Talk:2006 London tornado

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Thunderstorms / Tornadoes Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Severe weather (assessed as Low-importance). London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Was this part of an outbreak, or one isolated tornado? CrazyC83 04:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it was an isolated event; we don't get tornados here in the UK, so here it was headline national news. Had there been at outbreak, anyone turning on a news channel would hear little else for weeks. Which in itself, going off-topic for a second, establishes notability - the unusual location.

Blood red sandman 07:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, we get tornados - the current average is apparently 45-50 a year from what the guy from TORRO said on BBC News 24 last night. As you say though, the issue is on of both strength and location. For a strong tornado to hit Londn is a pretty rare thing, as seen by the eyewitnesses saying "It was like the wizard of Oz", etc. It was big news in the UK (and some media outlets still insisted on calling it a "mini tornado".) Crimsone 10:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

45-50 a year!? Wow, I never knew. You really do learn something new every day.

Blood red sandman 19:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Can this be expanded? Otherwise, due to its relatively low intensity, it would be a Stub-Low, which calls for a merge if possible, in this case to Tornadoes of 2006#December 7. CrazyC83 03:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I rated it low in terms of the project, but in terms of the UK it's big news, even now - it's still an ongoing thig due to the ongoing cleanup and assessments, And with some being effectively homeless still, with others being re-housed by the council. As with the Birmingham tornado of a year or two ago, I wouldn't be suprised if the true cost doesn't transpire for another 6 to 12 months.

I'd be the first to say that in a perfect world this really shouldn't be to big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, but I fear that I'd be in the minority in the UK. It's about as significant as tornadoes get in the UK, being that it was the same strength as the Birmingham tornado (which has had its own article for some time now) and struck the nations capital city (well, not quite true, they do get stronger but I didn't mean it in those terms. lol - though oddly, the Bow Street tornado of similar size didn't get half of the amount of national coverage this did, and it was of a similar strength), and given the amount of media coverage (global coverage by the looks of google news), I very much doubt that there's a lack of information out there to expand the article with.

I don't think this can be treated as a similar tornado in the US might be - the media frenzy over it really goes to show how significant an event this is considered to be. From what I've read so far, the cell that spawned it may well have been something to behold in itself - but more on that when I'm more sure of my source. lol

I'm actually quite suprised that so few people are expanding it. In fairness though, it's only been four days... Crimsone 04:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on that cell - it appears (per meteogroup) that it made it from Cornwall to London in just 3.5 hours - a distance of about 250 miles as the crow flies, meaning an average speed of about 71 MpH. That's quite a speed over that distance I think? Crimsone 07:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved "London Tornado of 2006" to "2006 London tornado" per naming convention at Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120700781.html
  • In 2006 London tornado on 2011-05-26 02:07:55, 404 Not Found
  • In 2006 London tornado on 2011-06-14 05:09:54, 404 Not Found

--

• http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?storyid=2006-12-07T172252Z_01_L0782831_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-TORNADO.xml&type=domesticNews&WTmodLoc=UK-C3-More-3
  • In 2006 London tornado on 2011-05-26 02:07:55, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2006 London tornado on 2011-06-14 05:10:13, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--

• http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6269908,00.html
  • In 2006 London tornado on 2011-06-14 05:09:56, 404 Not Found
  • In 2006 London tornado on 2011-06-26 04:28:42, 404 Not Found

--