Relatively frequently there will be strong winds beforehand that just get even stronger as the tornado passes over/nearby and die back down afterwords without a "calm before the storm". Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 08:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever the wp:RS reliable sources state about the wind conditions is fine, and perhaps the wording should mention areas where the winds were observed, in case it varies by region. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Write clearly, effectively, and quickly
Use clear simple words. Put the most important information at the beginning, then each of the lesser important information; leave the details and deep history to later paragraphs. Examples are shown in the book: Put It In Writing by Albert Joseph (Author) – March 1, 1998. -McKnight Buchanan (talk) 12:35 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Rewording from how-to phrases to historical
Some sections of the article "Tornado preparedness" have seemed pro-active, in leaving prior how-to wording even though sourced to historical events. To reduce the step-by-step tone, then sections could be reworded with past-tense verbs, as a more historical tone of writing. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger
I propose that tornado drill be merged into this article. Tornado drills are really a subset of tornado preparedness, and the tornado drill article would probably be better as a part of this article than a standalone article at this time (but with no prejudice to spinning it off again in the future if necessary). Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 19:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:BE BOLD. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Being bold is not consensus. I'd like to get consensus because I can easily see arguments for them not being merged, as well. Ks0stm  (T•C•G•E) 01:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

* Comment: I don't know what arguments for not merging them you have in mind, but just cold, I don't see why they shouldn't be merged. I don't know what search terms a typical user would prefer, but having a redir to a combined article on "preparedness" from "drills" should be at least as helpful as having a separate article, I reckon. JonRichfield (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: No reason these two topics should be separated. MichaelProcton (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Go for it, as long as it's clear that there's no prejudice to spinning off the tornado drill article in the future. For now the tornado drill article is short enough to merge. But it looks like there has been enough scholarly writing on tornado drills that a standalone article will be appropriate once someone gets around to expanding Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Fagles (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do it. I don't know if you were bitten in a previous attempted merger, but this RfC seems like overkill. Lady  of  Shalott  04:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support: The two articles in question should absolutely be merged, since doing tornado drills ina great part of being prepared for an actual tornado. Guy1890 (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is no overlapping content. This article is reasonably large and the 'doomed' article [is vastly expandable. Wikipedia is not paper. A proper solution would be per [[WP:Summary style]] to add a summary section about tornado drills.  See, e.g., how the article  "Fire drill" is organized. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant even if true unless there is special justification. There is no need for overlap to justify merging. All that is necessary is that the subject matter is closely and functionally associated (which is the case, obviously) and that the two are likely to be wanted in similar contexts (which also is the case, obviously). JonRichfield (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes very relevant, according to general consensus. OK; may be I expressed myself badly. "Tornado dirll" is a separate, standalone topic which has little overlap with the rest of the main topic. Wikipedia is not paper. All relevant content is one mouse click away. By your reasoning the whole category:Tornado must be merged into a single article. If a subject is reasonably separable and has a potential for expansion, there is no need to merge to and fro. summary style neatly addresses what you suggest demands merging.  Staszek Lem (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What is more important, in terms of good coverage of the topic, is to collect all info about tornado safety into the "Tornado preparedness" page, possibly applying WP:SUMMARY. I briefly looked around and noticed scattered bits and pieces (and made "Tornado preparedness" to be main for Tornado.) Staszek Lem (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Objection withdrawn. After some poking aroud, I came to conlcusion that "tornado drill" page does have little chance of expansion, beyond "how-to". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, although I warn everyone: A copy and paste merge is not favorable. There is a need for some light pruning and conditioning. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable to me. C&P merges rarely are acceptable. JonRichfield (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support very sensible suggestion, this will be an improvement. -- Scray (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Closing
The consensus is to merge. In passing I observe that earthquake drill and earthquake preparedness both redirect to emergency management; someone may want to start a new article about earthquake preparedness. I will start the merge process and leave you to clean up any mess I make. Chutznik (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Merged, but messed up formatting
When I merged the tornado drill article I accidentally messed up the formatting at the end of the article. Someone please fix this. Sorry. Chutznik (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tornado preparedness. 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/20110429174402/http://www.fema.gov/hazard/tornado/index.shtm to http://www.fema.gov/hazard/tornado/index.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110502103857/http://www.fema.gov/hazard/tornado/to_before.shtm to http://www.fema.gov/hazard/tornado/to_before.shtm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110425051859/http://www.fema.gov/hazard/tornado/to_during.shtm to http://www.fema.gov/hazard/tornado/to_during.shtm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020511/bob9.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070205185900/http://www.floridadisaster.org/hwa03/drill.htm to http://www.floridadisaster.org/hwa03/drill.htm

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) 20:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * CompleteTornadoemergencykit.jpg